By Aditya Sinha & Aasheerwad Dwivedi
The algorithmic internet functions as a new form of structural power, one that refuses the neutrality of silence. In the absence of institutional frameworks of data sovereignty, informational vacuums are not left empty but are algorithmically populated with affect like rage, conspiracy, and despair. Such emotions generate the highest returns in the attention economy. This dynamic fundamentally alters the conditions of the public sphere. For Nepal’s Gen Z, whose political awakening is mediated almost entirely through digital platforms, the question is no longer simply about the right to speak but about the architecture within which speech circulates.
The Case for Digital Sovereignty
When platforms that monopolise discourse are governed extra-territorially, democracy cedes control over its communicative infrastructure to actors indifferent to its stability. Free speech, in such a context, risks becoming a simulacrum—formally preserved, yet substantively distorted. The preservation of liberty in the digital age thus demands that sovereignty be re-conceptualised to include jurisdiction over data and platforms.
There are four key impacts of the monopolisation of any platforms under a country. The first impact is the destabilisation of the public sphere itself. In classical democratic theory, the public sphere is sustained by institutions that guarantee both access to information and the conditions for rational-critical debate. When those functions are ceded to transnational platforms, discourse is no longer governed by norms of truth-seeking or accountability but by metrics of engagement. This creates what Hannah Arendt warned of—the substitution of opinion for truth—where factual authority collapses and politics becomes a contest of narratives untethered from reality. In many fragile democracies, such dynamics accelerate polarisation, transforming civic dissent into spectacle rather than deliberation.
Second, the absence of data sovereignty displaces the locus of power. The state, nominally sovereign, finds itself subordinated to what Foucault might call a new dispositif of control, an assemblage of platforms, codes, and protocols that define the parameters of discourse. Here, sovereignty is exercised not through laws and constitutions, but through content moderation algorithms, opaque community guidelines, and extraterritorial corporate policies. Gen Z activists may believe themselves to be asserting agency, but their very visibility is contingent upon algorithmic amplification, one that they neither design nor govern.
Third, free speech itself risks becoming a simulacrum. Formally, individuals remain free to speak; materially, their utterances are subsumed within algorithmic hierarchies that determine what is heard and what is buried. This condition recalls Jean Baudrillard’s notion of simulation, where appearances of freedom conceal deeper structures of control. In many cases, viral slogans and memes circulate widely, yet their circulation often reflects platform incentives rather than democratic intentionality. What masquerades as unmediated expression is in fact deeply mediated, raising the question of whether liberty without sovereignty is liberty at all.
Finally, there are profound generational consequences. For Gen Z, political consciousness is being forged in an environment where the boundaries between speech, surveillance, and manipulation are blurred. Their mobilisation reveals both resilience and fragility—resilience in their ability to deploy digital tools for dissent and fragility in their dependency on infrastructures that remain foreign and unaccountable. If the state fails to reclaim authority over its digital commons, it risks producing a generation of citizens whose very modes of thought and action are pre-scripted by global corporations rather than democratic institutions.
Global South’s Role in Shaping Norms
For smaller states, the assertion of digital sovereignty is constrained by structural dependencies on foreign-owned infrastructures—hyperscale cloud providers (AWS, Azure, Google Cloud), dominant social media platforms (Meta, X, TikTok), and proprietary mobile ecosystems (Apple iOS, Android). These dependencies translate into asymmetries of jurisdiction, since the data of Global South citizens is routinely processed under US or Chinese legal regimes rather than domestic law. The consequence is a form of extraterritorial governance by code—algorithmic curation, content moderation, and data monetisation practices are determined abroad, with limited recourse for affected states.
Therefore, the Global South must serve as a normative pedestal to articulate the principle that data sovereignty is integral to democratic self-determination. In multilateral forums such as the United Nation’s Global Digital Compact, the World Trade Organization’s Joint Statement Initiative on E-commerce, and regional blocs like the African Union or Association of South East Asian Nations, southern states can collectively insist that informational flows be recognised as falling within the ambit of sovereignty under international law. This collective voice is vital for countering the structural power of US-based technology monopolies and for ensuring that emerging global norms do not remain the preserve of Euro-Atlantic regulators.
Yet, global advocacy alone is insufficient. Without strong national legislation, sovereignty remains rhetorical. It is at the level of domestic law that states must transform principles into enforceable rights. Countries must draft statutes that not only assert jurisdiction but also create supervisory authorities with real powers of audit, sanction, and adjudication.
Six elements are central for this exercise. First, comprehensive data protection laws that guarantee rights of access, portability, and erasure, with constitutional status must be enacted. Second, legislations must be formed for algorithmic transparency and independent audits of recommendation systems. Third, data localisation with safeguards should be mandated, ensuring critical data sets are processed domestically and subject to national jurisdiction. Fourth, due-process rights for users should be embedded, including judicially reviewable takedown and de-platforming procedures. Fifth, independent regulatory commissions empowered to levy penalties, order disclosures, and enforce compliance need to be established. Sixth, cross-border transfer rules allowing data to flow only to jurisdictions offering reciprocity and equivalent legal protections must be incorporated.
In the Global South, liberty cannot survive if speech is left hostage to digital monopolies. Digital sovereignty grounded in strong national law is the only firewall against algorithmic rule.
Sinha writes on macroeconomic and geopolitical issues & Dwivedi is assistant professor at FMS, Delhi University.
Disclaimer: Views expressed are personal and do not reflect the official position or policy of FinancialExpress.com. Reproducing this content without permission is prohibited.