I have been warning about the term "digital sovereignty" and how it is right-wing coded and probably can't be salvaged for non-right-wing politics.
-
I'm going to play devil's advocate for a minute.
1) words can be used by anyone, and a word such as sovereignty isn't right wing/fascist at all. It's just a word, with a meaning, used by people of all stripes.
2) Look at the Q bit of LGBTQ..... Words CAN be reclaimed, even when they are 100% pejorative. Trust me on this, I'm one of the ones who reclaimed it.
3) It's not unusual for fascists to use the word 'and' too. Should we all drop that as well?
You are not wrong, but I get the impression that this is to widen potential vocabulary so the concepts cannot be monopolized. To open the question of, "What do you really mean by that?"
Consider a counter example. (I read your bio and I'm sorry it's an american example - it's just the best one I have at this time in the morning)
When someone from rural Missouri says, "Those city folks." As code for negatively talking about black folk from St. Louis. It doesn't mean the words are bad words by themselves. It mean that person is dog whistling to other racists and that is important context to understand under the surface. Recognizing and questioning intent is important.
Typically the easiest way to undermine someone doing this is to ask, "which people?" It's stupidly simple, but can completely change group dynamics by someone backing off racist intent or doubling down. Which then clues in people who were not hearing this underlying context.
-
I have been warning about the term "digital sovereignty" and how it is right-wing coded and probably can't be salvaged for non-right-wing politics.
The German fascist party AfD now created a European foundation to push their fascist politics further. The name: "Sovereignty Foundation".
Even though tactically it might feel like it makes sense to use the term to get funding, you are integrating right wing politics into your thinking and speaking.
@tante yes and no. Same goes for all kinds of politics based on sovereignity. You can't have a democratic state without a sovereign state, or democracy without some sort of popular sovereignity. Escaping nationalism is difficult when it's the basis for our modern political world.
How we should understand terms like popular sovereignity, democracy, states, nations and sovereignity are difficult political questions, and they lend themselves to both left-wing and right-wing interpretations. I think it is worth fighting over the interpretations rather than leave the terms to the right wing interpretations. -
I have been warning about the term "digital sovereignty" and how it is right-wing coded and probably can't be salvaged for non-right-wing politics.
The German fascist party AfD now created a European foundation to push their fascist politics further. The name: "Sovereignty Foundation".
Even though tactically it might feel like it makes sense to use the term to get funding, you are integrating right wing politics into your thinking and speaking.
To
@sovtechfund
any opinions about the fascists naming their Kleines-Blümelein-Foundation "Sovereignty Foundation"?
I mean, about probably being interchanged with the Nazi Tech branch?
It is pretty common that Nazis try to steal established codes and codices.
You should react … -
@tante That's prescriptivist linguistics and I'd rather not cede ground on the very thing the term "sovereignty" denotes in an area of political contention.
Popular sovereignty is hard coded into the very first article to define and limit the power of the state in Art.20 of German Basic Law after all, as messy as that foundation is for political equity. I want to deliberate *who* holds sovereignty over the digital domain, rather than play word games. And I want that sovereignty to be equitable.
@jakob As a linguist, I would say you are wrong. It’s not a prescriptivist argument, it’s a descriptive one.
What @tante does is providing arguments for what the connotation for a certain word is. A prescriptivist argument would be that it’s ”wrong” in itself, or that you ”can’t” use it.
A descriptive linguist would probably be more careful not to appear to pass judgement, but I can’t find any explicit judgement even in this post, only implied.
-
@tante FWIW, Hungary's Fidesz (also a far-right fascist party) is also a big champion of (national) sovereignty. So are many other right-wing parties of the Patriots of Europe group of the EU Parliament.
Heck, AfD - along with a bunch of other parties even further to the right - are part of the Europe of Sovereign Nations Group.
That word is very, very right-wing coded indeed.
-
@tante I also played with "digital sustainability" but ultimately autonomy feels better. It is a bit more aggressive, especially in Germany with their history of Autonome, which I find a good thing, actually. And in German Digitale Souveränität always sounded "gestelzt" to me.
@jwildeboer @tante I always thought that the use of ”sovereignty” was meant to get right-wing people to react to the threat, because they care about the nation state, and it uses language that is meaningful to them.
It’s a difficult balance between getting them on board, but not having them take over.
-
@tante what i'm trying to say is that there's a real, material contradiction at the heart of this. the projects of "national sovereignty" are all about lessening international dependencies and strengthening national economies here in the eu, because it makes sense economically as one available strategy. i don't know if i have to say this, but obviously it's not one i'm in favor of. and luckily it's not simply and only nationalist because the strategy involves some nods towards open standards and open source software (& hardware?), and hopefully that's enough of a wedge
@computersandblues @tante I would argue that "strengthening national economies" is a nationalist perspective, though. It may not necessarily be a bad thing - see locally sourced food - but it's at least something to be aware of. In the same way that when using "digital independence", we should always ask "independent from whom?"
-
@tante yes and no. Same goes for all kinds of politics based on sovereignity. You can't have a democratic state without a sovereign state, or democracy without some sort of popular sovereignity. Escaping nationalism is difficult when it's the basis for our modern political world.
How we should understand terms like popular sovereignity, democracy, states, nations and sovereignity are difficult political questions, and they lend themselves to both left-wing and right-wing interpretations. I think it is worth fighting over the interpretations rather than leave the terms to the right wing interpretations. -
@sanityinc @bsdphk @tante Digital Autarky?
-
You are not wrong, but I get the impression that this is to widen potential vocabulary so the concepts cannot be monopolized. To open the question of, "What do you really mean by that?"
Consider a counter example. (I read your bio and I'm sorry it's an american example - it's just the best one I have at this time in the morning)
When someone from rural Missouri says, "Those city folks." As code for negatively talking about black folk from St. Louis. It doesn't mean the words are bad words by themselves. It mean that person is dog whistling to other racists and that is important context to understand under the surface. Recognizing and questioning intent is important.
Typically the easiest way to undermine someone doing this is to ask, "which people?" It's stupidly simple, but can completely change group dynamics by someone backing off racist intent or doubling down. Which then clues in people who were not hearing this underlying context.
-
@tante I think it's more than just the term. Replacing American corporations with corporations of a different nationality is not a progressive project. That's what the liberal elites mean when they say "digital sovereignty" and it's fully compatible with fascist concepts of sovereignty.
-
I have been warning about the term "digital sovereignty" and how it is right-wing coded and probably can't be salvaged for non-right-wing politics.
The German fascist party AfD now created a European foundation to push their fascist politics further. The name: "Sovereignty Foundation".
Even though tactically it might feel like it makes sense to use the term to get funding, you are integrating right wing politics into your thinking and speaking.
@tante To be clear, are you talking about the Sovereign Tech Agency and Sovereign Tech Fund, or something different?
-
I have been warning about the term "digital sovereignty" and how it is right-wing coded and probably can't be salvaged for non-right-wing politics.
The German fascist party AfD now created a European foundation to push their fascist politics further. The name: "Sovereignty Foundation".
Even though tactically it might feel like it makes sense to use the term to get funding, you are integrating right wing politics into your thinking and speaking.
@tante I agree! Digital independence is a better term imho
-
I have been warning about the term "digital sovereignty" and how it is right-wing coded and probably can't be salvaged for non-right-wing politics.
The German fascist party AfD now created a European foundation to push their fascist politics further. The name: "Sovereignty Foundation".
Even though tactically it might feel like it makes sense to use the term to get funding, you are integrating right wing politics into your thinking and speaking.
@tante what do you think about this argument by @pluralistic in https://pluralistic.net/2026/01/01/39c3/ ?
"And what's got me so excited is that we've got a new coalition in the War on General Purpose Computers: a coalition that includes the digital rights activists who've been on the lines for decades, but also people who want to turn America's Big Tech trillions into billions for their own economy, and national security hawks who are quite rightly worried about digital sovereignty."
-
I have been warning about the term "digital sovereignty" and how it is right-wing coded and probably can't be salvaged for non-right-wing politics.
The German fascist party AfD now created a European foundation to push their fascist politics further. The name: "Sovereignty Foundation".
Even though tactically it might feel like it makes sense to use the term to get funding, you are integrating right wing politics into your thinking and speaking.
@tante
In the USA, data sovereignty is what indigenous peoples are aiming for, reclaiming data stolen by colonial powers, restoring access to the rightful owners.Sounds like it means something different in Germany. I think this just varies by geographic location and context.
Or maybe the definition is morphing here and I haven't noticed...
-
@tante To be clear, are you talking about the Sovereign Tech Agency and Sovereign Tech Fund, or something different?
@matt No, I am talking about the political strategy/meme that is very dominant these days
-
I insist on calling it "Digital self-determination" for that and other reasons.
-
I have been warning about the term "digital sovereignty" and how it is right-wing coded and probably can't be salvaged for non-right-wing politics.
The German fascist party AfD now created a European foundation to push their fascist politics further. The name: "Sovereignty Foundation".
Even though tactically it might feel like it makes sense to use the term to get funding, you are integrating right wing politics into your thinking and speaking.
@tante Good discussion, and thank you for pointing that out. I hadn’t realised this at all until now, partly because I don’t associate the AfD with expertise in digital matters, and partly because for me, the term is used more in a foreign policy context to highlight our dependence on the US for software products and digital services.
From a human rights perspective, Digital Autonomy is a good term, but perhaps there is another term that fits even better.
I would be very grateful for one, because as a German open-source company, politically opposed to the AfD, we are currently seeing a lot of interest in alternatives (among other things) to US products and the DS term is working well. But naturally we wish to avoid terms that are inappropriate or have right-wing connotations. -
@tante FWIW, Hungary's Fidesz (also a far-right fascist party) is also a big champion of (national) sovereignty. So are many other right-wing parties of the Patriots of Europe group of the EU Parliament.
Heck, AfD - along with a bunch of other parties even further to the right - are part of the Europe of Sovereign Nations Group.
That word is very, very right-wing coded indeed.
@algernon @tante it's core terminology from Carl Schmitt, if you're interested in who first made it a big thing theoretically. Schmitt was sort of the Third Reich's philosopher. Other ideas he championed include stuff like "politics is the distinction between friend and enemy" and "war is the continuation of politics with different means". Very right-wing stuff indeed.
-
You are not wrong, but I get the impression that this is to widen potential vocabulary so the concepts cannot be monopolized. To open the question of, "What do you really mean by that?"
Consider a counter example. (I read your bio and I'm sorry it's an american example - it's just the best one I have at this time in the morning)
When someone from rural Missouri says, "Those city folks." As code for negatively talking about black folk from St. Louis. It doesn't mean the words are bad words by themselves. It mean that person is dog whistling to other racists and that is important context to understand under the surface. Recognizing and questioning intent is important.
Typically the easiest way to undermine someone doing this is to ask, "which people?" It's stupidly simple, but can completely change group dynamics by someone backing off racist intent or doubling down. Which then clues in people who were not hearing this underlying context.
