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.