Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

We need bipartisan cooperation to protect the internet

Underwater cable model

A model of an internet cable that is laid along the seabed to transmit high-voltage electricity and the Internet via fiberglass.

Serg Myshkovsky/Getty Images

Your internet access is dependent on the security and resiliency of garden-hose-sized underwater cables. More than 800,000 miles of these cables criss-cross the oceans and seas. When just one of these cables breaks, which occurs about every other day, you may not notice much of a change to your internet speed. When several break, which is increasingly possible, the resulting delay in internet connectivity can disrupt a nation’s economy, news and government.

If there were ever a bipartisan issue it’s this: protecting our undersea cable system.


Nearly all internet traffic goes through this cable system. The fiber optic glass at the core of the cables allows the internet to operate at incredible speeds. The alternative — relying on satellites — is nearly five times slower. That’s why protecting these cables is essential, especially for countries with fewer cables.

The hundreds of cable systems around the world are not equally distributed. Whereas the United States has dozens and dozens of cables on both coasts, some countries have less than a handful, or none at all. Those latter countries are especially vulnerable to diminished internet upon a cable break. Take, for example, Japan in 2011. The tsunami that struck the island nation caused seven of its 12 transpacific cables to break. If one more cable had been severed, internet traffic between Japan and the U.S. may have come to a halt.

Reducing the vulnerability of this system is not easy. It’s not a matter of governments simply laying more cables. For lack of a better phrase, governments are not in the cable laying business. Nearly all undersea cables are privately owned. Microsoft, Meta, Google and Amazon are the ones laying cables at a historically unprecedented rate.

It’s also not as simple as sending out more repair ships. There’s only a couple dozen ships outfitted to repair cables. This small fleet is made up of a small, aging labor force.

Finally, it’s not as straightforward as hiding cables from bad actors who might want to intentionally break them. Making cables harder to find might actually increase the number of breaks. The plurality of breaks are caused by fishers accidentally dropping nets, anchors and other equipment on cables. If fishing boats do not know where cables are laid, they may cause breaks on an even more frequent basis.

All potential ways to make the undersea cable system more resilient come with tradeoffs. New Zealand and Australia, for example, have developed cable protection zones, in which all cables must fall. These zones decrease the odds of unintentional breaks by making more actors aware of cable locations. Yet, by concentrating cables in a single area, the odds of a single storm or bad actor causing several breaks increase. Cables made of more resilient material may withstand more severe storms, but upon a break may be even harder to repair. This is just a short list of proposals that come with pros and cons but merit more investigation.

While the next best step to protecting undersea cables is unclear, what’s obvious is that the status quo cannot persist. The public must make this an issue. Elected officials on both sides of the aisle ought to prioritize this critical infrastructure. And, cable owners like Google should embrace the public service they are performing by making the cable laying and repair process more transparent and participatory. That’s a tall order for each set of actors; it’s also one that should inspire and motivate us all to rally in defense of the undersea cable system.

Frazier is an assistant professor at the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University and a Tarbell fellow.

Read More

King, Pope, Jedi, Superman: Trump’s Social Media Images Exclusively Target His Base and Try To Blur Political Reality

Two Instagram images put out by the White House.

White House Instagram

King, Pope, Jedi, Superman: Trump’s Social Media Images Exclusively Target His Base and Try To Blur Political Reality

A grim-faced President Donald J. Trump looks out at the reader, under the headline “LAW AND ORDER.” Graffiti pictured in the corner of the White House Facebook post reads “Death to ICE.” Beneath that, a photo of protesters, choking on tear gas. And underneath it all, a smaller headline: “President Trump Deploys 2,000 National Guard After ICE Agents Attacked, No Mercy for Lawless Riots and Looters.”

The official communication from the White House appeared on Facebook in June 2025, after Trump sent in troops to quell protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in Los Angeles. Visually, it is melodramatic, almost campy, resembling a TV promotion.

Keep ReadingShow less
When the Lights Go Out — and When They Never Do
a person standing in a doorway with a light coming through it

When the Lights Go Out — and When They Never Do

The massive outage that crippled Amazon Web Services this past October 20th sent shockwaves through the digital world. Overnight, the invisible backbone of our online lives buckled: Websites went dark, apps froze, transactions stalled, and billions of dollars in productivity and trust evaporated. For a few hours, the modern economy’s nervous system failed. And in that silence, something was revealed — how utterly dependent we have become on a single corporate infrastructure to keep our civilization’s pulse steady.

When Amazon sneezes, the world catches a fever. That is not a mark of efficiency or innovation. It is evidence of recklessness. For years, business leaders have mocked antitrust reformers like FTC Chair Lina Khan, dismissing warnings about the dangers of monopoly concentration as outdated paranoia. But the AWS outage was not a cyberattack or an act of God — it was simply the predictable outcome of a world that has traded resilience for convenience, diversity for cost-cutting, and independence for “efficiency.” Executives who proudly tout their “risk management frameworks” now find themselves helpless before a single vendor’s internal failure.

Keep ReadingShow less
Fear of AI Makes for Bad Policy
Getty Images

Fear of AI Makes for Bad Policy

Fear is the worst possible response to AI. Actions taken out of fear are rarely a good thing, especially when it comes to emerging technology. Empirically-driven scrutiny, on the other hand, is a savvy and necessary reaction to technologies like AI that introduce great benefits and harms. The difference is allowing emotions to drive policy rather than ongoing and rigorous evaluation.

A few reminders of tech policy gone wrong, due, at least in part, to fear, helps make this point clear. Fear is what has led the US to become a laggard in nuclear energy, while many of our allies and adversaries enjoy cheaper, more reliable energy. Fear is what explains opposition to autonomous vehicles in some communities, while human drivers are responsible for 120 deaths per day, as of 2022. Fear is what sustains delays in making drones more broadly available, even though many other countries are tackling issues like rural access to key medicine via drones.

Keep ReadingShow less
A child looking at a smartphone.

With autism rates doubling every decade, scientists are reexamining environmental and behavioral factors. Could the explosion of social media use since the 1990s be influencing neurodevelopment? A closer look at the data, the risks, and what research must uncover next.

Getty Images, Arindam Ghosh

The Increase in Autism and Social Media – Coincidence or Causal?

Autism has been in the headlines recently because of controversy over Robert F. Kennedy, Jr's statements. But forgetting about Kennedy, autism is headline-worthy because of the huge increase in its incidence over the past two decades and its potential impact on not just the individual children but the health and strength of our country.

In the 1990s, a new definition of autism—ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder)—was universally adopted. Initially, the prevalence rate was pretty stable. In the year 2,000, with this broader definition and better diagnosis, the CDC estimated that one in 150 eight-year-olds in the U.S. had an autism spectrum disorder. (The reports always study eight-year-olds, so this data was for children born in 1992.)

Keep ReadingShow less