Page updated on September First, 2025

Internet Sovereignty

The first and not least challenge that the Internet is already facing concerns its sovereignty. Should it (re)become national or remain transnational? This sovereignty is, however, as fundamental as that of health, education, defense, basic resources, or energy. In short, the Internet is not and should not in any case become the preserve of a minority of platforms.

Rigorously Evaluate the Ecological Impact of Cyberspace

At a time whenAI and the Metaverse are on many minds, it is more imperative than ever to take stock of the real impact of digital technology on our lives (nature and health), on government regulatory programs in this regard, and on the effective measures that are and will be taken by all professionals in Cyberspace, large and small, to prevent this major revolution of Humanity from turning into an ecological, political and social disaster.

Promote the end of anonymity between online publishers and users

The manager of a web platform must be held accountable under the Law of all the content he publishes, just as the editor-in-chief of a newspaper is. The legal arsenal already exists. There is therefore no point in embarking on a new wave of endless speculation about supposed legal loopholes.It is then a matter of engaging the responsibility of the citizen, who must understand, if they do not already know, that they obviously cannot behave in the street as they would on a web platform. Distance and relative virtualization in no way excuse the unleashing of violence, slander, or calls for murder.

Furthermore, the end of anonymity does not preclude the right to be forgotten, which should become an inalienable right as quickly as possible, enshrined in the Constitution of a democratic nation.

Lift the opacity of profiling

Anonymous profiling must stop. It's either a national issue of internal security, or governments are de facto complacent. In that case, it's one of the most serious violations of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or the 1789 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (France), since the end of World War II.

Put a definitive end to active and passive online violence

This seemingly chaotic violence is quite easily spotted and can be segmented. In reality, it can be considerably limited because it is completely predictable. The algorithms are currently either very insufficient or far too (and deliberately) limited.

Much greater human resources (public and private) must now be made available to intensify and refine moderation, on the sole condition that the platform managers know the identity of the users, who themselves have been clearly and legally warned. However, only the State can and must carry out identity verification. Under no circumstances is a private company entitled to do so. This sovereign privilege is, and must remain, the exclusive prerogative of the State.

Extrapolating the debate, it is more than urgent to determine who should now be responsible for the necessary education, in the broad sense, of citizens in today's democratic societies, in order to protect themselves against a toxic cyberspace.

Simplify the terms and conditions of use of digital solutions and products

The terms and conditions of use of websites or web apps must be simplified and clarified. No one should be forced to read dozens of pages, or it would be necessary to create two versions, one summarized but fundamental, the other more in-depth and detailed, which would remain optional.

Strengthening the protection of intellectual and industrial property

This thorny, even ideological, subject will never disabuse us of the belief that all serious work deserves remuneration. No one can unlawfully plunder what has been authentically created and developed in compliance with the law, by each of us. Everything free is nothing but a monumental deception. Nor can anyone appropriate or withhold what normally belongs in the public domain. A work by Goya, or at least the image it conveys, belongs to everyone, as long as it is in the public domain. Withholding knowledge and hindering its free dissemination therefore constitutes a crime against humanity.

Protecting Yourself Against the Internet of Denunciation

Is self-censorship bad news for the internet? Yes, as much as it is for social media. Democratic expression that would be voluntarily stifled... and this is a monumental loss for the quality of exchanges, the purpose of the Internet and, more generally, of Cyberspace.

On another note, favoring denunciation, except in cases of terrorist threats or serious imminent threats of any other type, is to rely abusively and dangerously on the non-citizen Internet user.

As for the induced, muffled and systemic denunciation of large national and international companies, once again the State, the sole holder of sovereign prerogatives, must fully play its role as regulator against all forms of discrimination.

No one can be above the laws.

The very real danger of "Big Brother" and oligopoly excesses

The connected world poses the problem of the disappearance of the free citizen, of their individuality, and worse, of their physical and mental integrity. A universal declaration of inalienable human rights has existed since 1948 (United Nations). Digital technology is no exception. It cannot therefore free itself from international treaties and conventions.

The final victory of the major platforms (GAFA)?

In the event of victory for what some consider to be the digital oligarchy, we risk the widespread impoverishment of the biodiversity of Cyberspace, the final killing of the concept of Net neutrality, and the confirmation of what many feared: a global coup d'état (the digital leash). Could we even speak, in this case, of a mafia-like drift?

The curse of "everything is false"...

We must reestablish the conditions for the restitution of factual truth, at all costs, by arming and educating citizen-users against all forms of manipulation.

Tracking down fake news is only one aspect of this fight. This phenomenon is not specific to the Internet and is not new. There are other threats of this nature, some of which emanate directly from governments.

The risk of major disaffection if the Internet becomes nothing more than smoke and mirrors is very real. Its credibility would be destroyed!

If the Internet definitively transforms into the Trojan horse that everyone has the right to fear, social exhaustion and weariness remain to be feared, as well as submission through wear and tear to it.

A societal (users and stakeholders) and political (governors and citizens) contract must be urgently proposed in order to restore trust and regulate practices.

Imminent Dangers

* The Internet remains a young technology today that continues to push back boundaries very, even too quickly, leading to the risk of major and brutal regulation by governments in the months and years to come.

* The ecological impact of IT, cyberspace, and mobile telephony is also another very important concern, both for all Web players and sovereign states.

* The different types of addictions caused by dependencies on digital practices risk disrupting the very biochemistry of the brain and the physiology of the human body in the very long term, a fact that no longer goes unnoticed by legitimate authorities responsible for public health.

* It is urgent to educate users at multiple levels to enable them to acquire digital maturity. The balance between reality and the virtual world must therefore become everyone's concern, especially for the youngest.

* From a generational perspective, the disappearance of the necessary work of memory in the medium and long term, in favor of what could be described as ultrashort memory, is another major concern.

To conclude, and as already stated above, the danger of a digital counter-revolution, motivated by the rejection of these new constraints, is entirely possible. It would consist, for example, in abandoning all forms of digital dependency, which would then be identified as definitively harmful, just as diesel engines in vehicles are.