In this article, I want to delve into that idea. As several speakers have proposed, the creation of a centralised X clone by the European Union, although it may seem attractive, does not address the fundamental problems of social media governance or the centralisation of powers.

In this article, I seek to look at the needs of the future from a critical perspective, to analyze how to face the challenges ahead, without neglecting the principles of citizen participation, equality and social justice. Instead of accepting solutions imposed by elites or large corporations, we will study projects that allow a more equitable distribution of power and resources, offering information for collective and transparent decision-making.

I invite you to reflect. What future do we want to build in the digital world? What can we do to put people (and digital rights and well-being) at the heart of decisions?

The problem of centralisation

An EU-sponsored platform could offer a safe and democratic alternative to today’s commercial social networks. Centralisation, however, is a centralisation, even under a public institution such as the EU. This model does not solve structural problems of social networks such as the lack of transparency in moderation and the inability to participate in the design of such moderation, the manipulation of algorithms or the exploitation of personal data.

It would be more efficient and ethical to opt for decentralisation so that users have greater control over their data and moderation is transparent and participatory. This includes the ecosystem of federated platforms based on free software that allow users to interact through different instances without relying on a central authority. These instances can manage themselves and apply their rules, and as far as the issue of digital spaces is concerned, that strengthens power.

Moving towards technological sovereignty (assuming it goes beyond geopolitics)

Technological sovereignty goes beyond geopolitics; from a democratic point of view, it means that people have to say what they have to say in the development and use of technologies that affect their lives. In a democratic context, technology should be an instrument of education and empowerment that allows citizens to participate actively in decision-making and in the creation of a digital environment that reflects their values and needs. This means that platforms are needed that prioritize transparency and accountability in a distributed way, ensuring that technology is accessible and at the service of the community.

Collective empowerment in technology is reflected, inter alia, in the ability of communities to self-organize and demand control of technical resources. This includes not only the creation of digital solutions adapted to local reality (in geopolitical terms), but also the promotion of a technological education that allows people to develop critical skills. In other words, the objective of technological sovereignty should not be to remove power from one another so that other giants gain that share of power, but to return that power to the people. By promoting a culture of collaboration and participation, we can develop technologies that respond to our specific challenges, rather than being subject to solutions imposed from outside.

Individually, technological sovereignty gives people the right to manage their data and to exercise real control over their privacy. This is fundamental to protecting dignity and personal autonomy in an increasingly digitized world. Making informed decisions with technology: actively and critically, able to demand a digital environment that respects the rights of each and promotes digital well-being.

Thus, technological sovereignty is a fundamental pillar for radical and participatory democracy.

Decentralised Fedibertso option

ActivityPub is a communication protocol designed to be used on decentralized social networks that allows different platforms to interact freely and federally. This and other standards allow users from different communities and software to share publications and comments and follow other people without the need to limit themselves to centralized networks.

The main advantage of ActivityPub is that it promotes a more open and democratic digital environment where each community has greater control over its values, data and privacy. Platforms compatible with this protocol, like Mastodon or Peertube, can communicate with each other by creating an ecosystem of interconnected networks, the so-called fedibertso. This does not coincide with technological giants, which act centrally.

The Fediverso offers a genuine democratic solution to the problem of centralised social networks. Instead of relying on a single company or entity, users can join different instances, each managed by independent communities, but interacting. Thanks to this federated structure, users maintain their sovereignty, and the need to trust the central authority collapses.

This model based on decentralization, in addition to promoting greater diversity in the norms and approaches of communities, ensures that personal data are not under the control of large corporations or governments. Instead of a ‘European clone of X’, we should promote the use and dissemination of the fedibertso as an open, free, democratic, plural and inclusive social network.

Free software as a fundamental pillar

One of the biggest benefits of free software is that it allows distributed auditing. Rather than blindly believing that a central authority will manage the platform ethically, anyone with adequate knowledge can review the code and make sure the platform works properly. This approach is fundamental to building social networks that truly respect the different rights of users.

Free software is essential to ensure that they remain a fediverse, inclusive and equitable one. If we want the social networks of the future to be transparent and accountable, we need to build them on foundations that the community can monitor, improve and maintain. Only in this way will we ensure that these platforms reflect the values of freedom, autonomy and democracy.

For these decentralised platforms to be sustainable in the long term, it is essential to rely on free software. In a centralized system, it is much more difficult (almost impossible) to see how data is used or how content decisions are made; in a network based on free software, as I explained above, this audit is distributed and accessible to the whole community.

Technological sovereignty is fundamental in this context, as we are at the mercy of the owners of centralised platforms and services, giving control of our digital interactions to organisations that do not have the best interests. On the contrary, with free software and decentralized platforms, we regain control, ensuring participatory and democratic decision-making on technology and governance. This is especially important in the digital age, where information and data are one of the most valuable resources.

In addition, free software promotes the local economy, as it allows companies and communities to develop, adapt and maintain technological solutions without relying on expensive licenses from suppliers or proprietary software abroad. Being free and affordable, local companies can customize the software according to their specific needs, promoting innovation and local job creation, as developers and environmental technicians can participate in the implementation and support of the software. Likewise, the use of free software favors the growth of a local technological ecosystem, generating business opportunities around consulting, development and training services, thus boosting technological autonomy and the local economy.

Ensuring the sustainability of Euskera and other languages

Languages like Euskera are constantly struggling to survive in the digital world. In fact, they dominate the main languages, such as English and Spanish. At least, they try. Giving a preferential place to languages such as the Basque language on the social networks of the future is essential to ensure linguistic and cultural diversity. Decentralized social networks recognize that importance, offering all of them a loudspeaker instead of silencing millions of people.

Social networks have a great capacity to influence and construct identity. Given that the main languages are prioritized, they reinforce the idea that they are the only languages that have validity or importance in the digital space. However, by creating tools that promote the use of minority languages, in addition to broadening inclusion, the vitality of these languages is reinforced, contributing to their protection in the digital environment.

I believe that the Basque country must also be involved in technological debates and their technical implementation. If we want an inclusive and decentralised social network, because that network must extend to all languages and cultures, and not reproduce the exclusion dynamics that leave certain languages at a second or third level.

The truly democratic platform must be a space for listening and valuing all voices, regardless of the language in which they are expressed. To this end, the decentralised social networks of the future must continue to make an active effort to adapt their technologies and policies so that they can accommodate linguistic and cultural diversity. Only in this way will they be able to promote more inclusive communication and more representative photography in the world.

It should be noted that in practice, everything mentioned in this block has been implemented in different instances of the fedibertso-fechosa that speak almost entirely in Basque. These decentralized platforms, in addition to recognizing the importance of Euskera in the digital sphere, also prioritize its use, enhancing its visibility and empowerment. Thanks to the collaboration in initiatives such as Abaraska, we are creating and maintaining spaces for the flourishing of the Basque language and culture, guaranteeing today a solid and active presence of the Basque Country in the digital environment of the future.

If you collaborate in the momentum, we can be even more.

Stop relying on advertising and put mental health at the heart of the dialogue

Social networks generate revenue by selling the time and attention of users to advertisers and are designed to maximize user participation at all costs.

They've created reward dynamics based on the number of likes and followers, encouraging addiction and polarization. As decentralized social networks advance, it is essential, as so far, to prioritize mental health and rethink its structures to promote a healthier and more constructive dialogue.

If we manage to design networks that put people and their well-being at the centre, we will take an important step towards a healthier and more constructive society.

A possible path has been opened (and for now the last word).

Everything I've explained in this article, or at least most, exists. It is not an unattainable chimera, but a possible utopia, a horizon that we have to begin to pass. Tools, technologies and communities are in place, and now we have to add wills and continue to build that path. Far from being a distant ideal, it is a reality that flourishes, that we see spread in different spaces, and our challenge is to grow and consolidate that reality.

Many people we've seen grow X have also seen it fall, but instead of losing the illusion, it's pushed us to build something better. We've created decentralized spaces where the people who make up the communities have the power of them, not the big corporations and opaque algorithms. These new spaces reflect a more democratic and inclusive model in which individual voices have real weight and control is in the hands of those who actively participate. It's the first step of a fairer social network where the community decides.

Therefore, the proposal to develop an “X clone” may have good intentions, but, as I explained, the creation of a centralized platform does not solve the deepest problems of social networks. We are committed to solutions based on decentralisation, transparency, the horizontal participation of citizens and free software. I have tried to show that Fedibertsoa offers a viable alternative that promotes technological sovereignty and ensures the collective supervision and governance of the social networks of the future.

It is time to rethink the role of public institutions in the governance of social networks. Because I think we're late. But we cannot make the mistake of perpetuating the centralised structures that have proved to be problematic and not responding to the interests of the citizens. If we want to build an inclusive, democratic and transparent digital space, we must do so from free software and community participation. Yes or yes.

Finally, I would like to recommend a few readings to better understand technological sovereignty and free software. Richard Stallman’s book “Free Software for a Free Society” delves into the philosophy behind the free software movement and its importance for collective autonomy. In addition, Simona Levi “Democratic digitalisation. Digital sovereignty for people” addresses much better than I do the technological sovereignty that I have addressed in this article. Finally, we should read Marta G carefully. “Networks are ours” by Franco, also in the free software community, because we have something to reflect on.

These books can enrich the debate on building a more inclusive and fair digital future. And that's what I want with this article.

Thank you for reading so far.