First steps | Decidim

Decidim, a Technopolitical Network for Participatory Democracy

This Open Access book explains the philosophy, design principles, and community organization of Decidim and provides essential insights into the platform.

Interoperable Sovereignty: The Democratic Alternative to Digital Authoritarianism

A Democratic Architecture for the Digital Age Digital sovereignty has become a central concern for governments worldwide, yet its meaning remains contested. Too often it is framed as...

Digital Democracy in Decentralised Autonomous Organisations

Decentralised autonomous organisations (DAOs) are institutional technologies that enable democratic governance innovation. They inherit key democratic principles such as procedural transparency and immutable records from being based on blockchain technology. This paper conducts a systematic literature review to examine governance mechanisms and challenges of digital democracy in DAOs. While issues like power concentration and coordination failures exist in current implementations, we argue that the concept of DAOs offers new opportunities for transparent governance and participatory decision-making. As testbeds for governance experiments, we find that DAOs have the potential to reshape democratic processes and foster innovative governance models in the digital era. Calling for interdisciplinary collaboration, further research is needed around Sybil-resistant voting mechanisms, ideological path dependencies and deliberation mechanisms.

Data-owning Democracy or Digital Socialism?

This article contrasts two reform proposals articulated in recent debates about how to democratize the digital economy: data-owning democracy and digital socialism. A data-owning democracy is a political-economic regime character-ized by the

Direct Democracy | The Paper Pilot

The Paper Pilot's digital garden of thoughts on philosophy, politics, and sociology

The “De” In “Decentralization” Stands For “Democracy”

There’s a certain dark irony in watching tech billionaires who built their empires on the “democratizing power of technology” now actively working to dismantle democratic institut…

Democratic digital infrastructure for civil society · Theta

How civil society and Danish foundations can support digital democracy

Motivating The Case for Decentralized Social Identity: Part One

RadicalxChange Foundation is an international nonprofit advancing participatory governance for the age of AI, championing Plurality to keep human agency and democratic participation at the wheel.

Computing, Complexity and Degrowth : Systemic Considerations for Digital De-escalation

Research on digital degrowth predominantly critiques digital expansion or presents alternative digital practices. Yet, analyzing the link between digital technologies and complexity is crucial to overcome systemic obstacles hindering digital de-escalation. This article presents the different types of links between complexity and computing observed in the literature: the infrastructural complexity inherent in digital technologies, the socio-political complexity induced by them, and finally, the ontological complexity (individual’s ways of relating to their environment) hindered by digitization. The paper explores these links to identify ways to reduce infrastructural and socio-political complexities, and to move away from the reductionist paradigm, in order to support digital degrowth. Its development shows that complexity induces ratchet effects (i.e. irreversibilities in the development of a technique in a society), rendering degrowth efforts difficult to handle by individuals. Therefore, strategies to overcome these barriers are proposed, suggesting that bottom-up simplification approaches stand a greater chance of making alternatives emerge from different stakeholders (including users). This digital shift assumes the development of methods and technical tools that enable individuals to disengage from their attachments to digital habits and infrastructure, opening a substantial field of study.

Decentralized Moderation | The Paper Pilot

The Paper Pilot's digital garden of thoughts on philosophy, politics, and sociology

Digital Sovereignty

The term “digital sovereignty” has become an integral part of current political discourse. Across party lines and administrative levels, there is consensus: Being digitally sovereign is desirable and important. However, it often remains unclear what it actually means to be digitally sovereign and how this desirable state should be achieved.

Fractured reality

The report examines the evolving impact of digital technologies on European democracy. In an era of a global struggle to control the information space, this report offers critical insights into the fracturing of perceived realities, the rise of the ‘fantasy-industrial complex’, and the systemic risks posed by the attention economy. It exposes how platforms algorithmically prioritise engagement over accuracy, reinforcing ideological echo chambers and amplifying mis- and disinformation that erode democratic resilience. The report highlights how structural incentives and foreign control of the most important players in the information space undermine information integrity, collective knowledge and civic discourse. In response, the report presents a number of recommendations from fostering alternative public spaces and crowd-sourced knowledge systems to reforming business models, restoring user agency, and advancing EU digital sovereignty through decentralised infrastructure

New Project to Tackle the Challenge of Scaling Democratic Innovations | CoP CC on Participatory and Deliberative Democracy

The “Missing Link” between Research and Society

Sovereignty and Landscape | Simon Wardley | 15 comments

X : What is digital sovereignty? Me : I was asked that question by some friends within Government at the beginning of this month. I know some have been working on the idea, which is very encouraging, but I gave my tuppence worth of a definition. "Digital sovereignty is a country's ability to make its own decisions about the technology it uses, the data it creates, and how digital systems work in service of its people rather than being forced to accept choices made by other entities. This requires continuous situational awareness of the economic and technological landscape to anticipate changes, maintain strategic advantage, and shape international digital norms. Digital sovereignty is achieved through strategic control over critical digital assets and relationships, extending from public sector systems to the broader digital ecosystem affecting citizens and economic interests." The key is choice. You are sovereign if you retain the ability to make your own decisions rather than being forced to accept the decisions of others. This doesn't mean you need to own the entire tech stack, or all the data but you do need to maintain control over critical assets and relationships. This can be achieved by many means not just by conflict with others but through co-operation and collaboration (i.e. all the forms of competition matter). You also can consciously compromise, accepting some loss of sovereignty in one space to gain sovereignty in another. Anyway, I quite like the Mike Bracken description https://lnkd.in/eFjzcAdr "Digital sovereignty is the agency and capacity of any organisation to make intelligent, informed choices to shape its digital future by design". I used to do a lot of work on sovereignty many years ago, so if you want to know more about my view and how to achieve this, well I have a series of hopefully useful but somewhat introductory posts. Sovereignty and Landscape https://lnkd.in/eku2X_Ea Societal versus Market benefit https://lnkd.in/eXxkCv-K Whose interests are you serving? https://lnkd.in/eAgHS5wc | 15 comments on LinkedIn

From Brussels Template to UK Tailoring: How the DMCCA Is (Re)writing the Rules for Big Tech - The Platform Law Blog

By Dr. Konstantina Bania The UK has built a “rival” to the EU’s Digital Markets Act – and it is now starting to use it. Under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act (DMCCA), the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is moving from abstract principles to concrete, platform‑specific rules for some of the most powerful […]

AI, Decomputing and the Interregnum

This paper treats AI as diagnostic for the deeper changes taking place in the existing order of things. It uses AI's alignment with both the political economy and with the dualisms that underpin it, including race, gender and anthropocentrism, to highlight the nihilistic character of the current restructuring. AI's scaling and accelerationism are taken as examples of the wider tactics being invoked by hegemonic power to maintain control under changing conditions. From this perspective, the massive build-out of data centres isn't simply a seizure of energy resources but a manifestation of an aggressive and misogynist technopolitics. The paper argues that a liberal push for digital sovereignty doesn't interrupt these dynamics but plays into the hands of emerging technofascism. It proposes instead the prefigurative tactic of 'decomputing', which draws on degrowth, deautomatisation and a convivial approach to technology. It explores decomputing as a means to mitigate both material and relational harms and as a decisive turn towards infrastructuring the common good. The paper concludes that AI is the contradiction that reveals many others, not least the gap between claims to legitimacy and the actuality of destructive violence, and proposes an alternative technopolitics of reciprocity that prioritises care and sustainability.