When I look out the window on these February mornings, it is there again, covering everything: dense fog. For me, it is a symbol of the blur that has compromised social reality for years. Behind the curtain of fog, contours dissolve. Connections become indistinct, and structures can only be guessed at.
People have always had an awareness of power structures. But with the rise of global platform capitalism, much has changed: power has become increasingly scalable, data-driven, infrastructural, and less visible to outsiders. It no longer operates solely through classic hierarchies, but through interfaces and market logics. Power has shifted into digital ecosystems and toward proprietary standards.
For a long time, public discourse barely addressed how this power is concretely organized or how its networks create economic and political dependencies. Nor did it ask who ultimately benefits from these dependencies. It was assumed that state institutions, large corporations, and international actors operate within reliable rules. That oversight exists. That responsibility is upheld. That someone, somewhere, is paying attention.
Now there is gradual movement behind the wall of fog, because many are beginning to realize: this is not the case. With all these implicit assumptions, we have stepped onto thin ice, and we are noticing that our previous certainties no longer hold. For example, the assumption that violence and discrimination are structurally countered, and that freedom, equality, and legal certainty are stable constants of everyday life - and always will be.
All-pervasive networks
What is now emerging behind the mist is an astonishingly dense and intertwined network of abuse of power, exploitation, violence, greed, and systemic inequality. Since the Epstein revelations, we have seen how privileged actors can operate undisturbed within exclusive networks for years. Political figures such as Trump, but also global technology corporations that were entangled in the Epstein system, further reinforced these structures.
Big Tech corporations such as Bill Gates’ Microsoft have, through their products and platforms, penetrated not only markets but entire administrative systems, educational infrastructures, and governmental processes. From this, digital dependencies have emerged that concentrate power, control, and decision-making capacity in an unprecedented way in the hands of a few. In many public administrations, Microsoft solutions are now deeply embedded: workplace software such as Word, Outlook, or Teams dominates daily operations. More than 90% of German public authorities work with Microsoft software, according to recent research on the digital dependencies of German authorities.
Once the fog has cleared, we will recognize that politics, business, and technology are no longer separate spheres. They are part of the same structure, in which power and dependency are interwoven. Anyone who understands this will recognize the urgency of exposing the mechanisms of these networks and regaining control. Control over data, platform logics, algorithms, monetization models, and ownership structures. What is at stake today is nothing less than fundamental rights, freedom, and sovereignty.
The political debate on digital sovereignty reflects a real, measurable challenge. In August 2025, for example, Heise Online reported on an interview conducted by the German Press Agency (dpa) with the President of the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI), Claudia Plattner. She was quoted as saying that Germany’s dependence on cloud solutions, AI models, and other technologies from abroad cannot be overcome in the near future. Germany, she stated, cannot use its digital systems and data “for the time being without input from outside the European Union, as we have dependencies in many areas.”
A recent example illustrating the downsides of these dependencies came from the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague: after Microsoft blocked the email account of a chief prosecutor in connection with U.S. sanctions, the court responded with a strategic shift to open-source software from Germany, as reported in this article. This serves as a symbolic example of how technology policy and geopolitical realities intersect.
These contradictions reflect how deeply technological decisions are embedded in political and administrative structures. The choice between “convenience” and “digital sovereignty” is ultimately not merely a technical matter. It involves social, economic, and security dimensions.
Between reality and aspiration: What comes next?
The developments of recent years show that the debate on digital sovereignty in Germany and Europe is no longer merely academic. It is becoming concrete: in existing projects, in political decisions, in procurement processes, and in strategic partnerships. At the same time, the reality remains complex. Germany, for example, is still heavily dependent on foreign solutions, and even the national security authority considers digital sovereignty difficult to achieve in the medium term.
Open-source associations such as the Open Source Business Alliance (OSBA) or Netzpolitik.org warn that political promises to promote free software have so far been implemented insufficiently and call for stronger strategic prioritization and binding funding programs.
The challenge lies in channeling the energy of the debate into concrete strategies. What does that mean? For example: increased funding for open standards, binding procurement guidelines for sovereign IT, targeted training for public authorities in free software, and coordinated European infrastructure development. And, of course: public awareness, education, information, and accessible alternatives for all.
The state of ambiguity regarding Europe’s digital infrastructure is over. The political debate has begun to make actual dependencies visible and, at least in part, to initiate first steps toward renewed digital self-determination.
What must now happen concretely
The question is no longer whether digital dependencies exist. The question is whether we are willing to transform them structurally. Digital sovereignty does not arise from appeals, but from decisions. And these decisions must be binding.
Public procurement must become strategic
Federal, state, and municipal authorities should be required to systematically evaluate open standards and open-source solutions in new procurements and to select proprietary solutions only if technical equivalence cannot be demonstrated. “Public Money, Public Code” must not remain a slogan; it must be embedded in procurement law.
Data and infrastructure must be placed in European hands
Critical administrative data should be operated exclusively on infrastructures that are legally and technically subject to European jurisdiction. This requires the development and long-term financing of European cloud capacities — not as pilot projects, but as core pillars of public infrastructure.
Digital competencies must become part of public service obligations
Public authorities need their own technical expertise to understand, further develop, and, if necessary, operate software independently. A lack of internal know-how creates ideal conditions for dependencies and lock-in mechanisms. This applies not only to proprietary solutions, but also to open-source ones.
Transparency about dependencies
There must be a public register of critical IT dependencies of government institutions, similar to energy or raw materials monitoring. Who depends on which providers must not remain a side issue.
European cooperation instead of national fragmentation
Digital sovereignty is not a German project, but a European one. Shared standards, shared data centers, and shared investment funds for foundational technologies are prerequisites for scaling beyond individual national markets.
And again: this is not exclusively about technology. It is also about regaining structural control and reclaiming sovereignty over data flows, software architectures, interfaces and contracts.
Technological sovereignty is not a condition that can be achieved once and then checked off. It is an ongoing political and societal task.
Taking this task seriously means exchanging short-term convenience for long-term capacity to act. It means finally recognizing technical infrastructure for what it has always been: the material foundation of our democracy.