Reflections at the Edge of Democracy and Tech

Six months into 2025, democracy faces immense pressure—from rising authoritarianism, fractured public trust, and the unchecked power of tech owners. The ideal of free speech, once a cornerstone of democratic societies, is increasingly weaponized and distorted—used not only to silence dissent, but also to exert geopolitical leverage, whether it’s tariffs or visa restrictions.

At the same time, digital rights advocates, researchers, journalists, and other civil society organizations focused on technology policy and accountability face unprecedented challenges: shrinking financial support and new forms of state and corporate influence that threaten the very foundations of democratic governance.

Against this turbulent backdrop, over the last few months, Tech Policy Press posed a series of questions to a diverse group of experts deeply engaged on issues at the intersection of technology and democracy to reflect on what this moment means—and what comes next.

• Alexandra Reeve Givens, CEO, Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
• Alondra Nelson, the Harold F. Linder Chair and head of the Science, Technology, and Social Values Lab at the Institute for Advanced Study
• Apar Gupta, Founder and Director, Internet Freedom Foundation
• Anupam Chander, a Visiting Scholar at the Institute for Rebooting Social Media at Harvard University and Scott K. Ginsburg Professor of Law and Technology at Georgetown University
• Charles Mok, Research Scholar at the Global Digital Policy Incubator of the Cyber Policy Center at Stanford University and a member of the Board of Trustees of the Internet Society
• David Kaye, a Professor of Law at the University of California, Irvine, and former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
• Fernanda Martins, Director of Advocacy and Strategy, Fundación Multitudes
• Liz Orembo, researcher and coordinator for international partnerships on global tech policies at Research ICT Africa
• Marietje Schaake, Fellow, Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence & Non-Resident Fellow, Stanford Cyber Policy Center
• Nanjala Nyabola, independent writer, researcher, and analyst
• Rebecca MacKinnon, Vice President for Global Advocacy, Wikimedia Foundation
• Steve Feldstein, Senior Fellow, Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

We organized their responses into key themes—shifts in geopolitics, tech power and accountability, AI and democracy, the new frontlines of human rights, the future of civil society, and the path forward.

Their insights point to a complex landscape marked by a growing tension between the concentrated power of tech leaders and the broader public interest—where regulation is both feared and urgently needed, and where grassroots movements around the world are pushing back against narratives of inevitability of technoauthoritarianism.

This collection does not offer easy answers. Instead, it surfaces urgent questions about how democratic values can be defended and advanced amid the rise of a powerful tech oligarchy shaping information, governance, and power.

Geopolitical shifts

In interviews, experts spoke of a sea change in the international regulatory landscape and the global order writ large. While tensions between free expression and technology regulation remain, the political will to resolve them is declining. Many referred to Europe as a sort of last hope, but even there, prospects for reform may be dimming. The world may be reentering an era of naked nationalist competition between governments, in which tech companies march in step with state interests.

Apar Gupta

We are in a big moment… a realization, an acknowledgement that countries will act increasingly in their national self-interest rather than as per international norm-setting or consensus, which used to be the case, let’s say about 10, 15, 20 years back, with regard to technology regulation.

Charles Mok

A year ago, there was real momentum for tech regulation—states across the US were pushing their own laws, and Europe stood firm that regulation wouldn't hinder innovation. But that’s shifted. Now, concerns about competing with the US and China are prompting even European industry and policymakers to question whether regulation could hold them back.

Steve Feldstein

With the deregulatory agenda, there are few limits to the influence of tech titans. There will be minimal checks and balances under Trump’s administration—except to stop viewpoints that go against the MAGA agenda. Maybe there will be a backlash… I don't hold a whole lot of hope. In Europe, there’s firmer ground to stand on. When it comes to regulatory pushback against the big platforms, Europe's all we have left. There's very little else out there.

Fernanda Martins

If the biggest democracy is de-consolidating, it weakens the position of countries like Brazil, which are trying to stand up for rights in the face of platforms… we need an answer from the Global Majority: India, Brazil, South Africa… how can we put our ideas forward to require platforms to change?”

It’s like we are living again in a process of colonization. Companies want data from the Global Majority because diverse data helps train AI models, and AI development is contributing to climate change. Platform policies allow more climate change disinformation… It’s all very connected.

Marietje Schaake

For the European Commission, threats of tariffs present a real test of its promise to be a forceful technology regulator, and ultimately, of the EU’s sovereignty, if laws are not enforced when they come under pressure. Already, we hear signals that enforcement may be weakened, legislative proposals shelved, and regulations needing to be cut. Investment is the name of the game as the EU doubles down on more autonomy and less dependence on the US.

Liz Orembo

We often confuse regulation and governance with something that curtails innovation, but that’s a misunderstanding. Regulation and policy can actually enable the development and democratization of AI—for example, through boosting connectivity. African countries, like many others, are looking to regulate AI, not to restrict it, but to foster its growth because a more developed AI means a stronger economy and better outcomes for their people. However, there is tension between empowering citizens and safeguarding political interests. This tension shows up in issues like access to information, internet shutdowns, and conflicting policies on misinformation, where sometimes the fight against misinformation ends up criminalizing freedom of expression instead.

Tech power and accountability

As the geopolitical landscape shifts, governments and corporations are simultaneously accelerating investments in generative artificial intelligence. The experts we interviewed expressed concern that the growing prominence of national security and economic concerns in technology policy will divert attention away from matters related to democracy, media, and human rights. Instead, the new strategic paradigm surrounding AI appears to be entrenching technological oligarchy and sidelining the public interest.

Charles Mok

The interplay between tech and democracy has become more direct. We’ve been discussing the backsliding of democracy for a while, including the technological influence on some—though not all—election outcomes last year. If you’d asked me in early February 2024, we likely would have focused on social media echo chambers or manipulation and disinformation campaigns by authoritarian regimes, which are still ongoing.

However, the biggest difference now is that we’re also talking about the role of Big Tech, particularly American Big Tech, in the US election, which was arguably the biggest election of last year. I don’t know if it was surprising, but I suspect not many people foresaw the significant role Elon Musk would play in the US election at the beginning of the year.

While people likely anticipated the impact of what was happening with X, and the Republican definition of free speech taking hold there since Elon Musk’s takeover, the subsequent involvement of him and other Big Tech players in essentially cheerleading—not necessarily defining Donald Trump’s tech platform, but really jumping on the bandwagon for their own profit motives—and thereby having a direct or indirect impact on democracy and even free speech, is notable.

Steve Feldstein

One major challenge I see is an excessive concentration of power in the hands of a small set of unaccountable tech titans—individuals who are willing to destroy institutions in service to their beliefs. It's more than just speaking into a megaphone. Their actions are directly leading to the dismemberment of democracy in the United States. Their actions are creating great harm. Take foreign aid—the damage here is vast. Thanks to entities like DOGE, life-saving services around the world have been stopped. Thousands will die or be significantly harmed due to these reckless actions.

Nanjala Nyabola

One of the things that got lost a little bit as the AI hype became more prevalent over the last three, four years is the space that social media occupies in our political terrain… for many people, social media has become a substitute for the news media [but] without the guardrails on misinformation on libel and deprivation and other aspects of what makes media work in the political space. So I think it's really important that we recenter our attention on this issue because, in my view, this has been the biggest difference-maker in terms of the ascendance of the far right and authoritarianism around the world.

One really big threat is going to be state capture by oligarchy, or as people are calling it, the broligarchy, and people not being sensitive to that because of the idea that as long as they're delivering growth, then the… social implications almost don't matter. I think we're gonna see a lot more exclusion of women and minorities from political space again as a result of this emerging oligarchy and this idea that somehow equality and inclusion are dangerous things.

Alondra Nelson

[Technology companies] have imagined a future for us that many of us may not want or don't agree with, or would have some revisions to. They've imagined a future that requires the adoption of these technologies by companies, by workers, by students, by families, and by communities. And the technologies right now have not earned our trust in many of these products… the companies know that people are not going to use these tools if they know that they're not trustworthy.

So for me, the best-case scenario is… a public that's awakened to these issues and that really refuses a narrative that says that if you don't have a PhD in AI from MIT or in computer science that you can't have a say about how these technologies are going to be built and used.

Anupam Chander

Many observers misunderstand the situation. They saw the inaugural seating as emblematic of a close relationship between Big Tech and the new Administration. But it’s better to see it as Big Tech showing fealty to the new king, not as allies but as people who will do what they’re told or else. The huge contributions from Big Tech were efforts to avoid the long arm of Donald Trump. It was more a demonstration of humiliation and bringing tech companies to heel than an alignment of interests.

There is one area where I think there is actually a kind of consistency across administrations, which is in the antitrust context — the belief that Big Tech needs to be disciplined has survived across administrations. The grievances are funny because they’re different: the Trump crew believes big tech has been anti-conservative, has promoted a woke agenda, and therefore needs to be punished. Yet, in the antitrust space, the Trump Administration has largely continued the breakup approach initiated by the Biden Administration. So, there’s remarkable continuity.

David Kaye

When the CEOs are going one direction, and the human rights considerations that have been inserted into the companies through human rights policies and divisions are operating under a different set of rules than the company leadership, I'm worried that the relationship between civil society (meaning human rights defenders, activists, and academics) and the companies will start to fray.

Civil society will likely start to wonder if what they're hearing from companies and their contacts within those companies truly reflects the direction the companies are heading. So, there's going to be this new kind of pressure, which has always been present to some degree, but I anticipate it will become much worse over the coming years.

AI and democracy

The rapid embrace and pursuit of AI systems by governments is displacing concerns about digital and human rights, with insufficient attention to public sentiment or the risks from reckless adoption of automated systems. Observers warn of dire outcomes like rising injustice and climate catastrophe—problems which were unsolved before and seem set to worsen.

Alexandra Reeve Givens

We don't have a choice but to focus attention on current harms [from AI] because they're manifesting right now. But the steps to address current uses of AI—things like transparency, testing, and accountability when things go wrong—those are the building blocks for dealing with long-term harms, as well. These two can't be pitted against each other.

Rebecca MacKinnon

When I talk to regulators from all over the world… one concern everyone shares, no matter where they are politically, is that they're worried that in the age of AI, their languages and cultures will be wiped out from the global information ecosystem. They worry that because the dominant AI companies that shape information across the globe are headquartered in the US and China, this will lead to even more dominance of a couple of languages and cultures.

Nanjala Nyabola

I expect to see a little bit of withdrawal on climate accountability… one of the things that digital technology has done by creating this impression that it is an immaterial thing [that] happens in the cloud is that it has managed to detach itself from the very real climate consequences caused by data centers even though we are starting to see the impact of these developments.

Marietje Schaake

The 180-degree turn made by the Trump Administration means initial efforts to cooperate on AI policy across borders are frozen. The question is what AI companies will do. Not too long ago, they called for regulations to minimize risk and maximize trust, but now they seem happy to go along with a deregulatory agenda in the US. Like social media companies’ narratives about supporting democracy, AI companies’ calls for risk mitigation and guardrails look not principled at all today.

Alondra Nelson

I'm very worried that we are so focused on what AI might bring or a very narrow form of efficiency that is about throwing a silver bullet of technology at something and hoping it's going to fix a vast, complex system or a very complex social problem and much more want to get us back to that space of, what's a fair shake for the American public? What is true in the world and not true? What helps people feed their families? What helps people have more education, for more people? How do we grow more food for more people, and do it in a way that allows us to live in a world that we're not quickly burning down with vast data centers by heating up the climate, or by social erosion in which more and more people feel excluded from the broader public?

Charles Mok

With AI, the landscape is shifting. Unlike the dominance of global platforms like Google and Facebook, it's now more feasible—even for smaller or developing countries—to build domestic models and infrastructure. This opens the door to greater digital and AI sovereignty, allowing nations to reduce reliance on tech giants and shape their own technological futures.

Apar Gupta

There’s an entirely new world of digital rights issues coming up in terms of artificial intelligence and its impact on democracy—through the proliferation of surveillance, policing, and disciplinarian technologies in both the private and public sectors. And quite often, that’s not even considered part of the AI conversation. If I open a conversation that facial recognition systems—which lead to law enforcement, prosecutions, etc.—are part of AI, it’s discounted. People say, ‘Don’t talk about it here,’ because they don’t consider that to be a part of the discourse around AI right now.

The new frontlines of human rights

In Western countries, experts fear that free expression is being “weaponized” in ways that promote extremism, diminish accountability, and fray the social fabric. Efforts to confront this trend have been largely unsuccessful. Outside the West, though, some observers see the emergence of a digitally literate public as a positive development for future digital rights struggles.

Steve Feldstein

In America, we have substantial protections for freedom of speech but a major lack of regulatory oversight. What this means is that extremist viewpoints have been allowed to take over digital platforms and spread falsehoods and conspiracy theories with minimal accountability. And because spreading bad information works in the financial interest of large tech platforms, the result is a steep corrosion of the information environment in this country. Who wants that? The model of internet freedom in the United States is one that is increasingly devoid of values.

Rebecca MacKinnon

How information is controlled and shaped has become a key driver of power. In the end, this is why protecting access to reliable, neutral information is so important. Anybody who is exercising power over information needs to be held accountable, no matter who they are.

The whole concept of free speech has been weaponized and distorted by people who wish to silence speech they don’t like, and to threaten speakers… If you want freedom or freedom of speech that supports human rights for everyone and democratic governance so people can hold their government accountable, you are not seeking a freedom that means everybody can do whatever they want. That kind of freedom [is] a Hobbesian state of nature in which 'life is nasty, brutish, and short…,' a world in which most people don’t thrive.

Liz Orembo

Globally, countries are moving towards more nationalistic views, and in Africa, the support from international partners and global tech companies is fading as governments look inward. Tech companies now often lobby directly through governments rather than civil society, which creates trade-offs that can impact public interests during elections. Yet, despite these challenges, investments in digital literacy and technology access, like in Kenya, have empowered a new generation ready to push back against poor governance and authoritarianism.

The future of civil society

With the destruction of US foreign aid as an enterprise, civil society organizations around the world are suddenly bereft and desperate for funding. Meanwhile, previous partnerships with the tech industry—often frustrating or even fruitless—seem less like a plausible avenue for reform than ever. Yet rising awareness of these issues is coloring new grassroots efforts, giving some experts hope that the digital rights movement will survive and even regain its footing.

Alexandra Reeve Givens

It is a time of reckoning for the policy advocacy community… for a long time we have pushed companies to advance best practices while going light on regulation because there needed to be innovation and the government is an inappropriate arbiter of free speech, but in the current political environment we see the extreme limitations of that trust in companies to do the right thing.

We’re seeing the politicization of very basic trust and safety functions that many of us had started to take for granted as an integral part of running a major content platform. And so the question for me is, how do we reverse that trend? Will companies step up and defend this work as a basic element of creating a good experience for their users?”

Many groups are realizing that tech policy is not a niche topic reserved for tech specialists, but something [they] need to engage on to help their communities… we’ve seen worker’s rights organizations and unions, consumer groups, groups representing older Americans, a whole range of different civil rights organizations engag[ing]... that's a really welcome development.

Liz Orembo

The way foreign aid is shifting is concerning. The US used to exercise soft power through aid tied to governance reforms, but now that’s changing—moving toward economic deals like China’s approach. China funds projects in Africa without demanding political conditions, which has made them popular with some governments but comes with debt, trade deficits, and cultural influence. Western institutions are following suit, offering loans without pushing for good governance, which risks weakening democracy. With powers like China, Russia, and others vying for influence, Africa faces a new scramble where the biggest losers will be its people—the grass hurt when two big cows fight.

Civil society participation in internet governance has really changed significantly. We are talking from a process where civil society was just contributing to policies, to a place where civil society is actually providing some of the tech solutions, where the private sector has not seen business sense. For example, community networks reaching areas where companies like MT and Safaricom have not thought of reaching because it’s not going to provide business returns.

We have always depended on foreign actors to fix our business, but now we need to devote those taxes to what actually needs attention in the economies. On the democratic front, civil society is ailing because of authoritarian acts shutting down the internet, clamping down on journalists and human rights activists. But right now, there’s no funding support to help journalists. A lot of help used to come to journalists and digital rights organizations in terms of tech support and resilience, which is now dying out. This means the activism coming out is not going to be supported, and their lives are more in danger because they don’t have the tools to protect themselves.

David Kaye

The Trump administration's crackdown on civil society, combined with the growing use of technology as a tool of state repression, paints a grim picture. Over the past decade, democratic governments have failed to adequately guard against these trends and, in some cases, have even fueled arguments that allow authoritarians to exploit technology in ways that undermine human rights.

On one hand, civil society remains resilient—organizations that have long opposed encryption backdoors, for example, continue to stand firm. Yet they now face serious threats. The United States has weakened many grassroots groups abroad by cutting off funding mid-stream, and donor support from other governments is also shrinking. As a result, the capacity of civil society to push back or collaborate across borders is under significant strain. Meanwhile, no clear champion has emerged to lead the resistance against these global challenges.

Fernanda Martins

We need to put digital rights in dialogue with the other rights of populations. The role of civil society is to bridge across issues and ideologies through dialogue… Indigenous people, Black movements, LGBT people, feminist movements… I have hope that we can learn from them how to fight in this moment. They have survived more than five centuries. We need to listen to them.

Nanjala Nyabola

I'm very encouraged by the amount of grassroots organizing that's happening in the world, with people who have never been involved or interested in tech accountability coming out to learn more and to question things. Whether it's addiction and online gambling, social media governance, or the impact of AI on artists and the creative industries - I think people are starting to push back on the narratives of inevitability that have characterized so much of the development and deployment of tech so far and that can only be a good thing. An informed and active polity can only be a good thing.

Apar Gupta

The best-case scenario is for organizations that share our values—those emerging from networks like the International Human Rights Network—to learn from each other, collaborate, and pool resources. Conferences like RightsCon are vital for sharing tactics and strategies. As resources shrink, it’s more important than ever to be generous and not selfish, recognizing this is a long fight. But we should take joy in defending our values, not see it as a tragedy. After all, we love our work—it’s fun and meaningful—and that optimism helps ease the stress of the immense challenges ahead.

The path forward

Experts were not Pollyannish about democracy’s prospects in the near term. Authoritarianism is on the rise and, in many places, has become deeply entrenched; the tech sector is growing in power and influence at the exact moment it has largely abandoned its professed concern for democracy and user rights. Yet the experts we spoke to also rejected cynicism, noting that the state of play can change rapidly and a new generation of leaders may rise to meet this moment.

Alondra Nelson

I think five years down the road or whenever there's a new moment to assert and implement, I think we can be asserting today, every day, a different way, an alternative vision of thinking about how technology should be in society. But when there's a moment to implement this new vision, I think that one can take away from this moment that resets can happen quickly. And we know that administrations change, and all the institutions that make up the broader ecosystem learn to pivot.

If the reset is to pretty fundamental things around civil liberties, civil rights, free expression, disability rights, then I think whether or not the transformation is hard, it must be demanded because these are the fundamental things that we say we stand for and that need to be enacted and modeled, certainly principally by the government.

Apar Gupta

I think the democratic decline will continue not only just in the near or the immediate term, but in the medium and the long term. And that’s not me being cynical—that’s me just recognizing the challenges which are in front of us. They’re coming through a success of populist movements, which have made people act against their own best interests. We have to recognize the enormity of the challenge before us and also possibly recognize that what falls to us is the ability of crafting movements—hopefully in our lifetimes, or even those that may come after us—in which a new generation of leaders may emerge.

Anupam Chander

The Trump Administration has a very different approach to regulating technology than the Biden Administration. They are really keen to support what they see as American innovation and American technological growth. That wasn’t really a clear goal of the Biden Administration. The Biden Administration did set it as a goal, but it wasn’t really the focus. Often, it was more about regulating technology as opposed to supporting technological growth. This Administration is much more about deregulation, largely seeing deregulation as a key to supporting technological growth. We’re likely to see a deregulatory impulse period that will benefit big tech companies, but that exists alongside real historical grievances and new regulatory challenges.

Liz Orembo

I think a big thing to watch is how the citizenry is evolving, especially the fearless Gen Z movement we saw last year. Unlike millennials, who grew up hearing about authoritarian rule and fear, Gen Z hasn’t experienced that directly, so they’re much more outspoken, even overwhelming authoritarian teachers. When they enter the workforce and governance, things will change.

That’s why I believe authoritarian tactics like Trump’s won’t last long—he’s already facing pushback internationally and at home. Similarly, Kenya’s president is facing backlash and won’t repeat past actions. There’s a clear tipping point that African leaders can no longer ignore.

Tech Policy Press invites contributions on these and more subjects at the intersection of technology and democracy. Learn more about how to contribute here.