In recent decades, the Internet has changed radically: at the end of the 1990s, with the launch of the first websites, the web was perceived as a completely open and free space. Today, however, the online dimension is strongly dominated by a few tech giants. Companies like Meta and other major players push users to stay within their platforms, promoting doomscrolling and partially, indirectly limiting the free flow of information as it was originally imagined at the dawn of the Internet. The algorithms of individual social networks, in fact, favor internal content and penalize external links, creating a fragmented and closed browsing experience, in sharp contrast with the model that saw the web as a set of interconnected communities. The fact that a few large companies dominate most digital services has profound implications for the technological sovereignty of individual continents. These platforms influence the attention of millions of users, determining – at the source, through their systems – which types of content will be most promoted, which information will circulate more easily, and how people will connect with each other. Furthermore, large U.S. companies monetize the data provided by foreign users, especially Europeans, often paying relatively low taxes compared to their earnings and bypassing local regulations.
The experience of the 2016 U.S. presidential elections – with the “Russiagate” case – demonstrated how platforms like the current X or Facebook can be exploited to influence democratic processes, raising concerns for elections on other continents, including Europe. For example, the first round of the Romanian presidential elections was recently canceled, initially won by the surprise ultranationalist candidate Călin Georgescu, because the country’s intelligence had detected Russian interference in his favor. Georgescu was later excluded from the new presidential elections, which were then won by the pro-European candidate. In cases like this, European institutions fear that major social networks are gradually gaining excessive influence over critical communication infrastructures, to the point of directly affecting people’s choices.
A possible way out of the dominance of large U.S. platforms is the development of European alternatives based on open and decentralized protocols – even if not everyone is convinced of this approach. Such technologies would not merely replicate existing social networks but would intervene in their operational logic: the user is no longer an entity from which tracking data is extracted and monetized for advertising purposes, but rather the actual owner of their digital space. Unlike the closed models of Meta or X, adopting this standard – which underpins the so-called “fediverse” – allows users to create, share, and comment on various types of content (such as texts, photos, and videos) or manage their networks of contacts without being tied to a single platform. This protocol, which is the foundation of platforms like Bluesky, is designed to enable users to transfer their profiles and followers across different applications, maintaining full control over the data and algorithms that determine what appears in their feeds. This open system also allows independent developers to create new sub-applications and features, preventing any single company from entirely dominating a given digital ecosystem.
In Europe, several initiatives are already experimenting with the potential of this approach. Projects like SkyFeed and Graysky use the same protocol as BlueSky to provide social environments that are more transparent and compliant with European regulations regarding privacy and content moderation. At the same time, initiatives such as the Free Our Feeds campaign or the Eurosky project are putting pressure on European policymakers to promote the creation of a common digital infrastructure, based on principles of openness, interoperability, and public management. Eurosky, in particular, aims to develop tools and content moderation systems consistent with European Union law, providing a solid foundation for the growth of independent European social platforms. According to these initiatives, investing in and popularizing open and decentralized protocols is not a completely utopian project, but a strategic choice to strengthen the digital sovereignty of the continent. In practice, creating a social infrastructure based on free software would mean better protecting public discourse from external interference, giving citizens full control over the technologies that influence their daily lives and political choices. Achieving this, however, will require – beyond political will – targeted investments in a digital infrastructure designed to be open and pluralistic.
