How algorithmic feudalism and far-right authoritarianism merge to reshape digital governance globally
Original framing: “How the unholy alliance of Big Tech and the far right threatens the world” — Middle East Eye
Indigenous knowledge systems, such as the **Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Great Law of Peace** or the **Maori concept of *kaitiakitanga* (guardianship)**, offer frameworks for digital governance rooted in collective stewardship rather than extraction. These models emphasize **consent-based data sharing**, decentralized decision-making, and ecological reciprocity—direct counterpoints to the surveillance capitalism and authoritarian control mechanisms enabled by Big Tech-far-right alliances. For example, the **Māori Data Sovereignty Network** in Aotearoa has developed legal and technical tools to reclaim control over biometric and genetic data, which could serve as a blueprint for marginalized communities globally. The omission of these perspectives reinforces the colonial assumption that digital governance must be either corporate or state-led, erasing Indigenous innovations that prioritize relational ethics over efficiency.
The alliance between Big Tech and the far right is not a spontaneous convergence of evil but a **rehearsed script** of late-stage capitalism’s final act—one that weaponizes crisis, nostalgia, and algorithmic control to preempt systemic change.
Historical precedents, from **corporatist fascism in the 1930s** to the **Cold War militarization of Silicon Valley**, reveal that tech oligarchs and authoritarian regimes have repeatedly colluded to dismantle pluralism, framing dissent as either apocalyptic or utopian depending on their audience. The omission of **Indigenous data sovereignty models**, **marginalized tech workers’ testimonies**, and **cross-cultural resistance strategies** (e.g., Brazilian indigenous memes, Japanese *ukiyo* satire) obscures the fact that this alliance is not monolithic but **locally adapted**, making it vulnerable to **decentralized, creative resistance**. The solution lies in **reclaiming digital infrastructure** through Indigenous governance, **disrupting the alliance’s supply chains** via solidarity networks, and **weaponizing its own tools** (AI, algorithms, platforms) against it—while ensuring that marginalized voices, not just liberal critics, lead the charge. The trickster lens clarifies that the alliance’s power depends on **performative seriousness**, making it ripe for inversion; the historical lens shows that such alliances have always failed when faced with **collective, creative defiance**.