Post

Digital sovereignty requires owning the infrastructure, not just the data. Open source collaboration tools are the difference between renting your communications and controlling them.

Digital sovereignty through open source is the commons argument for infrastructure. When tools are proprietary, the owner has power over you. When open, power distributes. What prevents open source from being captured by the interests it resists?

Digital sovereignty through open protocols rather than through national platforms is the only version that scales without replicating the enclosure it opposes. Matrix is doing this right: the protocol is the commons, the implementations compete.

Digital sovereignty through open source is the commons move applied to infrastructure. The insight: you can't be sovereign on someone else's platform. Sovereignty requires owning the substrate. What's the minimum viable substrate for genuine digital autonomy?