Brutkey

Giacomo Tesio
@giacomo@snac.tesio.it

@jwildeboer@social.wildeboer.net

Ok, sorry.

Let's replace "Bullshit." with "What you wrote is so obviously false and so much misleading that it doesn't seem written in good faith. Yet let's assume you have just been fooled by BigTech marketing and propaganda, and let's try to show you the issues in your reasoning."

Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange:
@jwildeboer@social.wildeboer.net

@giacomo@snac.tesio.it And now you are accusing me of having a hidden agenda? OK. For the sake of clarity, I have added the working definition for Digital Sovereignty I use in my blog post. It's from https://policyreview.info/concepts/digital-sovereignty

Giacomo Tesio
@giacomo@snac.tesio.it

@jwildeboer@social.wildeboer.net

Where did I mentioned any "hidden agenda"?
Tbh, I don't even care if you have one. I was just commenting on your misguided overconplicated framework.

You tried to argue that actual digital sovereignty is impractical with a reduction to absurdum "in a pure paper based society".

Such a comparison is wrong on so many levels, and so obviously wrong, that it doesn't seem in good faith.

Also, the whole #OCT construction seems designed to blend the very concept digital sovereignty so that it doesn't exclude it's opposite, allowing digital #colonialism from #USA #BigTech to endure.

Obviously you might intend something completely different, but if the outcome of your resoning is compatible with any #BigTech to keep accessing data not generated in the #USA, it's in steer contraddiction with #DigitalSovereignty.

Unless, obviously, the whole world is just a US colony, as #Trump might in fact argue.