I have been warning about the term "digital sovereignty" and how it is right-wing coded and probably can't be salvaged for non-right-wing politics.

[siroj42@troet.cafe]

@tante I've been thinking the same. Digital sovereignty as a term is also very amenable to becoming digital campism, where technologies are preferred just because they are from the EU. Also this: https://troet.cafe/@Siroj42/116080748677182334
Whether it's the sovereignty of a king or "the people", I'd prefer a world without it!

[bsdphk@fosstodon.org]

@tante

I insist on calling it "Digital self-determination" for that and other reasons.

[mxalba@blahaj.zone]

@tante@tldr.nettime.org

Would digital independence be better?

[computersandblues@post.lurk.org]

@tante this isn't just about words and terms though, is it? if there's a perceived threat and the nation state is the legitimate sovereign, the response most likely becomes nationalist. if the logic of global trade gets shaken and the organizational units are nation states, the response very easily becomes nationalist.

[dar@mastoart.social]

@tante

I'm going to play devil's advocate for a minute.

1) words can be used by anyone, and a word such as sovereignty isn't right wing/fascist at all. It's just a word, with a meaning, used by people of all stripes.

2) Look at the Q bit of LGBTQ..... Words CAN be reclaimed, even when they are 100% pejorative. Trust me on this, I'm one of the ones who reclaimed it.

3) It's not unusual for fascists to use the word 'and' too. Should we all drop that as well?

[sanityinc@hachyderm.io]

@bsdphk @tante "Digital self-sufficiency" would work nicely too

[jakob@pxi.social]

@tante That's prescriptivist linguistics and I'd rather not cede ground on the very thing the term "sovereignty" denotes in an area of political contention.

Popular sovereignty is hard coded into the very first article to define and limit the power of the state in Art.20 of German Basic Law after all, as messy as that foundation is for political equity. I want to deliberate *who* holds sovereignty over the digital domain, rather than play word games. And I want that sovereignty to be equitable.

[heretohinder@mastodon.sdf.org]

@jwildeboer @tante definitely adopting that! I've had a couple of arguments/chats already where I've tried explaining why the "digital sovereignty" thing doesn't sit well by me, but autonomy vs sovereignty is much more succinct.

[computersandblues@post.lurk.org]

@tante what i'm trying to say is that there's a real, material contradiction at the heart of this. the projects of "national sovereignty" are all about lessening international dependencies and strengthening national economies here in the eu, because it makes sense economically as one available strategy. i don't know if i have to say this, but obviously it's not one i'm in favor of. and luckily it's not simply and only nationalist because the strategy involves some nods towards open standards and open source software (& hardware?), and hopefully that's enough of a wedge

[kim@social.gfsc.studio]

@hamishcampbell @tante

i don't think the entire concept of soverignty is one to cede, which really just asks about the relationship between legal governance and technology. there's great work being done by e.g. the Iwi Maori on this front. of course the right have their own nationalistic take on this but for me the really liberal thing is to kinda pretend countries and borders dont exist (esp whilst doing our work on stolen land)

Te Mana Raraunga

Our Data, Our Sovereignty, Our Future

Te Mana Raraunga (www.temanararaunga.maori.nz)

[mr_e@infosec.exchange]

@dar

@tante

You are not wrong, but I get the impression that this is to widen potential vocabulary so the concepts cannot be monopolized. To open the question of, "What do you really mean by that?"

Consider a counter example. (I read your bio and I'm sorry it's an american example - it's just the best one I have at this time in the morning)

When someone from rural Missouri says, "Those city folks." As code for negatively talking about black folk from St. Louis. It doesn't mean the words are bad words by themselves. It mean that person is dog whistling to other racists and that is important context to understand under the surface. Recognizing and questioning intent is important.

Typically the easiest way to undermine someone doing this is to ask, "which people?" It's stupidly simple, but can completely change group dynamics by someone backing off racist intent or doubling down. Which then clues in people who were not hearing this underlying context.

[audunmb@todon.nl]

@tante yes and no. Same goes for all kinds of politics based on sovereignity. You can't have a democratic state without a sovereign state, or democracy without some sort of popular sovereignity. Escaping nationalism is difficult when it's the basis for our modern political world.
How we should understand terms like popular sovereignity, democracy, states, nations and sovereignity are difficult political questions, and they lend themselves to both left-wing and right-wing interpretations. I think it is worth fighting over the interpretations rather than leave the terms to the right wing interpretations.

[ee@mastodon.nl]

@tante we don’t have to allow the right to hijack this word. The mere fact that they began using it doesn’t mean it’s a bad word all of a sudden, if you ask me.

[sl007@digitalcourage.social]

@tante

To
@sovtechfund
any opinions about the fascists naming their Kleines-Blümelein-Foundation "Sovereignty Foundation"?
I mean, about probably being interchanged with the Nazi Tech branch?
It is pretty common that Nazis try to steal established codes and codices.
You should react …

[ee@mastodon.nl]

@fabio @tante I think it very much is a progressive project. It’s the American corps that show fascistic tendencies.

[ee@mastodon.nl]

@sl007 @tante @sovtechfund how do you suppose they react? It’s a difficult thing. I do not think that stopping to use the term is the solution, it’ll give the right (or any camp for that matter) the idea they can snatch all terminology at will.

[ahltorp@mastodon.nu]

@jakob As a linguist, I would say you are wrong. It’s not a prescriptivist argument, it’s a descriptive one.

What @tante does is providing arguments for what the connotation for a certain word is. A prescriptivist argument would be that it’s ”wrong” in itself, or that you ”can’t” use it.

A descriptive linguist would probably be more careful not to appear to pass judgement, but I can’t find any explicit judgement even in this post, only implied.

[theonedoc@tech.lgbt]

@algernon @tante of course, it's nationalism. Nationalism is a right wing idea.

[ahltorp@mastodon.nu]

@jwildeboer @tante I always thought that the use of ”sovereignty” was meant to get right-wing people to react to the threat, because they care about the nation state, and it uses language that is meaningful to them.

It’s a difficult balance between getting them on board, but not having them take over.

[namnatulco@sueden.social]

@computersandblues @tante I would argue that "strengthening national economies" is a nationalist perspective, though. It may not necessarily be a bad thing - see locally sourced food - but it's at least something to be aware of. In the same way that when using "digital independence", we should always ask "independent from whom?"