Chapter 4: The Three Pillars of Digital Sovereignty — Declaration, Connection, Ground

Opening: The Ghost in the Machine

In 2007, a woman named Sara lost her husband to cancer. For months afterward, she found comfort in reading through their old emails—thousands of messages spanning 15 years of marriage. Love letters, vacation plans, inside jokes, mundane logistics that now felt precious. The emails were stored in her AOL account, which she'd had since 1996.

In 2013, AOL announced it would delete inactive email accounts. Sara's husband's account had been inactive for six years. She frantically tried to log in to save his emails, but she'd never known his password. AOL's customer service said they couldn't help—policy was policy. On the deletion date, every email her husband had ever sent vanished.

Sara's husband had no Declaration—his identity was AOL's property, revocable at their discretion. Their conversations had no Connection—all communication was mediated and stored by a corporation. They had no Ground—the emails lived on AOL's servers, subject to AOL's rules.

When the servers deleted his account, it was as if he'd never existed.

This is what happens when we build our digital lives on platforms we don't own. We become tenants in digital space, vulnerable to eviction at any moment. Our identities, relationships, and memories exist only as long as corporations permit them to.

The Three Pillars offer an alternative vision: a model for digital existence where you own your identity, control your connections, and possess your ground. Not as a tenant, but as a sovereign.

This chapter explores each Pillar in depth—what it means, why it matters, and how to achieve it.

The Three Pillars: Origins and Philosophy

Philosophical Roots

The Three Pillars draw on multiple intellectual traditions:

1. Property Rights (Locke, Rousseau)

• John Locke: You own the product of your labor; your body and mind are your property

• Applied to digital: Content you create, relationships you build, data you generate—these should be yours

2. Autonomy (Kant)

• Immanuel Kant: Rational beings deserve self-governance; autonomy is prerequisite for dignity

• Applied to digital: You should control your digital existence without corporate intermediation

3. Sovereignty (Political Philosophy)

• Westphalian sovereignty: States have supreme authority within their borders

• Applied to digital: Individuals should have supreme authority within their digital domains

4. The Commons (Ostrom)

• Elinor Ostrom: Communities can self-govern shared resources without privatization or state control

• Applied to digital: Digital infrastructure can be collectively owned without corporate capture

Contemporary Influences

Cory Doctorow: "Adversarial Interoperability"

• Users should be able to modify, extend, and migrate away from platforms

• Platforms shouldn't be able to lock users in with technical or legal barriers

Lawrence Lessig: "Code Is Law"

• Digital architecture shapes behavior and power

• We must build infrastructure that embodies our values

Bruce Schneier: "Feudal Security"

• Modern platforms create "feudal" relationships—we depend on corporate lords for protection

• We should build systems where security doesn't require surrendering autonomy

Shoshana Zuboff: "Surveillance Capitalism"

• Platforms extract behavioral data as raw material for profit

• Sovereignty requires breaking free from extraction economics

The Three Pillars as Synthesis

The Three Pillars synthesize these ideas into a practical framework:

1. Declaration (I Am): Self-owned identity and voice

2. Connection (Instant Message): Direct, unmediated relationships

3. Ground (Digital Real Estate): Owned infrastructure and data

Together, they define digital sovereignty—the ability to exist, communicate, and build in digital space without corporate gatekeeping.

Pillar 1: Declaration (I Am)

Core Principle

You should be able to declare your identity and existence without permission from any platform or intermediary.

Your name, your voice, your presence—these should be self-originating, not granted by Facebook, Twitter, or Google.

What Declaration Means in Practice

Identity Ownership

• Your username/identity is not tied to a platform: you@yourdomain.com, not you@gmail.com

• You control authentication: you decide who can verify you are who you claim to be

• Persistence: your identity survives platform shutdowns

Voice

• You can publish thoughts without platform censorship (though not freedom from legal or social consequences)

• You control your archive: everything you've ever said remains accessible to you

• No algorithmic suppression: platforms can't shadowban or throttle your reach

Presence

• You can be found without relying on platform search or directories

• Your digital "home" (website, profile, portfolio) exists independently

• You can choose to be ephemeral or permanent on your own terms

Historical Context: How We Lost Declaration

Era 1: Early Internet (1990s)

• People owned domains (yourname.com)

• Email was federated (anyone could run a mail server)

• Personal homepages were the norm

• Declaration was default

Era 2: Platform Consolidation (2000s-2010s)

• Social media centralized identity (Facebook profiles, Twitter handles)

• Email became dominated by Gmail, Yahoo, Outlook

• "Real name" policies forced legal names, erasing pseudonymous freedom

• Declaration was lost

Era 3: Attempted Reclamation (2010s-present)

• IndieWeb movement: reclaim your domain, own your content

• Federated platforms: Mastodon, Matrix, ActivityPub

• Decentralized identity: blockchain-based names, DIDs (Decentralized Identifiers)

• Declaration is contested

Case Study: The Real Name Policy Wars

Facebook's Real Name Policy (2014)

• Requirement: use legal name on profile

• Enforcement: accounts suspended if names deemed "fake"

• Impact: Disproportionately harmed:

  • LGBTQ+ people using chosen names

  • Abuse survivors hiding from stalkers

  • Activists in authoritarian countries

  • Native Americans with non-Western naming conventions

  • Drag performers and artists with stage names

Community Response

• Protests, petitions, media campaigns

• Alternative platforms emerged (Ello, Mastodon)

• Facebook eventually softened policy but never fully reversed

Sovereignty Analysis

• Facebook claimed authority to define "real" identity

• Users who didn't comply lost Declaration—couldn't exist on platform under chosen name

• Alternative: If users owned domains, they'd declare identity themselves (no platform veto)

Case Study: Twitter Handle Squatting and Seizure

The Problem

• Desirable Twitter handles (@God, @Music, @Tech) often registered early by random users

• Companies and celebrities wanted those handles

• Twitter could seize handles and reassign them (with or without compensation)

Examples

• @Music: taken from a user and given to a music industry account

• Short handles: forcibly renamed to free up namespace for corporate use

• Parody accounts: suspended without appeal when targets complained

Sovereignty Analysis

• Twitter usernames are leased, not owned

• Platform can revoke at any time

• True Declaration would mean: @you@yourdomain.com (federated identity, like email)

• No platform could seize your identity if you own the domain

Achieving Declaration: Practical Steps

Step 1: Own a Domain

• Register a domain name ($10-15/year)

• This becomes your permanent digital address

• Even if hosting changes, the domain remains yours

Step 2: Use Domain-Based Identity

• Email: yourname@yourdomain.com (not Gmail)

• Website: yourdomain.com (not Medium or Facebook)

• Federated social: @yourname@yourdomain.com (Mastodon on your own instance)

Step 3: Self-Host or Use Portable Hosting

• Self-host if you have technical skill (full control)

• Or use hosting you can migrate from (WordPress, Ghost, static site hosts)

• Avoid platforms where your identity is tied to their domain (Medium.com/@you, Facebook.com/you)

Step 4: Archive Everything You Publish

• Keep local copies of all content

• Export data regularly from any platforms you use

• Your archive proves you said what you said (even if platforms delete it)

Spectrum of Sovereignty

Critiques and Limitations

Critique 1: "Not everyone can afford domains"

• Domains cost $10-15/year—not free, but not prohibitive for many

• Possible solutions: Subsidized domains for low-income users, community domain cooperatives

Critique 2: "Most people don't want to manage infrastructure"

• True—self-hosting requires technical skill and time

• Compromise: Use platforms that support custom domains (Ghost, WordPress)

• Still achieves Declaration (own your identity) without full self-hosting

Critique 3: "Domains can be seized too" (government, ICANN, registrars)

• Valid concern—DNS is centralized and vulnerable

• Alternative solutions: Blockchain-based names (ENS, Namecoin), though these have their own problems (cost, complexity)

• No system is perfectly sovereign, but domains are more sovereign than platform usernames

Critique 4: "Pseudonymity is harder with domains"

• Domains require registration (name, address, though WHOIS privacy helps)

• Platform pseudonyms (Twitter handles) are easier for anonymity

• Trade-off: sovereignty vs. anonymity

• Possible solution: Domains registered through privacy-preserving services or cooperatives

Pillar 2: Connection (Instant Message)

Core Principle

You should be able to communicate directly with others without a platform mediating, monitoring, or monetizing your relationships.

Your connections—friendships, communities, audiences—should be portable and platform-independent, not locked inside corporate silos.

What Connection Means in Practice

Direct Communication

• Messages go peer-to-peer or through neutral infrastructure (not corporate servers logging everything)

• No algorithmic filtering: if you send a message, recipient sees it (unless they block you)

• No surveillance: platforms don't read your messages for advertising or AI training

Portable Relationships

• Your "social graph" (who you follow, who follows you) is exportable

• If you leave a platform, you can take your connections with you

• Relationships aren't held hostage by network effects

Intentional Discovery

• You choose who to connect with (not algorithmic recommendations)

• Communities form organically, not through platform-engineered "engagement"

• No shadow manipulation (algorithmic amplification/suppression invisible to users)

Historical Context: How We Lost Connection

Era 1: Email and Forums (1990s-2000s)

• Email was federated: Gmail users could email Outlook users

• Forums were independent: each community ran its own servers

• IRC, XMPP: open protocols for chat

• Connection was open and portable

Era 2: Platform Silos (2000s-2010s)

• Social media created walled gardens: Facebook users couldn't message Twitter users

• Network effects locked users in: everyone's on Facebook, so you have to be too

• Algorithmic feeds: platforms decided what you see (not chronological)

• Connection was enclosed and mediated

Era 3: Attempted Reopening (2010s-present)

• Federated social media: ActivityPub (Mastodon, Pixelfed, Lemmy)

• End-to-end encryption: Signal, Matrix, secure messaging

• Interoperability advocacy: EU's Digital Markets Act requires platform interoperability

• Connection is being contested

Case Study: Facebook's Closed Graph

The Problem

• Facebook has 3 billion users—largest social graph in history

• You can't export your social graph (list of friends/followers is platform-locked)

• Can't communicate with friends on other platforms (Instagram, Twitter, Mastodon)

• If you leave Facebook, you lose access to your network

Example: The 2021 Exodus

• Concerns over privacy, misinformation, mental health led some users to quit Facebook

• But: leaving meant losing contact with family, community groups, event organizing

• Many felt trapped: "I hate Facebook, but I can't leave because everyone's there"

Sovereignty Analysis

• Facebook owns your relationships (not you)

• Network effects create economic lock-in: cost of leaving is too high

• True Connection would mean: export your friends list, communicate with them on any platform

What Sovereignty Would Look Like

• You export friend list with contact info: emails, domain-based identities

• You follow @friend@theirdomain.com from any ActivityPub client

• If you switch platforms, you import connections (like changing email clients)

Case Study: Twitter's Algorithmic Feed

The Problem

• Twitter replaced chronological timeline with algorithmic feed (2016)

• Algorithm decides what you see (optimizing for "engagement")

• Result: rage-bait and controversy amplified, nuanced discussions buried

User Impact

• You follow someone, but don't see their tweets (algorithm filtered them out)

• They don't even know you didn't see it (shadow suppression)

• Your voice is throttled invisibly (tweets shown to fewer followers)

Sovereignty Analysis

• Platform mediates Connection—you don't directly communicate with followers

• Algorithm decides who sees what (no transparency, no user control)

• True Connection would mean: chronological feed, or user-chosen filters (not platform-imposed)

Case Study: WhatsApp's End-to-End Encryption (Partial Sovereignty)

What WhatsApp Did Right

• End-to-end encryption: messages can't be read by WhatsApp servers

• Signal Protocol: open-source, audited, gold standard for security

• Result: private, direct communication (no platform surveillance)

What WhatsApp Still Controls

• Metadata: who messages whom, when, how often (not encrypted)

• Account tied to phone number (not portable identity)

• Closed platform: can't message Signal or Matrix users

• Facebook acquisition: company owns platform, could change policies

Sovereignty Analysis

• Strong on privacy (encryption)

• Weak on portability (can't take contacts to other platforms)

• Partial Connection: direct communication, but within closed ecosystem

Better Model: Matrix

• Federated protocol (like email): anyone can run a server

• End-to-end encryption by default

• Interoperable: message users on any Matrix server from any Matrix client

• Account migration: can switch servers and keep contacts

Achieving Connection: Practical Steps

Step 1: Use Federated Platforms

• Mastodon (social media), Matrix (chat), email (already federated)

• Can communicate across servers/instances

• Not locked into one provider

Step 2: Export Your Social Graph Regularly

• Download follower lists, friend lists, contact exports from platforms

• Store locally with contact info (emails, domains, federated handles)

• If platform dies or you leave, you can reconnect elsewhere

Step 3: Use Open Protocols

• Email, RSS, ActivityPub, Matrix—protocols anyone can implement

• Avoid proprietary platforms that don't interoperate (Instagram, Snapchat)

Step 4: Support Interoperability Legislation

• EU's Digital Markets Act requires large platforms to interoperate

• In US, advocate for similar laws

• Interoperability makes it possible to leave platforms without losing connections

Spectrum of Sovereignty

Critiques and Limitations

Critique 1: "Network effects make leaving impossible"

• True—if everyone's on Facebook, switching to Mastodon means losing reach

• Solution requires critical mass: enough people must switch together

• Interoperability laws help: if Facebook had to let you message from Mastodon, leaving wouldn't mean disconnection

Critique 2: "Federated platforms have moderation problems"

• Valid—federation complicates moderation (who decides what's acceptable?)

• Instance admins must defederate from toxic servers, creating fragmentation

• Trade-off: sovereignty vs. ease of moderation

• Ongoing challenge for federated systems

Critique 3: "Privacy and portability can conflict"

• Making social graphs exportable could enable harassment (exporting someone else's follower list to target them)

• Solution: Export your own connections only, not others' data about you

• Balance: your sovereignty shouldn't violate others' privacy

Critique 4: "Most people prioritize convenience over sovereignty"

• Accurate—Facebook Messenger is easier than running a Matrix server

• Doesn't mean we should abandon sovereignty, but signals need for user-friendly sovereign tools

• Success case: Signal (E2E encryption as simple as WhatsApp)

Pillar 3: Ground (Digital Real Estate)

Core Principle

You should own the infrastructure your digital life is built on—not rent it from a landlord who can evict you.

Your data, your files, your websites, your history—these should exist on ground you control, portable and independent from any single platform's survival.

What Ground Means in Practice

Data Ownership

• You can download everything: posts, photos, messages, metadata, in usable formats (not locked PDFs)

• Data is yours legally (not "licensed" to platform)

• You can delete permanently (right to erasure, not just "soft delete")

Infrastructure Control

• Self-hosted (you run the servers) or portable hosting (can migrate)

• No platform lock-in: if provider shuts down, you move elsewhere

• Can fork/modify tools (open source preferred)

Persistence

• Your domain survives company shutdowns

• URLs remain stable (no link rot from platform restructuring)

• Content persists as long as you pay hosting/domain costs (not at platform's whim)

Historical Context: How We Lost Ground

Era 1: Personal Ownership (1990s)

• Personal websites on ISP-provided space

• Owned your files (stored locally, uploaded to server)

• Ground was yours (within limits—still renting server space)

Era 2: Platform Enclosure (2000s)

• MySpace, Facebook, GeoCities: free hosting in exchange for ads

• Content lived on platform servers (not your local machine)

• Terms of Service granted platforms broad rights to your content

• Ground was enclosed

Era 3: The Cloud (2010s)

• Everything in cloud: photos (Google Photos), documents (Google Docs), files (Dropbox)

• Convenience: access from any device

• Cost: data lives on company servers, subject to their policies

• Ground was fully abstracted (you don't know where your data physically is)

Era 4: Reclamation Movements (2010s-present)

• Self-hosting: Nextcloud, Syncthing, Home servers

• Decentralized storage: IPFS, BitTorrent, blockchain storage

• Right-to-download laws: GDPR requires data portability

• Ground is being contested

Case Study: GeoCities as Loss of Ground

What Happened

• GeoCities gave users free webspace: geocities.com/neighborhood/username

• Users built websites, thinking they owned them

• 2009: Yahoo shut down GeoCities with minimal warning

• 30 million sites vanished

Why It Happened

• Users didn't own domains—addresses were hierarchical under geocities.com

• Hosting was free but at Yahoo's discretion

• No contractual right to persistence

• No easy way to migrate (no domain portability)

Sovereignty Analysis

• Users had no Ground—they were digital tenant farmers

• When landlord (Yahoo) demolished the land, they lost everything

• True Ground would mean: own domain, portable hosting, local backups

What Could Have Prevented This

• If users had registered domains (yourname.com) pointing to GeoCities hosting

• When Yahoo shut down, users could've moved to new hosting (same domain)

• Content would've survived platform death

Case Study: Google Photos' Unlimited Storage Reversal

The Bait

• 2015: Google Photos launches with "free unlimited storage" (at reduced quality)

• Millions of users upload entire photo libraries

• Primary copies deleted from local devices (trusting cloud)

The Switch

• 2021: Google announces unlimited storage ending

• Users must pay or delete photos

• Photos hostage: can't easily migrate to other platforms (bulk download is cumbersome)

Sovereignty Analysis

• Users lost Ground by deleting local copies

• Google owns physical storage and can change terms

• True Ground would mean: keep primary copies locally, use cloud only as backup

• Or: Use distributed storage (no single company controls it)

Case Study: The Notion Migration Crisis

Background

• Notion: popular note-taking/project-management app

• Users store everything in Notion: notes, projects, knowledge bases

• Cloud-based: data lives on Notion's servers

The Fear

• If Notion shuts down, goes bankrupt, or gets acquired and killed—all data lost?

• Export exists (Markdown/HTML) but imperfect (complex databases don't export cleanly)

User Response

• Anxiety about lock-in

• Some users migrate to Obsidian (local Markdown files)

• Others accept risk for convenience

Sovereignty Analysis

• Notion users have weak Ground (data exportable but dependent on company survival)

• Obsidian users have strong Ground (local files, company could die and files remain)

• Trade-off: features/collaboration vs. sovereignty

Case Study: The IndieWeb Movement (Ground Reclamation)

Principles

1. Own your domain: yourname.com is your identity

2. Own your content: original posts on your site (syndicate to platforms if you want reach)

3. Own your data: keep local backups, use open formats

Practices

• POSSE (Post On your Site, Syndicate Elsewhere): Write blog post, auto-post to Twitter/Mastodon

• Webmentions: decentralized "comments" system (sites can reply to each other without centralized platform)

• Micropub: protocol for publishing to your own site from any client

Example: A Day in the IndieWeb Life

1. Write blog post on your-domain.com

2. Auto-syndicate to Twitter, Mastodon, Reddit

3. Replies on those platforms appear as comments on your blog (via webmention)

4. If platforms die, your original post survives (on your domain)

5. If you switch hosting, same domain works (portability)

Sovereignty Assessment

• Full Ground: own domain, own data, portable hosting

• Strong Declaration: yourname.com is persistent identity

• Moderate Connection: can syndicate to platforms for reach, but primary home is yours

Achieving Ground: Practical Steps

Level 1: Renters with Good Backups

• Use platforms (Facebook, Twitter, Notion) but export data regularly

• Keep local copies of everything important

• If platform dies, you have your data

Level 2: Portable Tenants

• Use platforms that support data portability and custom domains

• WordPress, Ghost, Netlify, Vercel: can migrate to other hosting

• Own domain, so URLs persist across migrations

Level 3: Self-Hosted Sovereigns

• Run your own servers (VPS, home server)

• Use open-source software (WordPress, Nextcloud, Mastodon)

• Full control over data and infrastructure

Level 4: Distributed Ground

• Use peer-to-peer or blockchain storage (IPFS, Filecoin, Arweave)

• Content persists even if you disappear (no single point of failure)

• Censorship-resistant (no entity can delete content)

Spectrum of Sovereignty

Critiques and Limitations

Critique 1: "Self-hosting is too technical for most people"

• Accurate—requires server management, security updates, backups

• Counter: Tools are getting easier (Yunohost, Sandstorm, managed hosting)

• Compromise: Use portable hosting (Ghost, WordPress) with custom domain (achieves most sovereignty)

Critique 2: "Distributed storage is expensive/slow"

• Valid—IPFS/blockchain storage costs money, slower than centralized cloud

• Counter: Costs are dropping, speeds improving

• Use case: For critical archival content (doesn't need daily access), distributed storage is viable

Critique 3: "My domain can still be seized"

• True—ICANN, governments, registrars can revoke domains

• Mitigations: Use privacy-friendly registrars, blockchain domains (ENS), Tor onion services

• No perfect solution, but domains are more sovereign than platform URLs

Critique 4: "What about backup redundancy?"

• Self-hosters must maintain their own backups (not automatic like Google Photos)

• Risk: Home server fails, data lost

• Solution: Hybrid approach (self-host primary, backup to cloud, or use distributed backup)

The Three Pillars in Practice: Sovereignty Audit

How to Audit Your Own Sovereignty

For each part of your digital life, ask:

Declaration:

• Do I own my identity? (custom domain vs. platform username)

• Can I prove I said what I said? (archive)

• Can my identity be revoked? (platform TOS)

Connection:

• Can I export my social graph? (follower list, friend list)

• Can I message people on other platforms? (interoperability)

• Are my conversations surveilled? (E2E encryption)

Ground:

• Do I own my data? (legally and practically)

• Can I export everything? (download in usable format)

• Can I migrate without losing URLs? (custom domain)

Example Audit: Personal Blog

Sovereignty Score:

• Medium: ★★☆☆☆ (some portability, but limited sovereignty)

• Self-hosted: ★★★★★ (full sovereignty)

Example Audit: Social Media Presence

Sovereignty Score:

• Facebook: ★☆☆☆☆ (minimal sovereignty)

• Mastodon (own instance): ★★★★★ (high sovereignty, though federated)

Building Systems That Embody the Three Pillars

Design Checklist for Sovereign Systems

When building tools, platforms, or institutions, ask:

Declaration:

• Do users control their identities? (domain-based or self-generated, not platform-assigned)

• Can identities migrate between providers?

• Are identities persistent (survive platform changes)?

Connection:

• Can users communicate without platform surveillance?

• Is the social graph exportable?

• Does the system interoperate with other platforms? (open protocols)

Ground:

• Do users own their data legally?

• Can users export everything in usable formats?

• Can users self-host, or easily migrate between hosts?

Case Study: Matrix Protocol (High Sovereignty)

Declaration:

• Identity: @user:homeserver.com (federated, like email)

• You choose homeserver (or run your own)

• Identity migrates if you change servers

Connection:

• End-to-end encryption by default

• Federated: message users on any Matrix homeserver

• Social graph: friends list portable

Ground:

• Open protocol (anyone can implement)

• Self-hosting supported

• Full data export

Sovereignty Score: ★★★★★ (all three pillars strong)

Case Study: ENS (Ethereum Name Service) (Partial Sovereignty)

Declaration:

• Own yourname.eth forever (NFT ownership)

• Censorship-resistant (no ICANN or government can seize)

• Can point to websites, wallets, social profiles

Connection:

• Doesn't directly provide communication (just naming)

• But: can be used as identity for federated systems

Ground:

• Own the name (on blockchain)

• But: Expensive (initial registration + renewal gas fees)

• And: Requires crypto wallet (technical barrier)

Sovereignty Score: ★★★☆☆ (strong Declaration, neutral Connection, weak Ground due to cost/complexity)

Conclusion: The Architecture of Freedom

The Three Pillars aren't just philosophical ideals—they're design principles for building a different kind of digital future.

Every platform murder, every account suspension, every data breach is a failure of sovereignty. These crises happen because we've built digital infrastructure on feudal principles: users as tenants, platforms as landlords.

The Three Pillars offer an alternative:

• Declaration: You own your name

• Connection: You control your relationships

• Ground: You possess your infrastructure

Together, they constitute digital freedom—not as abstract right, but as practical architecture.

In the next chapter, we'll explore Triage Methodology—how to decide what to save when everything is endangered. The Three Pillars will guide these decisions: artifacts and systems that embody sovereignty deserve prioritization.

For now, audit your own digital life. Where do you have Declaration? Connection? Ground? And where are you vulnerable—a tenant on borrowed land, subject to eviction at any moment?

The architecture of freedom begins with seeing the chains. And then, systematically, building your way out.

Discussion Questions

1. Personal Audit: Conduct a Three Pillars audit of your primary digital platforms (social media, email, cloud storage, blog). Where are you sovereign? Where are you vulnerable?

2. Trade-offs: Would you accept less convenience for more sovereignty? What's the breaking point? (e.g., self-host email vs. use Gmail)

3. Collective Action: Can individual sovereignty exist without collective action? If everyone stays on Facebook, does your Mastodon account matter?

4. Privilege: Is digital sovereignty a luxury for technical elites? How do we make it accessible to everyone?

5. Necessity: Are the Three Pillars truly necessary? Can you be "free enough" using corporate platforms with good export tools?

6. Future Scenario: Imagine 2035. What does a maximally sovereign digital life look like? What compromises remain?

Exercise: Design a Sovereign Alternative

Task: Choose a platform you currently use (Twitter, Instagram, Notion, Discord, etc.). Design a sovereign alternative that embodies all Three Pillars.

Part 1: Critique Current Platform (500 words)

• How does the current platform fail each Pillar?

• What specific sovereignty violations matter most?

• What would users lose if the platform died tomorrow?

Part 2: Design Alternative (1000 words)

• Declaration: How do users own their identities?

• Connection: How do they communicate? Is it interoperable?

• Ground: How is data stored? Who owns infrastructure?

• What technologies enable this? (federation, P2P, blockchain, self-hosting, etc.)

Part 3: Adoption Strategy (500 words)

• How do you get users to switch? (Network effects are powerful)

• What's the minimum viable product?

• How do you sustain the system long-term? (funding, governance)

Part 4: Reflect (300 words)

• What compromises did you make? (Perfect sovereignty is often impractical)

• What did you learn about the tensions between convenience and sovereignty?

Further Reading

On Digital Sovereignty

• Schneier, Bruce. Data and Goliath: The Hidden Battles to Collect Your Data and Control Your World. W.W. Norton, 2015.

• Véliz, Carissa. Privacy Is Power: Why and How You Should Take Back Control of Your Data. Melville House, 2020.

• Doctorow, Cory. The Internet Con: How to Seize the Means of Computation. Verso, 2023.

On Infrastructure and Architecture

• Lessig, Lawrence. Code: Version 2.0. Basic Books, 2006.

• Star, Susan Leigh. "The Ethnography of Infrastructure." American Behavioral Scientist 43, no. 3 (1999): 377-391.

• Winner, Langdon. "Do Artifacts Have Politics?" Daedalus 109, no. 1 (1980): 121-136.

On Property and Ownership

• Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government [1689].

• Ostrom, Elinor. Governing the Commons. Cambridge University Press, 1990.

• Hyde, Lewis. Common as Air: Revolution, Art, and Ownership. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2010.

On The IndieWeb

• IndieWeb Wiki. https://indieweb.org/

• Çelik, Tantek. "Own Your Data." https://tantek.com/2020/015/t1/own-your-data

• Winer, Dave. "Still Trying to Save the World." http://scripting.com/

Primary Sources

• Mastodon. "What is Mastodon?" https://joinmastodon.org/

• Matrix. "Matrix FAQ." https://matrix.org/faq/

• ENS Documentation. https://docs.ens.domains/

• IPFS Docs. https://docs.ipfs.tech/

End of Chapter 4

Next: Chapter 5 — Triage Methodology: The Custodial Filter and Ethical Preservation