pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.15767 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-17 · 💻 cs.HC

Searching for European Alternatives: Digital Sovereignty, Digital Patriotism, and the Emerging Geopolitics of Software Adoption

Advait Sarkar This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 08:18 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords digital patriotismdigital sovereigntysoftware adoptiongeopoliticstechnology choiceEuropean alternativesvalue rationality
0
0 comments X

The pith

Digital patriotism is emerging as a driver of software adoption, where Europeans choose local alternatives to support sovereignty even at the cost of functionality.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper argues that software adoption decisions now include an ideological dimension called digital patriotism, the personal counterpart to state efforts at digital sovereignty. Analysis of European government switches shows a clear shift after 2020, with later decisions citing geopolitical risks and local industry investment rather than only cost or vendor lock-in. Qualitative review of over 700 online comments reveals users and businesses expressing willingness to accept reduced features when the choice aligns with reducing foreign dependence. If this holds, technology selection in workplaces carries political weight beyond traditional utility calculations, extending adoption theory to include value-based reasoning.

Core claim

Through directed content analysis of government agency decisions and qualitative coding of over 700 online comments, the paper identifies a post-2020 shift where switches to European software alternatives are justified by sovereignty, geopolitical risk, and support for local industry. Digital patriotism is presented as the individual-level expression of digital sovereignty that leads people to prioritize ideological goals over optimal functionality. This adds value rationality to existing models of software adoption that have focused on instrumental factors such as usability, cost, security, and interoperability.

What carries the argument

Digital patriotism, the individual willingness to accept functional compromise in software choices to advance sovereignty and reduce geopolitical dependence on non-European providers.

If this is right

  • Software adoption theories must incorporate value rationality alongside instrumental rationality to explain current choices.
  • Geopolitics is actively influencing workplace technology decisions across European agencies and businesses.
  • Users demonstrate readiness to trade functionality for alignment with local industry and reduced foreign reliance.
  • European software providers may receive sustained support from ideologically motivated adopters despite performance gaps.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar ideological patterns could appear in other regions seeking alternatives to dominant technology providers.
  • Local software ecosystems might develop loyalty that outlasts short-term performance differences.
  • Policymakers could harness this motivation to accelerate domestic technology development programs.
  • The trend raises questions about whether ideological choices ultimately improve or hinder data security and innovation speed.

Load-bearing premise

That government decisions and online comments reliably reflect genuine ideological motivations instead of being shaped by selection bias or unstated practical reasons.

What would settle it

New data on European government software switches after 2020 showing continued dominance of cost, performance, and interoperability justifications with no rise in sovereignty language, or user comments lacking ideological framing.

read the original abstract

Software adoption has traditionally been understood through instrumental lenses, such as usability, cost, security, and interoperability. We argue that a new, ideological dimension is reshaping adoption decisions: one we term digital patriotism, the individual counterpart to the state ideology of digital sovereignty. Through two studies, we trace this phenomenon. First, a directed content analysis of decisions made by European government agencies to switch away from de facto technology standards reveals a shift around 2020: early switches cited costs and vendor lock-in, while later switches invoke sovereignty, geopolitical risk, and investment in local industry. Second, a qualitative analysis of over 700 online comments (over 51,000 words) surfaces how consumers and businesses articulate motivations for seeking European software alternatives. We find that digital patriotism entails a willingness to accept functional compromise in service of ideological goals. Our work extends software adoption theory by drawing attention to value rationality alongside instrumental rationality, and contributes an empirical account of how geopolitics is reshaping technology choice in the workplace.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript argues that software adoption decisions in Europe are increasingly shaped by an ideological dimension termed 'digital patriotism'—the individual counterpart to state-level 'digital sovereignty' policies. It supports this through two studies: a directed content analysis of European government agency technology switch decisions, which identifies a shift around 2020 from citations of cost and vendor lock-in to sovereignty, geopolitical risk, and local industry investment; and a qualitative analysis of over 700 online comments (51,000+ words) showing consumers and businesses expressing willingness to accept functional compromises for European alternatives. The work claims to extend software adoption theory by incorporating value rationality alongside instrumental rationality and to document how geopolitics is reshaping workplace technology choices.

Significance. If the empirical claims are substantiated with greater methodological transparency, the paper would make a meaningful contribution to HCI and technology adoption literature by identifying and empirically grounding a non-instrumental, ideological motivation in software selection. It bridges sociotechnical systems research with policy and geopolitics, offering a timely account of how external events influence individual and organizational technology decisions. The concept of digital patriotism could stimulate further work on value-based adoption models, provided it is clearly distinguished from instrumental factors.

major comments (3)
  1. Methods section (directed content analysis of agency decisions): The description provides no details on document sampling criteria, the deductive coding scheme for categorizing rationales (e.g., distinguishing sovereignty from cost or interoperability), inter-coder reliability, or validation of the ~2020 temporal shift. This is load-bearing for the central claim of an ideological change, as the directed approach risks confirmation bias without controls for concurrent factors such as updated vendor risk assessments, EU policy incentives, or shifts in documentation norms.
  2. Methods section (qualitative analysis of online comments): No information is given on sampling strategy (platforms, keywords, time bounds), how the 700+ comments were selected from larger pools, the coding process (deductive categories for 'digital patriotism'), or rigor measures such as audit trails. Self-selected online discourse is vulnerable to social-desirability bias and does not demonstrate linkage between stated motivations and observed adoption behavior, weakening the claim that these reflect genuine ideological (value-rational) drivers rather than instrumental updates.
  3. Theoretical framing and discussion: The distinction between 'digital patriotism' as a distinct ideological dimension and updated instrumental rationality (e.g., post-2020 geopolitical events affecting supply chains or regulations) is not operationalized with falsifiable criteria. The manuscript should explicitly address and rule out alternative explanations for the observed patterns in agency documents and comments to support the assertion of a 'new' value-rational factor.
minor comments (1)
  1. Abstract: The claim of 'two qualitative studies' would benefit from a brief parenthetical note on methodological transparency to help readers assess the strength of the empirical support.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which highlight important opportunities to improve methodological transparency and theoretical precision. We respond to each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Methods section (directed content analysis of agency decisions): The description provides no details on document sampling criteria, the deductive coding scheme for categorizing rationales (e.g., distinguishing sovereignty from cost or interoperability), inter-coder reliability, or validation of the ~2020 temporal shift. This is load-bearing for the central claim of an ideological change, as the directed approach risks confirmation bias without controls for concurrent factors such as updated vendor risk assessments, EU policy incentives, or shifts in documentation norms.

    Authors: We agree that the submitted manuscript's methods section lacked necessary detail on the directed content analysis. In revision we will add: explicit sampling criteria (public announcements of technology switches by European government agencies, 2015–2023); the full deductive coding scheme with definitions and examples distinguishing sovereignty, geopolitical risk, cost, and interoperability; inter-coder reliability statistics (Cohen's kappa from independent dual coding of a 20% sample); and validation of the temporal shift via cross-reference with an independent timeline of EU policies and vendor events. We will also add a paragraph addressing potential confirmation bias by describing how concurrent instrumental factors were explicitly coded and compared. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Methods section (qualitative analysis of online comments): No information is given on sampling strategy (platforms, keywords, time bounds), how the 700+ comments were selected from larger pools, the coding process (deductive categories for 'digital patriotism'), or rigor measures such as audit trails. Self-selected online discourse is vulnerable to social-desirability bias and does not demonstrate linkage between stated motivations and observed adoption behavior, weakening the claim that these reflect genuine ideological (value-rational) drivers rather than instrumental updates.

    Authors: We accept that the qualitative methods description was incomplete. The revised manuscript will specify sampling strategy (platforms, search keywords, time bounds post-2020), selection criteria from larger pools, the deductive coding scheme with category definitions and examples, and rigor steps including an audit trail. We will add a dedicated limitations subsection acknowledging social-desirability bias and the absence of direct behavioral linkage. At the same time we will clarify that the study examines public discourse as evidence of emerging value-rational framing rather than claiming to measure actual adoption rates; this scope will be stated more explicitly in the discussion. revision: yes

  3. Referee: Theoretical framing and discussion: The distinction between 'digital patriotism' as a distinct ideological dimension and updated instrumental rationality (e.g., post-2020 geopolitical events affecting supply chains or regulations) is not operationalized with falsifiable criteria. The manuscript should explicitly address and rule out alternative explanations for the observed patterns in agency documents and comments to support the assertion of a 'new' value-rational factor.

    Authors: We will strengthen the theoretical section by introducing explicit, falsifiable criteria for digital patriotism (e.g., references to European identity or willingness to accept non-instrumental trade-offs). In the discussion we will systematically compare alternative instrumental explanations (supply-chain or regulatory updates) against the data, using additional coded excerpts to show where ideological language predominates. While interpretive qualitative work cannot definitively exclude every alternative explanation, we will present a clearer comparative analysis and acknowledge remaining interpretive limits. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical qualitative analysis of external records

full rationale

The paper presents no mathematical derivations, equations, parameter fitting, or first-principles predictions. Its central claim rests on directed content analysis of government agency decisions (external public records) and qualitative coding of over 700 online comments. These steps interpret observed shifts in stated rationales around 2020 and expressed willingness to accept functional trade-offs; they do not reduce by construction to self-defined categories or self-citations. The analysis is deductive in its coding scheme but draws on independent data sources whose content is not generated by the paper's own framework. No load-bearing step equates output to input via definition, renaming, or fitted prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim depends on the validity of the newly introduced concept of digital patriotism and the interpretive link between observed adoption rationales and ideological motivations, with no free parameters, mathematical axioms, or externally validated entities.

invented entities (1)
  • digital patriotism no independent evidence
    purpose: to frame the individual-level ideological motivation for preferring European software alternatives over de facto standards
    Newly defined term in the paper without reference to prior independent literature or falsifiable external test in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5470 in / 1095 out tokens · 58919 ms · 2026-05-10T08:18:00.588251+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

145 extracted references · 145 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    About Amazon Team. 2024. AWS plans to invest€7.8 billion into the AWS European Sovereign Cloud. https://www.aboutamazon.eu/news/aws/aws- plans-to-invest-7-8-billion-into-the-aws-european-sovereign-cloud. Accessed: 2025-12-22

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Amazon Web Services. [n. d.]. Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data (CLOUD) Act. https://aws.amazon.com/compliance/cloud-act/. Accessed: 2025-12-22

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Benedict Anderson. 2020. Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. InThe new social theory reader. Routledge, 282–288

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Jonah Aragon. 2025. Privacy-Respecting European Tech Alternatives. https://www.privacyguides.org/articles/2025/03/19/private-european- alternatives/. Accessed: 2025-12-19

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Abdolghader Assarroudi, Fatemeh Heshmati Nabavi, Mohammad Reza Armat, Abbas Ebadi, and Mojtaba Vaismoradi. 2018. Directed qualitative content analysis: the description and elaboration of its underpinning methods and data analysis process.Journal of research in nursing23, 1 (2018), 42–55

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Bankrupt Trump. [n. d.]. Find Non-US Alternatives. https://www.bankrupttrump.org/. Accessed: 2025-12-19

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Titus Barik. 2017. Expressions on the nature and significance of programming and play. In2017 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC). IEEE, 145–153

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Titus Barik, Brittany Johnson, and Emerson Murphy-Hill. 2015. I heart Hacker News: expanding qualitative research findings by analyzing social news websites. InProceedings of the 2015 10th joint meeting on foundations of software engineering. 882–885

    work page 2015

  9. [9]

    1972.Mythologies

    Roland Barthes. 1972.Mythologies. Les Lettres nouvelles. Originally published in French in 1957

    work page 1972

  10. [10]

    1983.Simulacra and Simulation

    Jean Baudrillard. 1983.Simulacra and Simulation. Semiotext(e). 164 pages. Originally published in French in 1981 by Éditions Galilée; ISBN 2-7186-0210-4 (French)

    work page 1983

  11. [11]

    2002.Making patriots

    Walter Berns. 2002.Making patriots. University of Chicago Press

    work page 2002

  12. [12]

    Herbert Blumer. 1954. What Is Wrong with Social Theory?American Sociological Review19, 1 (1954), 3–10. doi:10.2307/2088165

    work page doi:10.2307/2088165 1954

  13. [13]

    2020.The Brussels effect: How the European Union rules the world

    Anu Bradford. 2020.The Brussels effect: How the European Union rules the world. Oxford University Press. Unpublished working draft.Not for distribution. 22 Advait Sarkar

    work page 2020

  14. [14]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology.Qualitative research in psychology3, 2 (2006), 77–101

    work page 2006

  15. [15]

    Francesca Bria, Paul Timmers, and Fausto Gernone. [n. d.]. EuroStack – A European Alternative for Digital Sovereignty. https://www.euro- stack.info/. Accessed: 2025-12-19

    work page 2025

  16. [16]

    Julie Brill and Paul Lorimer. 2025. Microsoft completes landmark EU Data Boundary, offering enhanced data residency and transparency. https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2025/02/26/microsoft-completes-landmark-eu-data-boundary-offering-enhanced-data-residency- and-transparency/. Accessed: 2025-12-22

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN München, SPD München, Rosa Liste, and SPD/Volt Fraktionsgemeinschaft. 2020. Mit Mut, Visionen und Zuversicht: Ganz München im Blick — Koalitionsvereinbarung für die Stadtratsperiode 2020–2026. https://www.gruene-muenchen.de/wp-content/uploads/20 20/04/Druckfassung_Koalitionsvertrag-2020_2026.pdf. Accessed: 2025-12-23

    work page 2020

  18. [18]

    Angela Garcia Calvo, Martin Kenney, and John Zysman. 2025. Responding to platform firm power: differing national responses.New Political Economy30, 2 (2025), 225–239

    work page 2025

  19. [19]

    Theodore Christakis. 2023. European Digital Sovereignty, Data Protection and the Push Towards Data Localisation.Data sovereignty: From the digital silk road to the return of the state(2023)

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    2025.AI Opportunities Action Plan

    Matt Clifford. 2025.AI Opportunities Action Plan. Independent report CP 1241. Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. https: //www.gov.uk/government/publications/ai-opportunities-action-plan/ai-opportunities-action-plan Published 13 January 2025. PDF: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67851771f0528401055d2329/ai_opportunities_actio...

    work page arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Cloud Infrastructure Service Providers in Europe (CISPE). 2025. CISPE updates its Cloud Sovereignty Principles and Takes Action with ˘20ac1 million investment in Open-Source to Deploy Distributed Cloud. https://www.cispe.cloud/cispe-updates-its-cloud-sovereignty-principles-and- takes-action-with-e1-million-investment-in-open-source-to-deploy-distributed-c...

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

    Code.europa.eu (European Commission). 2025. Welcome to code.europa.eu. https://code.europa.eu/info/about/-/blob/master/README.md. Accessed: 2025-12-23

    work page 2025

  23. [23]

    Enid Gabriella Coleman. 2012. Coding freedom: The ethics and aesthetics of hacking. InCoding Freedom. Princeton University Press

    work page 2012

  24. [24]

    Gabriella Coleman. 2004. The political agnosticism of free and open source software and the inadvertent politics of contrast.Anthropological Quarterly77, 3 (2004), 507–519

    work page 2004

  25. [25]

    Council of the European Union. 2025.Cover note — Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: State of the Digital Decade 2025: Keep building the EU’s sovereignty and digital future. Technical Report ST 10407/25 INIT. Council of the European Union. h...

    work page 2025

  26. [26]

    Rogier Creemers. 2020. China’s conception of cyber sovereignty.Governing cyberspace: Behavior, power and diplomacy(2020), 107–145

    work page 2020

  27. [27]

    Datenpunks. [n. d.]. switching.software. https://switching.software/. Accessed: 2025-12-19

    work page 2025

  28. [28]

    Fred D Davis. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology.MIS quarterly(1989), 319–340

    work page 1989

  29. [29]

    Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. 2025. Memorandum of Understanding between the UK and Anthropic on AI opportunities. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-uk-and-anthropic-on-ai-opportunities/memora ndum-of-understanding-between-uk-and-anthropic-on-ai-opportunities. Accessed: 2025-12-22

    work page 2025

  30. [30]

    Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. 2025. Memorandum of Understanding between the UK and OpenAI on AI opportunities. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-uk-and-openai-on-ai-opportunities/memorand um-of-understanding-between-uk-and-openai-on-ai-opportunities. Accessed: 2025-12-22

    work page 2025

  31. [31]

    Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. 2025. New blueprint for AI regulation could speed up planning approvals, slash NHS waiting times, and drive growth and public trust. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-blueprint-for-ai-regulation-could-speed-up-planning- approvals-slash-nhs-waiting-times-and-drive-growth-and-public-trust. Accessed: 2025-12-23

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. 2025. Sovereign AI Unit. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/sovereign-ai-unit. Accessed: 2025-12-23

    work page 2025

  33. [33]

    Rocco Depietro, Edith Wiarda, and Mitchell Fleischer. 1990. The context for change: Organization, technology and environment.The processes of technological innovation199, 0 (1990), 151–175

    work page 1990

  34. [34]

    Michael Ann DeVito, Jeremy Birnholtz, Jeffery T Hancock, Megan French, and Sunny Liu. 2018. How people form folk theories of social media feeds and what it means for how we study self-presentation. InProceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–12

    work page 2018

  35. [35]

    Direction interministérielle du numérique (DINUM) – Etalab. 2024. ALLiaNCE — l’incubateur IA de l’État. https://alliance.numerique.gouv.fr/. Launched September 2024; maintained by Etalab (DINUM). Accessed: 2025-12-23

    work page 2024

  36. [36]

    2016.Roads and Bridges: The Unseen Labor Behind Our Digital Infrastructure

    Nadia Eghbal. 2016.Roads and Bridges: The Unseen Labor Behind Our Digital Infrastructure. Research Report. Ford Foundation. https: //www.fordfoundation.org/learning/library/research-reports/roads-and-bridges-the-unseen-labor-behind-our-digital-infrastructure/

    work page 2016

  37. [37]

    European Commission. [n. d.]. The IDABC programme 2005–2009. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/the-idabc-programme- 2005-2009.html. Accessed: 2025-12-23

    work page 2005

  38. [38]

    European Commission. 2007. European Union Public Licence (EUPL) — Version 1.1. https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/c ustom-page/attachment/eupl1.1.-licence-en_0.pdf. Accessed: 2025-12-23. Unpublished working draft.Not for distribution. Digital Sovereignty, Digital Patriotism, and the Emerging Geopolitics of Software Adoption 23

    work page 2007

  39. [39]

    European Commission. 2020. Open source software strategy 2020–2023. https://commission.europa.eu/about/departments-and-executive- agencies/digital-services/open-source-software-strategy_en. Accessed: 2025-12-23

    work page 2020

  40. [40]

    2020.Shaping Europe’s digital future

    European Commission. 2020.Shaping Europe’s digital future. Communication COM(2020) 67 final. European Commission. https://eur- lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0067 Brussels, 19 February 2020. PDF: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0067

    work page 2020

  41. [41]

    European Commission. 2021. Commission Decision of 8 December 2021 on the open source licensing and reuse of Commission software (2021/C 495 I/01). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021D1209(01). OJ C 495 I, 9 December 2021, pp. 1–5. CELEX: 32021D1209(01). Accessed: 2025-12-23

    work page 2021

  42. [42]

    European Commission. 2024. Commission Decision Establishing the European AI Office. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/commiss ion-decision-establishing-european-ai-office. Accessed: 2025-12-23

    work page 2024

  43. [43]

    European Commission. 2024. European Innovation Council to invest€1.4 billion in deep tech and scale up of strategic technologies in 2025. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_5386. Press release; Brussels, 29 October 2024. PDF: https://ec.europa.eu/commissio n/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/ip_24_5386/IP_24_5386_EN.pdf. Acc...

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    European Commission. 2025. Apply AI Strategy. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/apply-ai. Accessed: 2025-12-23

    work page 2025

  45. [45]

    European Commission. 2025. EU launches InvestAI initiative to mobilise ˘20ac200 billion of investment in artificial intelligence. https://digital- strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/eu-launches-investai-initiative-mobilise-eu200-billion-investment-artificial-intelligence. Accessed: 2025-12-23

    work page 2025

  46. [46]

    European Commission. 2025. Joint statement on the second meeting of the EU–India Trade and Technology Council. https://ec.europa.eu/commi ssion/presscorner/detail/en/statement_25_643. Accessed: 2026-01-04. PDF: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/ en/statement_25_643/STATEMENT_25_643_EN.pdf

    work page 2025

  47. [47]

    2025.The AI Continent Action Plan

    European Commission. 2025.The AI Continent Action Plan. Communication COM(2025) 165. European Commission. https://digital-strategy.ec.eu ropa.eu/en/library/ai-continent-action-plan Accessed: 2025-12-23

    work page 2025

  48. [48]

    2025.White paper for European defence – Readiness 2030

    European Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. 2025.White paper for European defence – Readiness 2030. Joint White Paper JOIN(2025) 120 final. European Commission. https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/e6d5db69- e0ab-4bec-9dc0-3867b4373019_en?filename=White%20paper%20for%20European%20defence%20%E...

    work page 2025

  49. [49]

    European High-Performance Computing Joint Undertaking (EuroHPC JU). 2025. Advancing European Sovereignty in HPC with RISC-V. https: //www.eurohpc-ju.europa.eu/advancing-european-sovereignty-hpc-risc-v-2025-03-06_en. Accessed: 2025-12-23

    work page 2025

  50. [50]

    European Parliament and Council of the European Union. 2009. Decision No 922/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on interoperability solutions for European public administrations (ISA). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CE LEX:32009D0922. http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2009/922/oj OJ L 260, 3 October...

    work page 2009

  51. [51]

    European Parliament and Council of the European Union. 2015. Decision (EU) 2015/2240 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 establishing a programme on interoperability solutions and common frameworks for European public administrations, businesses and citizens (ISA2 programme) as a means for modernising the public sector. https...

    work page 2015

  52. [52]

    European Parliament and Council of the European Union. 2024. Regulation (EU) 2024/795 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 February 2024 establishing the Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform (STEP), and amending Directive 2003/87/EC and Regulations (EU) 2021/1058, (EU) 2021/1056, (EU) 2021/1057, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (E...

    work page arXiv 2024

  53. [53]

    European Parliament and Council of the European Union. 2024. Regulation (EU) 2024/903 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 March 2024 laying down measures for a high level of public sector interoperability across the Union (Interoperable Europe Act). https://eur- lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32024R0903. http://data.europa.e...

    work page 2024

  54. [54]

    Benjamin Farrand and Helena Carrapico. 2022. Digital sovereignty and taking back control: from regulatory capitalism to regulatory mercantilism in EU cybersecurity.European security31, 3 (2022), 435–453

    work page 2022

  55. [55]

    Feddit UK. [n. d.]. Buy European. https://feddit.uk/c/buyeuropean. Accessed: 2025-12-19

    work page 2025

  56. [56]

    Marco Fioretti. 2025. Is Eurostack’s ‘European Alternative’ Too Guided by America’s Vision? https://fossforce.com/2025/02/is-eurostacks- european-alternative-too-guided-by-americas-vision/. Accessed: 2025-12-19

    work page 2025

  57. [57]

    Luciano Floridi. 2020. The fight for digital sovereignty: What it is, and why it matters, especially for the EU.Philosophy & technology33, 3 (2020), 369–378

    work page 2020

  58. [58]

    FP Explainers. 2023. What is Maya OS, the new operating system that India’s defence ministry is migrating to?Firstpost(Aug. 2023). https: //www.firstpost.com/explainers/maya-os-new-operating-system-india-defence-ministry-windows-cyber-security-12981032.html Accessed: 2026-01-04

    work page 2023

  59. [59]

    Samuele Fratini, Emmie Hine, Claudio Novelli, Huw Roberts, and Luciano Floridi. 2024. Digital sovereignty: A descriptive analysis and a critical evaluation of existing models.Digital Society3, 3 (2024), 59. Unpublished working draft.Not for distribution. 24 Advait Sarkar

    work page 2024

  60. [60]

    Free Software Foundation Europe. [n. d.]. Public Money, Public Code. https://publiccode.eu/en/. Accessed: 2025-12-19

    work page 2025

  61. [61]

    2019.Value sensitive design: Shaping technology with moral imagination

    Batya Friedman and David G Hendry. 2019.Value sensitive design: Shaping technology with moral imagination. Mit Press

    work page 2019

  62. [62]

    Gaia-X European Association for Data and Cloud AISBL. [n. d.]. About — Gaia-X: A Federated Secure Data Infrastructure. https://gaia-x.eu/about/. Accessed: 2025-12-23

    work page 2025

  63. [63]

    Xinchuchu Gao. 2022. An attractive alternative? China’s approach to cyber governance and its implications for the Western model.The International Spectator57, 3 (2022), 15–30

    work page 2022

  64. [64]

    Matt Garman. 2022. AWS Digital Sovereignty Pledge: Control without compromise. https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/aws-digital- sovereignty-pledge-control-without-compromise/. Accessed: 2025-12-22

    work page 2022

  65. [65]

    Matt Garman and Max Peterson. 2023. AWS Digital Sovereignty Pledge: Announcing a new, independent sovereign cloud in Europe. https: //aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/aws-digital-sovereignty-pledge-announcing-a-new-independent-sovereign-cloud-in-europe/. Accessed: 2025-12-22

    work page 2023

  66. [66]

    Ernest Gellner. 2015. Nations and nationalism. InConflict after the Cold War. Routledge, 378–389

    work page 2015

  67. [67]

    Alexandra Georgakopoulou. 2017. Small stories research: A narrative paradigm for the analysis of social media.The SAGE handbook of social media research methods. London: SAGE(2017), 240–252

    work page 2017

  68. [68]

    2026.Values and Software

    Jan Gogoll and Niina Zuber. 2026.Values and Software. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 61–76. doi:10.1007/978-3-032-06195-9_5

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-032-06195-9_5 2026

  69. [69]

    Dale L Goodhue and Ronald L Thompson. 1995. Task-technology fit and individual performance.MIS quarterly(1995), 213–236

    work page 1995

  70. [70]

    Google Cloud. 2019. Advancing customer control in the cloud. https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/inside-google-cloud/advancing-customer- control-in-the-cloud. Accessed: 2025-12-22

    work page 2019

  71. [71]

    Google Cloud. 2019. Deepening our commitment to European businesses. https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/inside-google-cloud/deepening- our-commitment-to-european-businesses. Accessed: 2025-12-22

    work page 2019

  72. [72]

    Google Cloud. 2020. Engaging in a European dialogue on customer controls and open cloud solutions. https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/ide ntity-security/how-google-cloud-is-addressing-data-sovereignty-in-europe-2020. Accessed: 2025-12-22

    work page 2020

  73. [73]

    Google Cloud. 2021. Helping build the digital future. On Europe’s terms. https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/identity-security/helping-build- the-digital-future-on-europes-terms. Accessed: 2025-12-22

    work page 2021

  74. [74]

    GPT-NL. 2025. Een verantwoord alternatief. https://gpt-nl.nl/gpt-nl/. Last updated 18 March 2025; Accessed: 2025-12-23

    work page 2025

  75. [75]

    Constantin Graf. [n. d.]. European alternatives for digital products. https://european-alternatives.eu/. Accessed: 2025-12-19

    work page 2025

  76. [76]

    Rafael Grohmann and Alexandre Costa Barbosa. 2025. Sovereignty-as-a-service: How big tech companies co-opt and redefines digital sovereignty. Media, Culture & Society(2025)

    work page 2025

  77. [77]

    Hsiu-Fang Hsieh and Sarah E Shannon. 2005. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.Qualitative health research15, 9 (2005), 1277–1288

    work page 2005

  78. [78]

    Patrik Hummel, Matthias Braun, Max Tretter, and Peter Dabrock. 2021. Data sovereignty: A review.Big Data & Society8, 1 (2021), 2053951720982012

    work page 2021

  79. [79]

    Ho Ting Hung. 2025. Exploring China’s cyber sovereignty concept and artificial intelligence governance model: a machine learning approach. Journal of Computational Social Science8, 1 (2025), 24

    work page 2025

  80. [80]

    Innovate UK. 2025. Sovereign AI - Proof of concept. https://apply-for-innovation-funding.service.gov.uk/competition/2259/overview/9061ddb2- fa12-45c9-8691-d36649c96e9c. Accessed: 2025-12-23

    work page 2025

Showing first 80 references.