The End of the Global Internet

“The Internet is too big to fail, but it may be becoming too big to hold together as one.”

Many of the people reading this post grew up believing and expecting in a single, borderless Internet: a vast network of networks that let us talk, share, learn, and build without arbitrary walls. I like that model, probably because I am a globalist, but I don’t think that’s where the world is heading. In recent years, laws, norms, infrastructure, and power pulling in different directions, driving us increasingly towards a fragmented Internet. This is a reality that is shaping how we connect, what tools we use, and who controls what.

In this post, I talk about what fragmentation is, how it is happening, why it matters, and what cracks in the system may also open up room for new kinds of opportunity. It’s a longer post than usual; there’s a lot to think about here.

You can Subscribe and Listen to the Podcast on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to Podcasts.

And be sure to leave me a Rating and Review!

What is “fragmentation”?

Fragmentation isn’t a single event with a single definition; it’s a multi-dimentional process. Research has identified at least three overlapping types:

• Technical fragmentation: differences in protocols, infrastructure, censorship, filtering; sometimes entire national “gateways” or shutdowns.
• Regulatory / governmental fragmentation: national laws around data flows, privacy, platform regulation, online safety, and content moderation diverge sharply.
• Commercial fragmentation: companies facing divergent rules in different markets (privacy, liability, content) so they adapt differently; global products become “local versions.”

A primer from the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) published in 2023 lays this out in detail. The authors of that paper argue that Internet fragmentation is increasingly something that influences cybersecurity, trade, national security, and civil liberties. Another study published not that long ago in SciencesPo suggests that fragmentation is shifting from inward-looking national control toward being used as a tool of power projection; i.e. countries not only fence their own access, but use fragmented rules or control of infrastructure to impose influence beyond their borders.

Evidence: How fragmentation is happening

Sounds all conspiracy theory, doesn’t it? Here are some concrete examples and trends.

Divergent regulatory frameworks

• The European Union, China, and the U.S. are increasingly adopting very different regulatory models for digital platforms, data privacy, and online content. The “prudent regulation” approach in the EU (which tends toward pre-emptive checks, heavy regulation) contrasts with the more laissez-faire (or “permissionless”) philosophy in parts of the U.S. or other jurisdictions. I really like how that’s covered in the Fondation Robert Schuman’s paper, “Digital legislation: convergence or divergence of models? A comparative look at the European Union, China and the United States.“
• Countries around the world have passed or are passing online safety laws, content moderation mandates, or rules that give governments broad powers over what gets seen, what stays hidden, and what content is restricted. Check out the paper published in the Tech Policy Press, “Amid Flurry of Online Safety Laws, the Global Online Safety Regulators Network is Growing” for a lot more on that topic.
• Regulatory divergence not only in content, but in infrastructure: for example laws about mandatory data localization, national gateways, network sovereignty. These increase the cost and complexity for cross-border services. Few organizations know more about that than the Internet Society, which has an explainer entirely dedicated to Internet fragmentation.

While this divergence creates friction for global platforms, it also produces positive spillovers. The ‘Brussels Effect’ has pushed companies to adopt GDPR-level privacy protections worldwide rather than maintain separate compliance regimes, raising the baseline of consumer trust in digital services. At the same time, the OECD’s latest Economic Outlook stresses that avoiding excessive fragmentation will require countries to cooperate in making trade policy more transparent and predictable, while also diversifying supply chains and aligning regulatory standards on key production inputs.

Taken together, these trends suggest that even in a fragmented environment, stronger rules in one region can ripple outward, whether by shaping global business practices or by encouraging cooperation to build resilience. Of course, this can work both positively and negatively, but let’s focus on the positive for the moment. “Model the change you want to see in the world” is a really good philosophy.

Technical / infrastructural separation

• National shutdowns or partial shutdowns are still used by governments during conflict, elections, or periods of dissent. Internet Society’s explainer catalogues many examples, but even better is their Pulse table that shows where there have been Internet shutdowns in various countries since 2018.
• Some countries are building or mandating their own national DNS, national gateways, or other chokepoints—either to control content, enforce digital sovereignty, or “protect” their citizens. These create friction with global addressing, with trust, with how routing and redundancy work. More information on that is, again, in that Internet Society fragmentation explainer.

That said, fragmentation at the infrastructure level can also accelerate experimentation with alternatives. In regions that experience shutdowns or censorship, communities have adopted mesh networks and peer-to-peer tools as resilient stopgaps. Research from the Internet Society’s Open Standards Everywhere project, no longer a standalone project but still offering interesting observations, shows that these architectures, once fringe, are being refined for broader deployment, pushing the Internet to become more fault-tolerant.

Commercial & trade-driven fragmentation

• Platforms serving global audiences must adapt to local laws (e.g., privacy laws, content moderation laws) so they build variants. The result is that features, policies, even user experience diverge by country. I’m not even going to try to link to a single source for that. It’s kind of obvious.
• Also, restrictive trade policies (export controls, sanctions) affect what hardware/software can move across borders. Fragmentation in what devices can be used, which cloud services, etc., often comes from supply-chain / trade policy rather than purely from regulation. The UNIDIR primer notes how fragmentation when applied to cybersecurity or export controls ripples through global supply.

Yet duplication of supply chains can also help build redundancy. The CSIS reports on semiconductor supply chains notes (see this one as an example) that efforts to diversify chip fabrication beyond Taiwan and Korea, while expensive, reduce systemic risks. Similarly, McKinsey’s “Redefining Success: A New Playbook for African Fintech Leaders” highlights how African fintechs are thriving by tailoring products to fragmented regulatory and infrastructural environments, turning local constraints into opportunities for growth in areas like cross-border payments, SME lending, and embedded finance. There’s a lot to study there in terms of what opportunity might look like.

I’d also like to point to the opportunities described in the AMRO article “Stronger Together: The Rising Relevance of Regional Economic Cooperation” which describes how ASEAN+3 member states are using frameworks like the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), Economic Partnership Agreements, and institutions such as the Chiang Mai Initiative to deepen trade, investment, financial ties, and regulatory cooperation. These are not just formal treaties but mechanisms for cross-border resilience, helping supply chains, capital flows, and finance networks absorb external shocks. This blog post is already crazy long, so I won’t continue, but there is definitely more to explore with how to meet this type of fragmentation with a more positive mindset.

Why does it matter?

Why should we care that the Internet is fragmenting? If there are all sorts of opportunities, do we even have to worry at all? Well, yes. As much as I’m looking for the opportunities to balance the breakages, we still have to keep in mind a variety of consequences, some immediate, some longer-term.

Loss of universality & increased friction

The Internet’s power comes from reach and interoperability: you could send an email or view a website in Boston and someone in Nairobi could see it without special treatment. But as more rules, filters, and walls are inserted, that becomes harder. Services may be blocked, slowed, or restricted. Different regulatory compliance regimes will force more localization of infrastructure and data. Users may need to use different tools depending on where they are. Work that used to scale globally becomes more expensive.

However, constraints often fuel creativity. The World Bank has documented how Africa’s fintech ecosystem thrived under patchy infrastructure, leapfrogging legacy systems with mobile-first solutions. India’s Aadhaar program is another case where local requirements drove innovation that now informs digital identity debates globally. Fragmentation can, paradoxically, widen the palette of local solutions while reducing the palette of global solutions.

Security, surveillance, and trust challenges

Fragmentation creates new attack surfaces and risk vectors. For example:

• If traffic must go through national gateways, those are chokepoints for surveillance, censorship, or abuse.
• If companies cannot use global infrastructure (CDNs, DNS, encryption tools) freely, fragmentation may force weaker substitutes or non-uniform security practices.
• Divergent laws about encryption or liability may reduce trust in cross-border services or require large overheads. The UNIDIR primer emphasizes these concerns.

Economic costs and innovation drag

• Fragmentation means duplicate infrastructure: separate data centres, duplicated content moderation teams, local legal teams. That’s inefficient.
• Products and platforms may need multiple variants, reducing scale economies.
• Cross-border collaboration, which has been a source of innovation (in open source, research, startups) becomes more legally, technically, culturally constrained.

Unequal access and power imbalances

• Countries or regions with weaker regulatory capacity, limited infrastructure, or less technical expertise may be less able to negotiate or enforce their interests. They could be “locked out” of parts of the Internet, or forced to use inferior services.
• Big tech companies based in powerful jurisdictions may be able to shape global norms (via export, legal reach, or market power) in ways that reflect their values, often without much input from places with less power. This may further amplify inequalities.

What counters or moderating factors exist?

Fragmentation is not unilateral nor total. There are forces, capacities, and policies that push in the opposite direction, or at least slow things down.

• Standardization bodies / global protocols. The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the W3C, ICANN, etc., continue to undergird a lot of the technical plumbing (DNS, HTTP, TCP/IP, SSL/TLS, etc.). These are not trivial to replace, though it seems like some regional standards organizations are trying.
• Commercial incentives for compatibility. Many platforms serving global markets prefer to maintain a common codebase, or to comply with the most restrictive regulation so it applies everywhere (bringing us back to the Brussels Effect). If a regulation (e.g., privacy law) in one place is strong, firms may just adopt it globally rather than maintain separate versions.
• User demand and expectation. Users expect services to “just work” across borders—social media, video conferencing, cloud tools. If fragmentation hurts usability, there is political/popular pushback.
• Cross-border political/institutional cooperation. Trade agreements, multi-stakeholder governance efforts, and international bodies sometimes negotiate common frameworks or minimum standards (e.g., data flow provisions, privacy protections, cybersecurity norms).

These moderating factors mean that fragmentation is not an all-or-nothing state; it will be uneven, partial, and contested.

What we (you, we, society) can do to navigate & shape the outcome

Fragmentation is already happening; how we respond matters. Here are some ways to think about shaping the future so that it is not simply divided, but more resilient and fair.

1. Advocate for interoperable baselines. Even as parts diverge, there can be minimum standards—on encryption, addressing, data portability, etc.—that maintain some baseline interoperability. This ensures users don’t fall off the map just because their country has different laws.
2. Design for variation. Product and service designers need to think early about how their tools will work under different regulatory, infrastructural, and socio-political regimes. That means thinking about offline/online tradeoffs, degraded connectivity, local content, privacy expectations, etc.
3. Invest in local capability. Regions with weaker infrastructure, less regulatory capacity, or less technical workforce should invest (or have investment from partners) in building up their tech ecosystems, including data centers, networking, local content, and developer education. This mitigates risk of being passive recipients rather than active shapers.
4. Cross-bloc cooperation & treaties. Trade agreements or regional alliances for digital policies could harmonize rules where possible (e.g., privacy, data flows, cybersecurity), reduce compliance burden, and keep doors open across regions.
5. New infrastructural experiments. Thinking creatively: mesh networks, decentralized Internet architecture, peer-to-peer content distribution, alternative routing, redundancy in undersea cables etc. In context of fragmentation, some of these may move from research curiosities to vital infrastructure.
6. Policy awareness & public engagement. People often take the openness of the Internet for granted. Public debates, awareness of policy changes (online safety, surveillance, digital sovereignty) matter. A more informed citizenry can push for policies that preserve openness and resist overly restrictive fragmentation.
7. Anchor in human rights and global goals. Fragmentation debates can’t just be about pipes and protocols. They must also reflect the fundamentals of an ethical society: protecting human rights, ensuring equitable access, and aligning with global commitments like the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Global Digital Compact. These frameworks remind us that digital infrastructure isn’t an end in itself. It’s a means to advance dignity, inclusion, and sustainable development. Even as the Internet fragments, grounding decisions in these principles can help keep diverse systems interoperable not just technically, but socially.

Recalibration

The “global Internet” is fragmenting, if it ever really existed at all. That’s a statement I’m not comfortable with but which I’m also not going to approach as the ultimate technical tragedy. Fragmentation brings friction, risks, and challenges, sure. It threatens universality, raises security concerns, and could amplify inequalities. But it also forces us to imagine new architectures, new modes of cooperation, new ways to build more resilient and locally grounded technologies. It means innovation might look different: less about global scale, more about boundary-crossing craftsmanship, local resilience, hybrid systems.

In the end, fragmentation isn’t simply an ending. It may be a recalibration. The question is: will we let it just fragment into chaos, or guide it into a future where multiple, overlapping digital worlds still connect, where people everywhere are participants and not just objects of regulation?

Question for you, the reader: If the Internet becomes more of a patchwork than a tapestry, what kind of bridges do you think are essential? What minimum interoperability, trust, and rights should be preserved across borders?

📩 If you’d rather track the blog than the podcast, I have an option for you! Subscribe to get a notification when new blog posts go live. No spam, just announcements of new posts. [Subscribe here] 

Hi everyone, and welcome back to the Digital Identity Digest. Today’s episode is called The End of the Global Internet.

This episode is longer than usual because there’s a lot to unpack. The global Internet, as we once imagined it, is changing rapidly. While it isn’t collapsing overnight, it is fragmenting. That fragmentation brings real risks — but also some surprising opportunities.

Throughout this month, I’ll be publishing slightly longer episodes, alongside detailed blog posts with links to research and source material. I encourage you to check those out as well.

---

What Fragmentation Really Means

[00:01:15] Many of us grew up hoping for a single, borderless Internet: a vast network of networks without arbitrary firewalls. I’ve always loved that model, perhaps because I’m a globalist at heart. But that’s not where we’re heading.

In recent years, laws, cultures, infrastructure, and politics have pulled the Internet in different directions. The result? An increasingly fragmented landscape.

Researchers describe three key dimensions of fragmentation:

• Technical fragmentation – national firewalls, alternative DNS systems, and content filtering that alter the “plumbing” of the Internet.
• Regulatory fragmentation – divergent laws on privacy, content, and data, such as the GDPR compared with lighter-touch U.S. approaches.
• Commercial fragmentation – companies restricting services by geography, whether for compliance, cost, or strategy.

Together, these layers create friction in what once felt like a seamless system.

---

Evidence of Fragmentation in Practice

[00:04:18] Let’s look at how fragmentation is showing up.

• Regulatory divergence – The EU, China, and the U.S. are moving in very different directions.
  • The EU emphasizes heavy regulation and precaution. The U.S. takes a lighter (but shifting) approach. China uses regulation to centralize control.
  Interestingly, strict laws often set global baselines. The Brussels Effect demonstrates how GDPR effectively raised global privacy standards, since it’s easier for companies to comply everywhere.
• Technical fragmentation – Governments are experimenting with independent DNS systems, national gateways, and even Internet shutdowns during protests or elections. On the flip side, this has fueled mesh networks and decentralized DNS, once fringe ideas that now serve as resilience tools.
• Commercial fragmentation – Supply chains and trade policy drive uneven access to hardware and cloud services. For example:
  • Semiconductor fabs are being built outside Taiwan and Korea.
  • New data centers are emerging in Africa and Latin America.
  • African fintech thrives precisely because local firms adapt to fragmented conditions.

McKinsey projects African fintech revenues will grow nearly 10% per year through 2028, showing how local innovation can thrive in fragmented markets.

---

Why Fragmentation Matters

[00:06:45] Fragmentation has profound consequences.

• Universality weakens – The original power of the Internet was its global reach. Fragmentation erodes that universality.
• Security and trust challenges – Choke points and divergent encryption weaken cross-border trust.
• Economic costs – Companies must duplicate infrastructure and compliance, slowing innovation.
• Inequality deepens – Weaker regions risk being left behind, forced to adopt systems imposed by stronger players.

---

Moderating Factors

[00:08:30] Fragmentation isn’t absolute. Several forces hold the Internet together:

• Standards bodies like IETF and W3C keep core protocols aligned.
• Companies often adopt the strictest regimes globally, simplifying compliance.
• Users expect services to work everywhere — and complain when they don’t.
• Regional cooperation (e.g., EU, ASEAN, African Union) helps maintain partial cohesion.

These factors form the connective tissue that prevents a total collapse.

---

Possible Future Scenarios

[00:09:45] Looking ahead, I see four plausible scenarios:

1. Soft fragmentation
   • Internet stays global, but friction rises.
   • Platforms launch regional versions, compliance costs increase.
   • Opportunity: stronger local ecosystems and regional innovation.
2. Regulatory blocks
   • Countries form digital provinces with internal harmony but divergence elsewhere.
   • Opportunity: specialization (EU in privacy tech, Africa in mobile-first innovation, Asia in super apps).
3. Technical fragmentation
   • Shutdowns, divergent standards, and outages become common.
   • Opportunity: mainstream adoption of decentralized and peer-to-peer networks.
4. Pure isolationism
   • Countries build proprietary platforms, national ID systems, and local chip fabs.
   • Opportunity: preservation of local values, region-specific innovation.

---

What Can We Do?

[00:12:28] In the face of fragmentation, individuals, companies, and policymakers can take action:

• Advocate for interoperable baselines (encryption, addressing, data portability).
• Design for variation so systems degrade gracefully under different regimes.
• Invest in local capacity — infrastructure, skills, developer ecosystems.
• Encourage regional cooperation through treaties and data agreements.
• Experiment with alternative architectures like mesh networks and decentralized identity.
• Anchor change in human rights — align with UN SDGs, protect freedoms, and center people, not just states or corporations.

---

Closing Thoughts

[00:15:50] The global Internet as we knew it may be ending — but that isn’t necessarily a tragedy.

Yes, fragmentation creates friction, risks, and inequality. But it also sparks resilience, innovation, and adaptation. In Africa, fintech thrives under fragmented conditions. In Europe, strong privacy laws raise global standards. In Asia, regional trade frameworks offer cooperation despite divergence.

The real question isn’t whether fragmentation is coming — it’s already here. The question is:

• What kind of fragmented Internet do we want to build?
• Which bridges are worth preserving?
• Which minimum standards — technical, ethical, social — should always cross borders?

These questions shape not only the Internet’s future, but our own.

---

[00:18:45] Thank you for listening to the Digital Identity Digest. If you found this episode useful, please subscribe to the blog or podcast, share it with others, and connect with me on LinkedIn @hlflanagan.

Stay curious, stay engaged, and let’s keep these conversations going.