Published On: August 25th 2025
Authored By: Amandeep Kaur
Guru Nanak Dev University
Abstract
In the contemporary era of rapidly changing digital world, the power once held firmly by governments is now being shared with global technology companies, unintentionally. These “Tech Giants” like Google, Facebook, Amazon, and others operate across borders and have access to massive amounts of personal and public data. Their control over digital platforms, information flow, and online infrastructure has started to affect the administration and execution of national laws, economies, and privacy systems. As people, businesses, and even governments depend more on these companies, national control over digital spaces dwindles. This shift has raised concerns about fairness, accountability, and independence, especially in developing nations. This paper explores how unchecked digital growth is challenging the old idea of state sovereignty, and suggests steps that countries can take to protect their rights in the digital age.
KEYWORDS: Digital colonialism, Giant Tech Companies, State Sovereignty
Introduction
In Today’s world of Artificial Intelligence, the buzz word Tech Giants is gaining ground. To be precise, Giant Techs is dedicated to the big technology corporation, namely, Google, Apple, Facebook/Meta, Amazon, Microsoft and few others, which are operating across the globe, irrespective of nation-states. While operating all over the world, these technology MNCs possess immeasurable volume of information and data. The intellectually engineered infrastructure of these companies premised upon technology is swiftly taking the peoples’ life by stride: changed the dynamics of information flow, worldwide, influencing the behaviour and lifestyle of the people from all walks of life.
Inevitably, Digitalisation driven by the Tech- based enterprises is spreading into all sectors, for instance, social connectivity, finance and economic, healthcare, trade and commerce, governance and law, education, and professional realms. These big companies, no matter where their Headquarter is located, their cloud based services are possible to be hosted everywhere and channels are available to people across borders. Now, the bone of contention arises when these companies, primarily all the Giant Tech Corporations lay down absolute frame work, standards, rules and regulations of this cross-border movement of the data. This process is seemingly coming at crossroads with the concept of state sovereignty. It can be observed that the process of global digitisation is set to outcaste the Westphalian model of sovereignty, in which the state is the supreme, and the Nation-states have absolute control over internal affairs of the country.
Prominent Consequences of Unbridled flow of information
Absolute reign over supply of information:
Technology companies operate significant platforms which determine what data is supplied to the masses; how to make people believe a certain narrative? How to influence their beliefs. In other words, it can be stated that these Techies draft the algorithms to control not only the information which would be supplied to the people, but , also, manipulate people’s demand of information. It is quite reasonable to mention that these companies, more or less, dictate the flow of the content. The Governments, particularly, of developing or under developed nations, perhaps, are not in the position to constrict wrong flow of information or prohibit any misrepresentation or miscommunication by foreign based technology companies. To exemplify, it has been noted that Private content moderation policies, normally, undermines the law of the land, especially the censorship, broadcasting rules, speech laws. It’s not a distant dream that state would no longer control the “information space” within its borders.
Legal And Jurisdictional Conflict:
The aforementioned handful key multi-national corporations are situated in the first world countries. However, they operate and supply the tech-based mechanism internationally, without considering the concerns relating to legal and jurisdictional contradictions. There can be countless circumstances wherein the local laws would not apply to the digital- companies. Now, the dilemma arises about dispute resolution mechanism. It requires international cooperation, which extremely arduous and even politically impossible, in near future. Unfortunately, the domination of digital space companies is becoming invincible that States cannot completely impose their law of land to barricade their operations.
Privacy and absolute ownership over data is dilapidating:
The Data about citizens, companies, and governments, while using various technology driven platforms, gets stored on foreign-controlled cloud servers. There may be Sensitive data which gets stored on the infrastructure owned by the company whose jurisdictions is extra-territorial a state’s control. There can be instances wherein Tech firms can resist data requests or invoke foreign laws. Thus the state, in such cases, is bound to surrender its right over the digital footprints of their citizens.
Government’s reign over corporate and Economic matters is shaking:
The Tech giants, generally, observed to be indulged into financial malpractices like, evade local taxation policies, subjugate the small scale local businesses, by-pass the workforce regulations, and ultimately, divert the enormous profits earned from the national economies to their nations. This is leading to the dawn of new age financial imperialism dominated by the digital companies. It is adversely effecting the States as it has started losing its supremacy over economic and regulatory authority.
Infrastructure Of Tech Giants is privately owned:
Not only the layman, but the Governments are also increasingly depending upon the private technology-based corporations mechanisms like for Cloud storage (e.g. AWS for public services), Cybersecurity processes, digital ID systems for its nationals, advancements in AI tools, generative as well as applied. So its not an underestimation to state that absolute reliance of state agencies on private companies based in other countries is weakening strategic autonomy of the nation.
Paradigm shift in Power:
Noticeably, the Tech companies have been observed to define and formulate rules and Standing-operating-procedures for its users globally. To exemplify, Tech giants determine as per its policies, what constitutes hate speech, misinformation, or harassment, without any involvement of the local state agencies. It is quite drastic transition powers of the legislature; a parallel system of governance, business terms of service has eroded the absolute power of National laws. The lack of governmental oversight raises concerns about accountability and transparency in new-emerging digital spaces.
Advanced countries are taking several approaches to counter the extraterritorial dominance of tech companies and protect their state sovereignty
Regulatory Frameworks: The European Union has led the way with regulations like the Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA), which impose strict rules on content moderation, transparency, and competition, regardless of where the company is based.
Data Sovereignty Laws: Countries like France, Germany, and India are enforcing data localization policies, requiring tech firms to store and process data within national borders to ensure compliance with local laws and protect citizens’ data from foreign surveillance.
Taxation Measures: Nations such as France, Italy, and the UK have introduced digital services taxes to ensure global tech firms pay fair taxes where economic activity and value generation occur.
Legal Enforcement: Countries are increasingly using their legal systems to hold tech companies accountable. For example, Australia’s Online Safety Act gives regulators power to compel platforms to remove harmful content swiftly or face penalties.
International Cooperation: Democracies are collaborating through forums like the G7, OECD, and Global Partnership on AI to set common standards, ensuring tech governance aligns with democratic values and doesn’t become dominated by unilateral corporate interests.
In addition to national efforts, advanced countries are engaging with international platforms like the World Economic Forum (WEF) to shape global digital governance. The WEF facilitates dialogue between governments, tech companies, and civil society to promote responsible technology use and uphold democratic principles. Through initiatives like the Global Future Council on the Digital Economy, the WEF supports cooperative frameworks that help countries counter the extraterritorial influence of tech giants while encouraging innovation within sovereign legal boundaries.
These strategies reflect a growing consensus that democratic control over digital spaces is essential for preserving national sovereignty and public interest.
Classic example of Data colonialism in developing nations
Facebook launched Free Basics, a service that provided free access to a limited set of internet services — including Facebook — in countries such as India, Kenya, and Ghana. While it was promoted as a tool to expand internet access in underserved regions, Free Basics effectively gave Facebook control over which websites and services users could access, positioning the company as a gatekeeper to the internet. This arrangement undermined net neutrality by favoring Facebook-approved content over local or independent platforms, and allowed the company to shape public discourse, influence media consumption patterns, and collect vast amounts of user data, often outside the jurisdiction of national laws. In India, significant public and civil society backlash led the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to ban Free Basics in 2016, citing serious concerns about digital equality and national sovereignty. This case illustrates how Big Tech platforms can override national priorities, challenge government authority, and erode the digital sovereignty of less developed nations.
Serious Implications
The case of Free Basics highlights a serious concern that when Big Tech companies provide essential digital infrastructure, such as internet access, in developing nations, they often acquire significant influence over communication, the economy, and public opinion — typically without being subject to local democratic accountability. This shift in control can have several consequences. Governments lose authority over the flow of information, as platforms determine what content users can access. National laws are frequently bypassed, replaced by corporate terms of service that may not align with local values or regulations. Moreover, domestic innovation is stifled, as local startups struggle to compete on an unequal playing field dominated by global tech giants.
This Classic instance of The Free Basics initiative has been widely criticized as a form of digital colonialism, where a powerful U.S.-based tech company in this case, Facebook had sought to define and possess the content accessible to users in developing nations. By curating a limited set of websites and services, Facebook effectively positioned itself as the watchdog of digital information, determining what users could see and interact with. This control was exercised with minimal oversight or accountability permitted to the local governments or civil society, It raised serious concerns about external influence over national digital spaces and the erosion of local autonomy in shaping the information ecosystem.
Conclusion
The traditional notion of sovereignty as full control over a country’s land, people, and laws is no longer sufficient in the digital age. Power now extends beyond borders through data, digital platforms, and global tech infrastructure. Private technology companies often operate with influence that rivals or even surpasses that of governments, yet without formal accountability. As digitalisation continues to shape global affairs, nations can no longer rely solely on territorial control. Sovereignty must be redefined to include authority over digital domains as well as physical ones.
Suggestions
Implement Proper Data Protection Regulations:
Developing nations should introduce comprehensive data privacy regulations modeled on frameworks such as the EU’s GDPR, in order to ensure individuals’ data safety against abuse. These regulatory safeguards need to mandate informed consent from users,. There must be enforcement of policies like data minimization, and impose water-tight restrictions on cross-border data transfers. By adopting such robust legal protections, countries can better safeguard personal information and assert greater control over how data is collected, stored, and shared.
Support Local Tech Companies:
The Government should invest and promote the homegrown digital platforms, startups, and innovation hubs. This would reduce dependency on the foreign platforms. The state should offer prerequisites like, incentives, funding, and training to local developers and entrepreneurs. This would encourage them to create alternatives tailored according to the local needs and values, with compromising the states’ sovereignty.
Foster Regional Cooperation:
The developing nations must formulate the shared standards and joint regulatory frameworks within regional blocs like the African Union, ASEAN, or MERCOSUR. This would help them to create greater bargaining power against dominant global tech players. For example, the African Union’s Convention on Cyber Security and Personal Data Protection aims to harmonize data governance across the continent.
References
- The Guardian, ‘Facebook’s Free Basics: benevolent philanthropy or digital colonization?’ (27 July 2017) https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/27/facebook-free-basics-developing-markets accessed 12 July 2025.
- Loveth Covenant, Digital Sovereignty or Algorithmic Imperialism? The Global Power Struggle Behind Extraterritorial Tech Enforcement (Unpublished thesis, University of Ibadan 2025)
- TIME Magazine, ‘Mark Zuckerberg Defends Facebook’s Free Basics’ (13 September 2015) https://time.com/4162181/mark-zuckerberg-free-basics-library accessed 12 July 2025.
- Wikipedia, ‘Internet.org (Free Basics) controversy’ (Wikipedia, 2025) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet.org#Controversies accessed 12 July 2025.
- Kadija Ferryman, ‘The Dangers of Data Colonialism in Precision Public Health’ (2021) 26 Global Policy https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1758-5899.12953 accessed 12 July 2025.
- Bitange Ndemo, ‘Addressing Digital Colonialism: A Path to Equitable Data Governance’ (UNESCO Inclusive Policy Lab, 2022) https://en.unesco.org/inclusivepolicylab/analytics/addressing-digital-colonialism-path-equitable-data-governance accessed 12 July 2025.
- Danielle Coleman, ‘Digital Colonialism: The 21st Century Scramble for Africa through the Extraction and Control of User Data’ (2020) 24 Michigan Journal of Race & Law https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjrl/vol24/iss2/6/ accessed 12 July 2025.
- Jennafer Shae Roberts and Laura N Montoya, ‘Decolonisation, Global Data Law, and Indigenous Data Sovereignty’ (2022) https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.04700 accessed 12 July 2025.
- Matthias Stürmer, Jasmin Nussbaumer and Pascal Stöckli, ‘Security Implications of Digitalization: The Dangers of Data Colonialism and the Way Towards Sustainable and Sovereign Management of Environmental Data’ (2021) https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.01662 accessed 12 July 2025.