  In this paper, I argue that "Internet fragmentation" as a phenomenon is only
meaningful in the context of the US's hegemonic control over the Internet. I
propose a broader and, I argue, more richly predictive frame: Internet
conflict. I show how this frame provides fresh analytical purchase to some of
the questions I list above, using it to contextualize several apparently
distinct phenomena. I conclude by arguing that only one question gives this
analytical frame, or any other, a higher purpose: what particular interventions
to Internet governance can produce meaningfully liberatory outcomes? Any
descriptive framework is only useful insofar as it can be mobilized to answer
this normative question.
