The concept of sovereignty is critical to debates on digital power. It touches not only on who benefits from the existing internet infrastructure, its data, and the knowledges that it generates and captures, but who controls how it will evolve over time, and in pursuit of what goals.
Many of us within the Non-Aligned Tech Movement (NATM) seek to observe these questions by overlaying the lenses of the “infrastructural turn” in internet governance (Francesca Musiani et al.), the “decolonial turn” in communication scholarship (Nick Couldry, Ulises Mejias, Paola Ricaurte, Renata Avila, et al.), and the work on “points of control” in internet networks (Laura DeNardis). By overlaying these frameworks, we believe it is possible to access important insights into the internet as both a technological and political infrastructure that enables and constrains individual and collective agency.
Standing on top of these foundations, the Non-Aligned Technological Movement presents itself as an active research collective seeking to impact two key strains in contemporary debates over digital sovereignty: the role of sovereign governments in digital governance and the potential of non-state actors (such as unions and civil society organizations) capable of organizing and protecting individuals and communities. Researchers, practitioners, and laypeople that are part of the Movement crave a radically different vision for the digital future and are collaborating to materialize it.
The Role of Sovereignty: Decolonial Governments and Digital Power
The first strain builds on the legacy of the Non-Aligned Movement that was initiated in the 1960s by leaders of Yugoslavia, India, Egypt, Ghana, and Indonesia; leaders who sought to protect their autonomy from the imperialistic behaviors of the US and USSR during the Cold War. They did so by coordinating around a new bloc focused on collectively securing autonomy, economic development, and peaceful coexistence. This strain of the Non-Aligned Tech Movement focuses on the role of sovereignty in reclaiming digital power for nations, especially those in the Global Majority, where the effects of data colonialism are felt most acutely. Data colonialism, as described by Couldry and Mejias, is the process through which digital platforms extract personal and cultural data from individuals and communities in the Global South, and flatten it into a commodity they can subsequently monetize. This system reinforces historical patterns of economic exploitation and epistemic violence, where the South’s knowledges are siphoned off and now increasingly controlled by a handful of US and Chinese corporations (Ricaurte, 2019).
In this context, this strain of the NATM explores how governments of peripheral countries can reclaim power over their digital infrastructure, data flows, and knowledge production. The question is not just about taxing foreign corporations more effectively but about reshaping technological landscapes so that they reflect and support the needs of individuals and collectives, rather than increasing shareholder value.
The Post-Government Vision: Autonomy and Civil Society
Beyond the boundaries of nation-states, a loose, albeit larger collective structure needs to emerge, among other reasons, to ensure these individual peripheral state actors can coordinate to stand up to the powerful central players. This larger collective is also needed to match the global scale and interdependent nature at which some of our collective challenges, such as climate change, lie.
The second strain in sovereignty thus highlights the rise of civil society organizations, platform cooperatives, and decentralized networks as alternatives. The internet power is placed in the hands of its builders rather than the corporations that exploit it. A digital autonomy that transcends national borders and corporate interests, positioning the internet as a tool for collective self-governance and community empowerment. For some, a challenge to the assumption that digital governance must rest with state authorities. For others, a mechanism that facilitates coordination among and beyond states.
Paths for Research
The intersection of sociology, technology, and politics makes this debate particularly relevant for researchers committed to exploring how social systems and technological infrastructures are co-constructed. How do we design and manage digital systems that enable a world in which many worlds can flourish? The more hours we spend on a screen per day, and the more aspects of our lives become shaped by an ever-shrinking number of people, the more urgent this question becomes.
Knowledge, Power, and the Digital Commons
A core issue in this debate is knowledge production. The internet is not just a tool for data exchange; it is also a key site for the production and circulation of ideas and knowledge. Under the current model, knowledge is commodified and controlled by a small group of tech giants. Google, Facebook, and Amazon dominate not only traffic flows but also public discourse, determining what content is seen and shared, often with little regard for democratic values or public interest.
In contrast, a decolonial internet would be one where knowledge is shared freely and openly, without being commodified for the benefit of corporate shareholders. Ahead is the task of reclaiming the digital space for public knowledge—a knowledge system that is not only accessible but also empowering and inclusive. It requires moving beyond the idea of the internet as a profit-driven platform and reimagining it as a public good that can host billions of vastly diverse cultures and individuals and serve their goals. Early versions of this future effort are emerging within existing platform cooperatives, free software, and peer-to-peer networks. These communities show us that a non-exploitative internet is not only possible but within reach.
Forging a future
We need to ask ourselves how we shape the machines, and how the machine and its current owners shape us. We also need to ask ourselves why we spend so many hours in front of the screen, what patterns become visible at scale from our online behaviors, who gets access to the towers from which this information becomes visible? Should we seek shared control over such towers, or should they be destroyed? As researchers, we must engage with these two competing visions. In doing so, our research should not be merely focused on unearthing the risks of ongoing developments, but on finding directions for a collective future worth fighting for.
___________________________________
*In support and solidarity, through the NATM network:
Dimitra Milioni, Cyprus University of Technology
Domenico Fiormonte, Università di Roma Tre, and University of Dar es Salaam
Henrique Z.M. Parra, Federal University of São Paulo (Unifesp)
Joseph Butler
Joyce Souza Maldonado, Laboratory of Free Technologies at the Federal University of ABC.
Lau Sández, Villanova University
Luciana Musello, Universidad San Francisco de Quito (USFQ)
Nick Couldry, London School of Economics and Political Science
Norma Möllers, Queen's University
Paola Ricaurte, Tierra Común
Renata Avila, Open Knowledge Foundation
Syed Mustafa Ali, The Open University
__________________________
Juan Ortiz Freuler is a Wallis Annenberg Fellow and PhD candidate at the Annenberg School of Communication (University of Southern California), and a co-initiator of the Non-Aligned Tech Movement
Published: 02/24/2025