Regulation is not enough. Today we need to plan a fairer digital ecosystem.

16 April 2025 By

Far from being a homogeneous process, the so-called global connectivity is actually a fragmented and layered process, where not all actors and not all geographies have the same access to digital technologies, nor can they collectively decide on its developments, nor do they experience its effects uniformly. Fragmented in the sense that access to and control over digital infrastructures vary depending on who and where; layered in the sense that digital itself has developed through a vertical architecture where those at the top of what Benjamin Bratton called the Stack decide much of the rules of the game for everyone else.

The European digital ecosystem has developed around two main axes: dependence on large US tech companies, and ex-post market regulation (against monopolies, to protect users-consumers).

This approach today faces a series of challenges that threaten its foundations for several reasons. The protectionist policies implemented by the new Trump administration and the increasingly political – at times authoritarian – posture of Big Tech could have direct repercussions on the European market. On one hand, digital services could become the centre of a trade war across the Atlantic; on the other, American tech companies increasingly show signs of resistance to regulatory attempts.

Moreover, in recent years, the need to rethink global supply chains has gained ground – a matter too often trivialized by the assertion that globalization is over. Regarding digital technologies, the European Union suffers from significant difficulties throughout the entire digital lifecycle – from sourcing raw materials, to producing advanced components like chips, to controlling data and services.

It is important to emphasize that this is due to specific industrial policy choices, both at national and European levels, which have created a structural dependence on large US tech companies. The recent debate on digital sovereignty, strategic autonomy, or securing value chains does not seem to fully grasp the international nature of the digital lifecycle or the scale needs – the so-called network effect – for the economic sustainability of digital services. In light of all this, it is clear that there are no easy solutions to these problems. However, two policy directions seem important.

The very concept of an alternative (to Big Tech) should not be taken for granted but requires in-depth work. What does “alternative” mean? Are we sure that building European digital champions is enough? Or should we rather identify forms of corporate governance and business models different from those of dominant tech companies? And how can we build this alternative? In Europe, there are few “native” digital infrastructures and many local sectoral experiences that could serve as a starting point for defining an alternative but also suffer from substantial fragmentation: how can we integrate them into a system? Clearly, in this perspective, market regulation alone is not enough. Planning is needed, that is, a medium-term industrial policy programming.

However, this top-down action would be completely insufficient if, at the same time, we did not also develop digital education programs and policies: what happens when we disperse our data? What are the logics of digital devices that we often use unconsciously in daily life? What rights do we have vis-à-vis tech companies? And according to which principles should we redesign the digital sphere?

Complex but unavoidable challenges if we want to build fairer digital ecosystems.

Maurilio Pirone, University of Bologna