When Big Tech Becomes the State: A Debate on Power Imbalances and the Quest for Accountability

The last session of the First Day of 14th Point Conference was a debate on power imbalances and the quest for accountability in the case of big tech and society. 

The panel was moderated by Antonella Napolitano, an independent researcher and tech policy expert with over 20 years of experience. It brought together Soizic Penicaud, a researcher and AI policy specialist and a co-founder of the French Observatory of Public Sector Algorithms, and Divij Joshi, lawyer and researcher in Digital Societies at ODI Global to discuss accountability and power imbalances when it comes to big tech globally.

Panelists examined how governments are increasingly relying on digital technologies and private sector actors to deliver public services, as well as the implications this has for democracy, accountability, and citizens’ rights.

Opening the discussion, the moderator highlighted how relations between governments and major technology companies have become embedded in state processes. The conversation explored the rapid digitalisation of public services and the significant shift from traditional administrative systems to increasingly automated and data-driven models. While digital transformation is often presented as a solution to improve efficiency, panelists noted that these large-scale systems can also create new harms and deepen existing inequalities.

Soizic Penicaud focused on the impact of automated public systems, particularly in areas such as migration management and social protection. She explained that automated decision-making tools are often used to assess eligibility for social benefits and monitor vulnerable populations, including single mothers, people with disabilities, and other groups that rely on public assistance. Referring to examples from Serbia, she described how automated systems designed to determine eligibility for social benefits can reduce human contact between citizens and public institutions, ultimately leading to exclusions and errors that disproportionately affect the most vulnerable members of society.

Penicaud also emphasized the growing power imbalance between citizens, governments, and private technology providers. Citizens often do not fully understand how these systems operate, while governments themselves frequently lack the capacity to effectively negotiate with technology companies or scrutinize the systems being implemented.

“Government is not one single entity,” Penicaud explained. “It is made up of many sectors and actors, and it is important to recognize who is shaping these transformations and whose interests are being represented.”

She further warned about the increasing influence of private sector actors in public databases and digital infrastructure, as well as the aggressive marketing strategies used by AI companies to promote technological solutions. Referring to recent developments in Europe, she noted that governments are facing growing pressure to reshape public systems around emerging AI technologies, often without fully addressing questions of accountability or public oversight.

Discussing digital sovereignty, Penicaud argued that current debates often favor technologically advanced countries while overlooking less-resourced states. She stressed that governments remain legally responsible for public systems and should prioritize accountability and citizens’ rights. The challenge ahead, she said, is to advocate for fair and just public systems that serve citizens rather than technology providers.

Divij Joshi placed these developments within a broader historical, political, and economic context. He argued that many public institutions lack the capacity to manage rapid technological change and increasingly depend on public-private partnerships to implement digital systems. At the same time, large technology companies often possess greater technical expertise, resources, and influence than the states that rely on them.

According to Joshi, the discussion should not focus solely on technology itself, but on the values and ideologies embedded within these systems. He warned that decisions about healthcare, education, and social protection are increasingly being removed from democratic processes and placed in the hands of centralized authorities, whether public or private.

“The question is not simply about technology,” he said. “It is about who controls knowledge, resources, and decision-making power, and whose values are shaping public institutions.”

Joshi pointed to growing resistance in countries such as the United Kingdom, where citizens and advocacy groups have challenged attempts to introduce data-driven systems into public services without sufficient democratic oversight. He argued that the debate around AI and digital transformation is fundamentally connected to questions of political power and public accountability.

Addressing the concept of sovereignty, Joshi noted that discussions are often framed through a geopolitical lens, focusing on national security, foreign interference, and state borders. However, he argued that this framing risks creating a simplistic distinction between “good” local technology companies and “bad” foreign actors. In reality, he said, governments face significant challenges when dealing with multinational corporations whose influence extends far beyond national boundaries.

“You cannot simply nationalize companies like Google,” Joshi noted. “The challenge is to build local accountability systems that can protect citizens’ rights and democratic decision-making.”

He emphasized that sovereignty today should not be understood solely in terms of territorial control, but as the capacity of communities and institutions to make decisions based on local needs, local research, and democratic participation. Protecting privacy, safeguarding citizens’ rights, and maintaining local decision-making power are becoming increasingly important as digital systems reshape public life.

Concluding the discussion, both speakers agreed that the ongoing transformation is not simply a transition from analogue to digital systems. Rather, it represents a deeper shift in political and economic power. Without strong local institutions and accountability mechanisms, they warned, governments risk becoming increasingly dependent on large technology companies, undermining both democratic governance and public trust.

“If you do not have strong local systems,” Joshi concluded, “you will be eaten up by big tech. The challenge is not only digital sovereignty, but ensuring that sovereignty remains democratic, accountable, and focused on the public interest.”

Author: Rijalda Ramusović / Photo: Almin Tabak

(point.zasrone.ba)