Digital sovereignty: Unpacking the term

In July 2025, a mayor cyber-attack on Microsoft infrastructure occurred and according to the company was quickly fixed. Experts describedthe event as, "A critical zero-day in SharePoint, putting thousands of global organizations at risk." Sensitive data from German government organizations, but also telecommunications and software companies, was exposed, in some cases for several days.  

No wonder that, besides digital rights activists, a growing number of voices from parliaments and even CEOs from the defense industry have sounded the alarm about the increasing dependency on specific hardware and software solutions provided by big tech companies – most of them based in the US.  

Digital sovereignty – silver lining or inflated promise? 

The rise of artificial intelligence, internet shutdowns in countries such as Iran and new surveillance technologies have added fuel to the fire. This has equally startled media developers, since the co-creating and publishing of online content and trust-based communication with audiences is directly affected. 

Faced with de-facto monopolies on office software (Microsoft), opaque social media algorithms (X, Meta) and unilaterally governed internet providers (Starlink), governments, private enterprises and civil society thus share a wish for more "digital sovereignty." The concept, originally borrowed from political philosophy, calls for technologies that serve its users, not its shareholders.  

Applied to online spaces and its underlying technologies, it suggests that those using and shaping digital territories should also have a say on their designs and rules. And further, these users should be free from the unsolicited interference or interest of others, for instance when it comes to freely communicating or sharing news or ideas.  

And this is where the attraction of the claim for digital sovereignty comes into play. Its implicit promise is to not only describe a world falling apart but to provide the ground for resilient alternatives governed by clear and binding rules. 

But what does digital sovereignty look like when put into practice? Digital sovereignty as a concept has been interpreted differently by various actors, each according to their own agenda. Not all of them see civil society and collective actors – like media outlets – as active decision makers. So who are the key players involved, and what does their interpretation of digital sovereignty look like? 

Key actors: governments, private enterprises, civil society 

Governments often tend to position themselves as ultimate authorities in the planning, development and implementation of digital infrastructure. This became apparent during last year’s summit on European digital sovereignty. The definition of digital sovereignty here comes very close to "technological sovereignty" (see box). It follows a political framing, where non-state actors take a back seat behind governments, who serve as the primary authorities determining which digital tools may be used. 

Yet, from a media development perspective, this exclusive claim is problematic, because journalistic independence naturally includes the free choice of secure tools and the right to encrypt sensitive information. The protection of sources in investigative journalism has therefore always been at odds with state-source telecommunications surveillance (spy software), to name just one example. 

The goals that private enterprises project on digital sovereignty are likewise controversial. Unlike big tech companies, who position themselves as state-like digital rulers, smaller developers and service providers often present themselves as trusted local partners with alternatives to "foreign technologies." Cloud services, like Deutschland-Stack and EuroStack seem like appealing alternatives to US-based companies. 

Critiques point out that investment in and cooperation with such providers also lacks open-source approaches, such as a guarantee that private Germany-based providers would not be sold to companies outside the EU further down the line, as this would risk giving away public funding and sensitive data to third parties. 

A democratic approach towards digital sovereignty requires a strong agency of civil society. In sovereign democracies — be this a nation state or a self-governed indigenous community — the livelihood and public good of people should be guiding principles. Consequently, it is "the people" who should have the last word, through elections and/or collective decision making. The multistakeholder approach of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) of the United Nations has proven how digital territories can be co-governed more directly, despite all shortcomings and challenges.  

So what can media developers take away from this? 

Pretty much in line with the talks about digital sovereignty, current debates on a decentralized digital world –the post-naïve era – also center around the self-determination and data ownership of users and creators. That of course includes audiences, journalists and media outlets in all their diversity. In practice, this could look like offline media libraries; resilient communication channels with decreased dependency on internet providers; and community data centers with locally hosted services and sustainable AI solutions for content creation. 

Undeniably, there are many lose ends in the current debates but also promising voices that call media developers’ active participation. Media developers should uphold freedom of expression and journalistic values as defining features of our global society. They should do so while staying engaged in a critical dialogue with geopolitical and national agendas of technological sovereignty as they're intensifying their commitment to public interest infrastructure and resilient media ecosystems.  

One thing seems clear: simply using existing platforms and spreading news content on the shoulders of big tech giants without investing in resilient broadcasting infrastructure is a thing of the past. To make sure tomorrow's news will reach audiences and empower communities to inform themselves and communicate without restrictions, media developers will have to put on their walking boots and find new paths, tools and allies for sovereign media ecosystems as one critical part of truly democratic digital sovereignty.  

Nils Brock is Program Director for Latin America at DW Akademie.