How the rhetoric surrounding techno-globalism has shifted, from countries advocating for a free, open internet to imposing limits to protect national interests
Two key words were missing from the statements that followed the inaugural in-person summit in September of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue … Tweets: @gwbstr , @carnage4life , @raquelinacj , @foreignaffairs , @charlesmok , @jshermcyber , @pielemeier , @foreignaffairs , @foreignaffairs , and @pstasiatech Tweets: Graham Webster / @gwbstr : Latest @ForeignAffairs: Over the last few years, the US and other governments have dropped “global” from their vision for technology, substituting democratic vs. authoritarian blocs. @jshermcyber and I argue for a newer, better techno-globalism. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ ... 1/ Dare Obasanjo / @carnage4life : Idea of an open & global internet is no longer in favor even among democratic countries like USA & India. The internet & social media allow people to come together & challenge power. Now every major government wants to assert control. The people are losing https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ ... Raquel Carretero / @raquelinacj : “A stark technological divide is not just unrealistic but also undesirable. Embracing a trend toward politically delineated technological ecosystems will undermine the open ethos that fuels and benefits freer societies” via @ForeignAffairs https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ ... @foreignaffairs : The world's democracies must not abandon their long-standing support for an open global Internet, warn @gwbstr and @jshermcyber. A permanent technological divide is not just impractical—it would increase the risk of conflict. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ ... @charlesmok : If the open internet fails, it will count as a win for democracy's adversaries. The Fall and Rise of Techno-Globalism Democracies Should Not Let the Dream of the Open Internet Die https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ ... Justin Sherman / @jshermcyber : NEW: @gwbstr and I in @ForeignAffairs — why democracies shouldn't abandon the ideal of a global internet, as some are doing right now https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ ... Jason Pielemeier / @pielemeier : Spot on ⬇️ from @gwbstr & @justins: “Embracing a trend toward politically delineated technological ecosystems will undermine the open ethos that fuels and benefits freer societies—and bolster the top-down, controlling ethos favored by repressive regimes.” https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ ... @foreignaffairs : “The democratic countries where techno-globalists were once unrestrained in their advocacy of an open Internet now have become preoccupied with technology's risks.” https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ ... @foreignaffairs : Efforts to piece together an international, democratic, rights-respecting coalition on technology governance will fail if they do not acknowledge that such a project is inherently a global one, argue @gwbstr and @jshermcyber. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ ... Paul Triolo / @pstasiatech : Must read: The recent statements and actions at the Quad and beyond suggest that many long-standing supporters of a global Internet now have moved toward a new vision of technological development: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ ...?
Context & Ripple Effects
Graham Webster and Justin Sherman's Foreign Affairs argument lands after a visible rhetorical retreat: the statements following the Quad's first in-person leaders' summit quietly dropped the vocabulary of a free, global internet, with Washington and other governments substituting a democratic-versus-authoritarian framing for the old techno-globalist one. The authors push back, contending democracies should not abandon the ideal of a globally connected network.
The piece closes a loop in recent coverage: [[a:971983|platforms like Facebook, Apple, Google, and Amazon now rival states for geopolitical influence]], while [[a:965449|governments worldwide are limiting tech companies with an urgency no single industry has faced before]]. Webster and Sherman's intervention is the intellectual counterweight — an argument that the limits being imposed in the name of national interest cost democracies something they once championed.
First-order effects
- The US, India, Japan, and Australia — the Quad members whose summit language the article scrutinizes — are now officially describing technology policy in bloc terms, replacing 'global' with a democratic coalition identity.
- Multinational platforms operating across both blocs face a widening compliance split, caught between democratic-market restrictions and authoritarian-market demands.
Second-order effects
- Allied governments are institutionalizing the values-based framing: the European Commission followed with its [[a:975380|Digital Decade Principles defining an EU vision of the digital economy built on democracy and privacy]], giving the bloc rhetoric a regulatory backbone.
- National-security restrictions aimed at foreign apps start cutting against their stated purpose — as Signal's president argued of the [[a:850890|TikTok bill, which she said offers no meaningful privacy protection from China while further entrenching dominant US social networks]].
Third-order effects
- If the bloc framing hardens, internet governance fragments into competing regulatory spheres where market access becomes a geopolitical instrument, and the chokepoints once managed by standards bodies migrate to state control.
- The longer-term risk Webster and Sherman flag is self-inflicted: democracies that abandon the global-internet ideal lose the normative high ground that distinguished them from the authoritarian model they oppose.
The trend: Democratic governments are trading the free-and-open-internet consensus for a values-bloc model of technology policy, and the debate over whether that trade is recoverable is now explicit among policy scholars.