丹尼尔·安格斯

Globally, users of digital media are increasingly locked into a handful of operating systems, app stores, and communication platforms. Most of us must choose between Apple, Windows, or Android. All of these are owned by American tech giants. Much of private and government IT infrastructure – websites, mobile banking, nearly anything online you can think of – uses cloud services, such as Amazon Web Services, Cloudflare or Microsoft Azure. They might have locations worldwide, but these are also US companies. Mobile phones, laptops, smartwatches and more are mostly made by American or Chinese companies. And it’s getting worse as tech companies embed artificial intelligence (AI) assistants directly into everyday devices, such as Google’s Gemini or Microsoft’s Copilot. They’re doing this in ways designed to further entrench users within particular ecosystems. When a single cyber security update brought down Windows computers the world over in 2024, it was a stark reminder nobody should put all their IT eggs in one basket. But what might that actually look like? The “digital sovereignty” movement in the European Union (EU) can show us the way. European countries are gradually breaking up with American tech giants and pushing for local AI development, all in the name of achieving digital autonomy. What exactly is ‘digital sovereignty’? A state’s sovereignty means to be able to govern itself. Extend that to the digital era, and we arrive at a concept that’s difficult to pin down, but broadly means being in charge of your own digital infrastructure. Let’s take the European digital sovereignty strategy. It provides a roadmap for creating, owning and governing computer hardware, AI, software, and social media within the EU. Any tech providers would have to comply with core EU values of human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, and respect for human rights. The ultimate goal here is digital autonomy. It means reducing reliance on systems vulnerable to growing geopolitical and economic risks. If you make your own devices and host your data locally, you’re not at the mercy of multinational corporations whose interests may not align with your own. Several prominent EU institutions have already ditched the Microsoft Office suite for official communication. Instead, they use European software such as Office EU or free open-source alternatives. The EU is also making progress on Gaia-X, a local alternative to global cloud providers. But these efforts come with major challenges. Large tech companies such as Alphabet (Google), Microsoft and Amazon are not watching idly. By promising local governments and organisations greater control, they’re tapping into the digital sovereignty discussion. Researchers call this “sovereignty-as-a-service”. Through it, big tech is shaping digital sovereignty on terms that are favourable to them. Alternatives already exist Europe’s digital sovereignty strategy is a long-term, multi-country initiative that involves major financial, industrial and policy changes. Outside of the EU, countries including India, Brazil, Nigeria and South Africa are also pursuing digital sovereignty plans. But for everyday users, much of it comes down to turning to viable alternatives to dominant tech platforms. Many already exist. Decentralised social media ecosystems allow independently operated communities to communicate across shared protocols without being controlled by a single corporation. One such example is the Fediverse, which includes platforms like micro-blogging site Mastodon and video sharing site PeerTube. Similarly, the AT protocol, which powers micro-blogging sites Bluesky and Eurosky, aims to separate social networking from platform ownership. It enables users to move identities, content and communities between services more freely. Open-source office suites such as LibreOffice have provided alternatives to Microsoft Office for more than two decades. It’s also increasingly possible to run AI systems locally on personal devices or private networks. This reduces reliance on cloud-based AI services controlled by big tech. In other words, many of the technical foundations for greater digital autonomy already exist. The challenge lies with adoption and coordination. When Twitter was bought by Elon Musk, many users fragmented to other sites – from Mastodon and Threads to Bluesky and others. If your friends are all on different social media sites, which do you choose? What can Australia learn from this? Australia is in a similar position to the EU. We’re heavily reliant on foreign-owned digital infrastructure. We’re also increasingly exposed to the geopolitical tensions surrounding it. Australia could take a leaf out of the EU’s book and develop its own roadmap for digital sovereignty. This would have to operate at both the policy and public levels. Australia’s digital policy shouldn’t be dictated by large platforms or external geopolitical actors. There’s also a pressing need to promote local innovation for the future, such as investing in quantum computing. Publicly funded organisations have already demonstrated Australia can invent globally significant technology. After all, Australia’s national science agency, the CSIRO, patented the technology that led to wifi. Universities and publicly funded institutions should be at the core of future tech innovation as well. Most importantly, Australia is home to First Nations communities. Their governance systems have long operated through decentralised, relational, and autonomous forms of organisation. Groups such as Maiam nayri Wingara and the HASS and Indigenous Research Data Commons have already developed internationally significant frameworks for Indigenous data sovereignty. These cover data governance, stewardship, collective benefit, and the rights of communities to control data about their peoples, lands and cultures. We can learn from these. Respecting Indigenous sovereignty may also open a pathway for all Australians to rethink what our shared digital futures can look like. Ashwin Nagappa, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society, Queensland University of TechnologyDaniel Angus, Professor of Digital Communication, Director of QUT Digital Media Research Centre, Queensland University of Technology This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

SODP

SODP媒体

基准网格

丹尼尔·安格斯

我们几乎所有的线上服务都掌握在大型科技公司手中。其实还有更好的出路。

关于

实用链接

专题文章