Can Europe resist the digital oligarchy?
Are EU citizens essentially the serfs of a handful of American monopolies? Here, Maastricht University researchers Valentina Golunova and Dani Shanley discuss the geopolitical and institutional consequences of the new ‘digital oligarchy.’ Why do its leaders—paradoxically—still need our consent for the descent into a post-democratic digital dystopia?
When it comes to big tech, “Europe has been very naïve,” says digital democracy researcher Valentina Golunova. “We’ve been asleep to the societal impact of not only the technologies themselves, but in particular the concentration of power.” As a result, a handful of tech moguls in Silicon Valley have come to wield disproportionate global power and arguably stand outside—or even above—democracy.
This power is the consequence of algorithmic control, says Dani Shanley, a philosopher of technology. “They’ve become the feudal overlords of digital capitalism, with us as the data serfs,” she says. “Their philosophy comprises a bizarre cluster of overlapping ideologies, such as libertarian utopianism, transhumanism and long-termism. Their disdain for the institutions that could curtail their power has played into the rise of ultranationalist authoritarianism and tech-enabled surveillance capitalism.”
Digital threat to democracy
Techno-solutionism—the idea that technology can solve most, if not all, problems in society—sees tech as a boon for democracy. Instead it seems to have enabled a post-democratic drift, with bot farms interfering in the democratic process and a general move towards populism, which plays well on platforms that exacerbate outrage. “Tech solutions are often more of a Band-Aid for, or an even worse distraction from entrenched societal problems,” explains Shanley. “Instead of direct democracy, we’ve seen the public sphere collapse into attention markets driven by outrage and distraction.”
A general focus on often hypothetical tech solutions rather than systemic problems has allowed the so-called broligarchy to concentrate even more power in their hands. Until recently, there was still a façade of modesty. Following a string of scandals and US Congress hearings in 2018, Meta still had the decency to pretend to ponder purchasing a fig leaf by installing an oversight board. “The election of Trump changed the discourse,” Golunova says. “Zuckerberg et al. feel that their hands are no longer tied; they no longer need to pretend.”
“Tech solutions are often more of a Band-Aid for, or an even worse distraction from entrenched societal problems.”
Dani ShanleyWhy digital platforms are hard to regulate
Digital platforms like X and Facebook are treated differently from other publishers, Golunova says. “When these platforms emerged in the US, the debate centred around protecting children. But parts of the Communications Decency Act were struck down by the Supreme Court for contradicting the First Amendment, freedom of speech. Online platforms are still exempted from liability for third-party content. In the EU, a slightly narrower form of immunity was codified in the E-Commerce Directive and, later, the Digital Services Act.”
She points out that digital platforms exercise editorial control through algorithmic curation, content moderation, and terms and conditions. “X is a good example of how much power a single CEO has in silencing voices and amplifying narratives.” This is a serious problem for democracy, Shanley adds. “Democracy relies on a healthy information system and trust in expertise and institutions. These are hollowed out by the control these platforms have.”
Hope, hype, doom, and gloom
Still, Shanley is quick to put things into perspective. “With every technological breakthrough comes a lot of hype and big promises. Radio, TV and the internet were predicted to completely revolutionise education. And they did change things, but not remotely to the extent that was promised.” Those promises needn’t be positive, as evidenced by the pervasive idea that AI will replace us all. With hype and doom as two sides of the same (bit)coin, to quote Ruha Benjamin, both narratives play into the hands of the same elite who need people to buy into – and literally invest in – a given new technology.
“Whenever we step back and ask how to use and regulate a technology,” reflects Shanley, “it quickly boils down to questions about what makes us human and what it means to live well. Who do we want to be when we’re using these tools? We should be more mindful of the unsustainable use of energy and resources, the exploitation, the threat to democracy, and our own cognitive habits and emotional wellbeing.”
Above all, she cautions against the perceived inevitability of handing over our sovereignty to tech overlords. “Interesting forms of resistance are already happening, both individually and collectively. We have more agency than we think.”
A less digitally dependent Europe?
Golunova concurs. “The EU has created tools that allow us to push back, such as the Digital Markets Act, under which Apple and Meta were fined a combined €700 million. This is a meaningful step. However, the European Commission has been hesitant to fine X for violating the Digital Services Act, despite finding that the platform had breached several of its provisions. So we have the legal tools, but the intimidation campaign by Trump means there’s no political will right now.”
Golunova has high hopes for the new approach by the European Commission tech chief Henna Virkkunen. “Alongside the push for accountability, there will be greater efforts to make ourselves more independent of the US. The new strategy also allows for deregulation to empower European SMEs to build competing systems.” Whether Europe will succeed remains to be seen—but at least its decision makers have shed their blinkers for now.
Text: Florian Raith
Photography: Hannah Lipowsky
“Alongside the push for accountability, there will be greater efforts to make ourselves more independent of the US.”
Valentina GolunovaAlso read
-
Veldkrant Geuldal
We are happy to share the publication of the Veldkrant Geuldal. Over beheertwijfel in een veranderend landschap. The veldkrant was written by Claartje Rasterhoff and Christian Ernsten, in collaboration with Erik Wong and Thijs de Zeeuw, and published by MACCH in October 2025.
-
Promenade I in Heerlen preferred location for Maastricht University, further exploration to follow
After careful consideration, Promenade I has emerged as the clear preferred location for the establishment of Maastricht University (UM) in Heerlen. In the coming period, the municipality of Heerlen and UM will jointly investigate the feasibility of this step, which should be accompanied by a...
-
UM to play a more prominent role in Dutch scientific infrastructure
Eleven consortia from various scientific disciplines are set to launch projects of great value to science. The Dutch government is making a total of €197 million available for this purpose. Scientists from Maastricht University (UM) are closely involved in seven of the eleven projects.
