A Trade-off worth making: internet fragmentation and digital sovereignty

Abstract

Opponents of digital sovereignty characterize the methods to achieve it as authoritarian, protectionist, and anti-innovation – ultimately leading to digital fragmentation. Digital fragmentation, roughly, is the idea that “the internet is in some danger of splintering into loosely coupled islands of connectivity.” The internet is built on, so the argument goes, the foundation of open accessibility, free movement of data and interoperability. The exercise of digital sovereignty, it is claimed, chips away at this foundation – and threatens to fragment the internet as we know it. The argument against digital sovereignty is largely premised on an assumption that is in no way obviously true: the way the internet is benefits individuals. The current functioning of internet services requires consumers to give up large amounts of sensitive personal information that are used to generate targeted advertisements. These targeted advertisements have been associated with election tampering as well as a driving force in the dissemination of conspiracy theories leading to genocide, an armed insurrection, and making it much more difficult to get the world vaccinated. Opponents of digital sovereignty may be correct in their analysis that, in the current context, methods to achieve it will cause the internet to somewhat fragment. However, too often these opponents seem to defend a status quo that is fundamentally broken and dominated by a few companies which have time and again abused their power. Until the world agrees upon rules which protect privacy and ensure the functioning of democracy, the states must accept the trade of a fragmented internet for the protection of their citizens.