Ready for the Broligarchy? The Tech Accountability Community Needs a Reset

Burcu Kilic and Renata Ávila say new strategies and tactics are necessary to accelerate visionary national industrial policies for the digital economy.

It is remarkable to witness the widespread outrage from many in the tech accountability community after President Donald Trump’s inauguration over tech CEOs taking the row in front of his cabinet, warmly embracing the new administration and aligning with the MAGA values they once opposed. It is unclear whether this is a shock, just naivety, or a disconnect from the realities of surveillance capitalist world order.

This sudden display of affection toward Trump from tech CEOs is not necessarily rooted in shared values or long-standing ideological alignment. While Elon Musk is the President’s right-hand man and biggest patron and Meta founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg is clearly in “the tent,” figures such as Google CEO Sundar Pichai and Apple CEO Tim Cook were more likely there for more calculated reasons. Nevertheless, the titans of surveillance capitalism are all driven by a singular agenda: to preserve and expand their empires in the US and globally.

But the sudden shock of those who believed (or at least wanted to believe) these companies has been overwhelming. For years, many in government, civil society, and academia have viewed these companies as defenders of free speech, human rights, and the open Internet. Some even saw them as champions of progressive values. Many partnered with them, relied on their funding for various causes and overlooked the excesses of the surveillance capitalist business model built on unfettered data collection and monetization. They ignored their close ties to political power, their ties to law enforcement and national security, their dubious adventures in politics, and their huge lobbying budgets. And, worst of all, they dismissed those who had long warned that “the king is naked.”

The last few weeks have been hard for Big Tech’s defenders and perhaps even for those who just wanted to give these firms the benefit of the doubt. They likely feel fooled and abandoned and are now questioning how we got here. Welcome to the harsh reality of money and politics!

Told you so

The sad reality is that much of this could have been avoided (at least to some extent) if those in the tech accountability community, academia, think tanks, advocacy organizations, and politics (particularly pro-corporate Democrats in the US and neoliberal politicians in other countries) had recognized and acknowledged the risks of empowering the very corporations they now criticize and shame.

There were many missed opportunities to make meaningful progress in curbing Big Tech’s power and addressing key societal challenges, including privacy, online protection of children, workers’ rights, AI regulation, and the survival of small publishers and local media. Legislative and regulatory efforts faced strong resistance from tech companies and their lobbyists, as well as from the broader tech policy community, academia, think tanks, and advocacy circles. Much of this resistance was driven by self-interest, funding priorities, or a strong belief in the necessity (and even strategic national priority) of “tech innovation.”

To be clear, you cannot talk critically about tech empires while partnering with them or taking money from tech firms to work on whatever agenda they developed to subtly realign the goals of your nonprofit, academic lab, country, or region. It is worth noting that these same tech companies, particularly Meta, were once the significant supporters (and funders) of what the MAGA right now calls a “woke” agenda in the Global Majority. Those issues no longer serve Meta’s interest after Zuckerberg discovered the perks of bro culture and discarded DEI policies. But don’t worry–Meta will likely continue to fund organizations to work on the “open washing” of AI now, given his latest corporate priorities.

These firms strategically shifted policy discussions while funding organizations to conduct research, engage with stakeholders, and otherwise do thought leadership on issues ranging from trust and safety to AI ethics. So much more money was available for so-called “woke” initiatives, trust and safety, and AI ethics than for substantive discussions on regulatory frameworks or binding and enforceable regulations. This is how these firms and their bright and well-dressed policy executives–many of them plucked directly from civil society organizations, governments, or elite academic institutions–shaped the regulatory landscape for many years.

For many, this is an “I told you so” moment. Activists who refused to “do business” with Big Tech–many from marginalized communities or geographies outside of Europe and the US–have always been dismissed or excluded from tech policy discussions. We hope now is a time for reflection and penance so that in a few years, instead of saying, “We told you so,” we can say, “We saw this coming, and together, we were now prepared.”

Tech will take advantage of Trump

Undoubtedly, the Trump administration will likely be the coziest with tech tycoons since the Obama era. This close alliance will likely bring new and unpredictable pressures on countries' digital transformation efforts, particularly in the Global Majority.

Given Trump’s transactional style and protectionist “America First” values, his administration’s foreign policy and digital agenda will likely be shaped by trade policies, including tariffs. There is little doubt that Silicon Valley giants will fully exploit this approach. Trump has already criticized the “very unfair” treatment of US companies in the European market, citing difficulties in bringing products into the EU. Tech companies will likely leverage trade policies to strengthen their dominance in emerging markets, pushing for deregulation and prompting the widespread adoption of their products and services in the public sector. The dominance of US firms in artificial intelligence and its global market structure depends heavily on their oligopolistic control of large-scale data extraction, which translates into global control over knowledge production and consumption.

With these radical shifts in the development and trade agenda, US tech giants are well-positioned to solidify their position as exclusive providers of digital infrastructure, running entire economies digitally and becoming the default provider for countries still in the process of digitization. Their ambitions do not end there; they will push further into vertical integration of their services, enabling regional dominance and control over entire digital economies with minimum tax obligations and regulations, leaving recipient governments to bear the costs. This trajectory threatens to undermine local and national tech sovereignty and security efforts, leaving countries more vulnerable than ever to political or military pressure tied to critical digital infrastructures.

It’s time for independent, strategic policymaking

So, this is not a moment of passivity and mere resistance – it is a time for bold policy action. The ones who are prepared will be better equipped to face the challenges ahead. On the other hand, countries without a clear industrial policy for the digital economy are likely to be the most vulnerable to the emerging broligarchy (a new political order dominated by tech bros). Without a proactive agenda and well-defined goals, these countries risk quietly accepting digital policy and digital trade impositions and deregulation demands, locking themselves into long-term trade commitments and technological dependencies that hinder sustainable development efforts and leave their workers and consumers vulnerable, their governance weak, and their sovereignty stripped. The window of opportunity for developing independent and strategic industrial policies for digital transformation is rapidly closing.

Unfortunately, passivity and confusion prevail in most countries. As policy space slips away, many existing catch-up efforts in the Global Majority remain misguided. Governments continue to conflate digital industrial policy with digitalization, leading to the unnecessary privatization of public spaces and services, the sharing of public data, and a deepening technological and infrastructural dependency on surveillance capitalist tech companies.

Civil society remains distracted by non-binding multilateral and multistakeholder processes that end in declarations never read in Washington. Organizations that operate in the orbit of the UN and other multilateral bodies seem completely unaware of the changing rules of the game. Unlike during Trump's first term, tech companies now have a playbook for leveraging lobbying power. They are strategically positioning themselves closer to the center of power. There is little value for them in engaging with global policy discussions or initiatives from the UN on AI, digital governance, or related issues. They can simply bypass these forums and focus on imposing their terms directly in trade talks.

The next few years will be crucial for low—and middle-income countries. They have a choice: either stick to the status quo, relying on Big Tech infrastructures and deepening dependencies while taking pretend steps on digital or AI governance that lead nowhere, or take bold action to transform their national industrial policies to build self-reliant digital infrastructure and AI ecosystem for people and the planet. This is not an easy transformation. It demands coordinated policy action, a whole-of-government approach, extensive policy interventions, substantial financial resources, well-crafted strategies, and strong political will.

Time is running out

The sooner these efforts begin, the better, as policy space is rapidly shrinking. However, with well-crafted proactive policies firmly grounded and supported by strong political will, countries can shield themselves from external pressures and future trade impositions. Moreover, the more participatory and well-informed these processes are, the more likely their outcomes will be resilient and sustainable.

There is no time to lose. Governments must resist paralysis in the face of the uncertainties of this new political panorama and act decisively in response to shifting global dynamics. There is a crucial window of opportunity to take control of their industrial agendas, breaking free from the current extractive economic models championed by neoliberal policy agents and surveillance capitalist tech companies. Instead, they must pursue viable alternatives for a true digital transformation—one that places people and the planet at the core of sustainable economic progress.

As the world faces unprecedented uncertainty, volatility, and a growing unease about the future, the choice is ours: stand by and watch and regret later, or start preparing and strategizing proactively for what lies ahead.