In an era where our lives are increasingly intertwined with digital technologies, a recent development in the realm of digital sovereignty has sparked a pressing concern for nations and individuals alike. The concept of digital self-determination, once hailed as a great equalizer, has become a battleground for power, privacy, and control, with governments and tech giants vying for dominance in the digital realm. A recent panel, “Infrastructuring digital sovereignty: exploring infrastructure-based digital self-determination practices,” at EASST-4S 2024 has reignited the debate about the role of Internet infrastructure in shaping our online experiences and rights, but is this narrow focus on technical underpinnings missing the bigger picture?

While it’s true that the architecture of the Internet plays a crucial role in our online experiences, it would be shortsighted to ignore the broader social, political, and economic contexts that shape the digital landscape. The “code is law” approach, which suggests that technical design can directly impact human rights, fails to account for the complex interplay between technology, society, and governance.

Consider, for instance, the ways in which social media platforms have been accused of perpetuating biases and reinforcing existing power structures through their algorithms and design choices. While these companies may claim their technical decisions are neutral, the reality is that they are influenced by the values and beliefs of their designers and the broader contexts in which they operate.

The European Union’s recent regulatory efforts provide a stark illustration of these challenges. The EU’s push for digital sovereignty through regulations like the DMA, DSA, and GDPR, while aiming to protect user rights and ensure fair competition, is inadvertently contributing to Internet fragmentation. Tech companies are being compelled to create EU-specific services, effectively drawing digital borders around Europe. This approach not only risks isolating EU citizens from global digital innovation but also threatens to stifle competition and innovation within the EU itself. It’s a prime example of how well-intentioned infrastructure and regulatory changes can lead to unintended consequences, potentially undermining the very goals of digital sovereignty they seek to achieve.

Moreover, the infrastructure-centric approach to digital sovereignty risks overlooking the diverse perspectives and needs of stakeholders, potentially leading to a lack of representation in the decision-making process. The ex-post dynamics that emerge from the implementation of these technologies can be unpredictable and far-reaching, often resulting in unintended consequences that are difficult to mitigate.

The Illusion of Control

As we grapple with the challenges of digital sovereignty, it’s crucial to adopt a more comprehensive approach that acknowledges the intricate relationships between technology, society, and governance. This means considering not just the technical aspects of digital infrastructure, but also the values, motivations, and power dynamics at play in the digital realm.

Rather than attempting to inscribe human rights directly into technology, we should focus on creating a rights-enabling environment that takes into account the contextual peculiarities and societal dynamics that shape our digital experiences. This approach recognizes that the impact of technology on human rights is influenced by a range of factors, including the broader social and political contexts in which they operate.

In contrast, the EU’s initiatives, such as the DMA, DSA, and GDPR, are driven by a territorial understanding of digital governance. By promoting in-home initiatives, infrastructures, and platforms, the EU aims to reduce its reliance on US and Chinese operators and reclaim control over European data flows. However, this approach is not without its limitations. The EU’s regulatory efforts may inadvertently contribute to Internet fragmentation, creating digital borders that stifle innovation and competition. Moreover, the EU’s emphasis on jurisdictional power and the growth of domestic operators raises concerns about the true motives behind its digital sovereignty agenda. Is the EU genuinely committed to protecting fundamental rights, or is it merely using this rhetoric to justify its own brand of digital expansionism?

However, it would be worthwhile to re-examine the assumptions underlying the quest for digital sovereignty, as it relates to the intricate relationships between technology, society, and governance. At this point, much of the discussion remains speculation, and it would be prudent to monitor the developments in this space, paying close attention to the potential consequences of infrastructure-centric approaches and territorial understandings of digital governance.

As we navigate the complexities of digital sovereignty, it becomes clear that our online landscape is undergoing a profound transformation. The Internet, once hailed as a borderless and decentralized system, is slowly giving way to a more fragmented and gated architecture. The EU’s initiatives, such as DNS4EU and the European Cloud Initiative, while aimed at promoting digital sovereignty, may inadvertently contribute to a world where the Internet is no longer a single, unified network, but rather a collection of isolated “network islands” connected by carefully controlled bridges.

In this emerging landscape, the flow of data and information is increasingly subject to scrutiny and regulation, with certain types of traffic being privileged over others. As we move forward, it is essential that we consider the implications of this trend, and the potential consequences for the free flow of information and the principles of digital sovereignty. Will we find ourselves in a world where the Internet is once again a reflection of the physical world, with its own “walled cities” and “gated communities”? Only time will tell.