The figure of the serf, emblematic of the European feudal system, represents a paradigm of economic and social dependence rooted in the bond to the land and in subordination to the lord's power. Although not legally a slave, the serf was deprived of the freedom to independently dispose of his own work and the fruits of his activity, systematically confiscated by the feudal lord.
In the ecosystem of the contemporary digital economy, this age-old dynamic is reproduced through more sophisticated but structurally analogous morphologies. Content creators, digital micro-entrepreneurs, and active users on social platforms generate economic and social value on a daily basis within proprietary digital spaces, controlled by corporate entities that hold a monopoly on infrastructure, distribution algorithms, and, crucially, access to public attention.
Far from embodying a neutral space of freedom and participation, this system configures an environment characterized by profound asymmetries, where the user assumes the paradoxical dual role of producer and consumer, without however possessing any substantial right of ownership or governance over the platform he uses. Algorithmic and commercial dependence progressively erodes the autonomy of creators, relegating them to the condition of workers at the service of an invisible master who can unilaterally redefine the conditions of access, visibility and remuneration.
On a democratic level, the consequences of this architecture of power are profound and pervasive. The algorithmic mediation of content, combined with the imperative of maximizing engagement and commercial profiling, irreversibly compromises the public and pluralistic nature of information. Access to the digital public sphere no longer responds to criteria of social relevance or information quality, but to market logics and opaque technological choices, frequently inaccessible to the understanding of the users themselves. In this scenario, freedom of information is transformed into a simulacrum governed by mechanisms that privilege polarizing, emotionally charged or sensationalist content, inexorably eroding the space for conscious and informed public deliberation. Information is thus reduced to a commodity administered by private actors, freed from any public responsibility or democratic constraint.
This socioeconomic analysis is intertwined with a geopolitical and strategic dimension, systematically underestimated in the public debate. The vast majority of the dominant platforms in the digital ecosystem – from social infrastructures to research infrastructures, up to integrated communication systems – belong to non-European entities, responding to governance logics, regulatory frameworks and economic interests of other geopolitical areas, mainly the United States and, increasingly, China.
These platforms, while operating within sovereign territories such as the European Union or Italy, escape real democratic control by the communities that use them. Their regulatory architectures, algorithms, and data and visibility management policies do not emerge from negotiation processes with citizens or local institutions, but are imposed vertically by actors operating on a global scale. This configuration not only erodes the information sovereignty of states and communities, but exposes entire societies to the risk of technological and cultural dependence on exogenous paradigms, often incompatible with the constitutional, social, and cultural values of the countries in which they take root. In other words, not only are content and information governed by private interests, but the very infrastructures of public and private communication undergo a process of "colonization" by external powers that exercise a form of economic, political, and cultural influence without comparable historical precedents.
In a multipolar world, the ability to develop and govern autonomous digital platforms, aligned with the regulations and democratic values of the communities of reference, has become a crucial issue of national security and strategic sovereignty. This issue, however, transcends the mere economic or legal dimension to touch one of the most sensitive areas of contemporaneity: the cognitive domain, or the ability to shape collective perceptions, behaviors and opinions through the systematic control of information and communication platforms.
Governing algorithms, information flows and digital environments means exercising a power that goes beyond the technological sphere, to the point of shaping the reality perceived by millions of individuals. Those who hold control of the platforms not only determine what is visible and what remains invisible, but define the cognitive frames, the hierarchies of attention, the collective emotions and, ultimately, the narratives that guide public debate and fundamental democratic choices. From this perspective, the cognitive domain represents the advanced frontier of competition between global powers and between opposing economic interests. Delegating such power to foreign subjects or to corporations that operate outside of any democratic constraint is equivalent to giving up a constitutive element of the cultural, political and social sovereignty of a community. It is not yet too late to start "thinking" that this system must be the object of some reflection, if the values of democracy are still dear to us, the alternative is to become digital serfs.
