Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

Democratic Erosion of Data-Opolies: Decentralized Web3 Technological Paradigm Shift Amidst AI Disruption

Big Data Cogn. Comput. 2024, 8(3), 26; https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc8030026

by Igor Calzada^1,2,3,4,5

Reviewer 1: Anonymous

Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Big Data Cogn. Comput. 2024, 8(3), 26; https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc8030026

Submission received: 23 January 2024 / Revised: 7 February 2024 / Accepted: 21 February 2024 / Published: 26 February 2024

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the author's effort on adding new contents and references to this article, and I believe it has been improved significantly.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

(x) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
( ) Minor editing of English language required
( ) English language fine. No issues detected

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	( )	( )	( )	(x)
Are the methods adequately described?	( )	( )	( )	(x)
Are the results clearly presented?	( )	( )	( )	(x)
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	( )	( )	( )	(x)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the author's effort on adding new contents and references to this article, and I believe it has been improved significantly.

Submission Date

23 January 2024

Date of this review

01 Feb 2024 08:19:53

Author Response to Reviewer 1:

I appreciate the author's effort on adding new contents and references to this article, and I believe it has been improved significantly.
- Thank you very much for your kind review. I do appreciate your wise comments allowing my article to have been already significantly improved. Thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, the authors investigate the complex dynamics of data-opolies and their impact on democratic erosion, focusing on large technology corporations that accumulate and exert significant influence through extensive datasets. The paper examines the sustainability of data practices within the context of Web3 and Artificial Intelligence (AI), analyzing their effect on datafied democracies. The authors propose a paradigm shift in data governance towards more equitable and sustainable data spaces, emphasizing data sovereignty and digital self-determination. They highlight the transformative potential of blockchain, decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), and data cooperatives in enhancing individual control over personal data.

The paper is well-written and flows well. The contribution is not technical but it is solid and well aligned with the body of knowledge. Nevertheless, there are some aspects that could be addressed:

Web3 is discussed as an evolving landscapes in which data-opolies prolificate. However, a more thorough definition of Web3 should be provided.
Section 2 provides a decent literature review. However, in the current state, it is not easy to follow. The section is too long and lacks of structural organization. I suggest to organize it in a more structured way. Also, provide a timeline of most important studies and how they impacted on the current field.
The achieved results should be highlighted better. Why are they needed? Why are they useful? Above all, the authors should try to grasp readers’ attention by highlighting the importance of such results and the impact on the field.
Ethics in the context of DAOs could be briefly discussed. What are the major issues?
Although the discussion is thorough and solid, it is hard to grasp the limitations of the current study. Also, the authors could discuss practical and theoretical implications.
Decentralized architectures and social networks are imposing different challenges on the possibility of studying them. The authors could briefly review the current literature and reference works that study decentralized architectures in different fashions. For instance, the authors could consider citing the work in [doi.org/10.3390/electronics12051086].

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
( ) Minor editing of English language required
(x) English language fine. No issues detected

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is well-written and flows well. The contribution is not technical but it is solid and well aligned with the body of knowledge. Nevertheless, there are some aspects that could be addressed:

Web3 is discussed as an evolving landscapes in which data-opolies prolificate. However, a more thorough definition of Web3 should be provided.

Section 2 provides a decent literature review. However, in the current state, it is not easy to follow. The section is too long and lacks of structural organization. I suggest to organize it in a more structured way. Also, provide a timeline of most important studies and how they impacted on the current field.

The achieved results should be highlighted better. Why are they needed? Why are they useful? Above all, the authors should try to grasp readers’ attention by highlighting the importance of such results and the impact on the field.

Ethics in the context of DAOs could be briefly discussed. What are the major issues?

Although the discussion is thorough and solid, it is hard to grasp the limitations of the current study. Also, the authors could discuss practical and theoretical implications.

Decentralized architectures and social networks are imposing different challenges on the possibility of studying them. The authors could briefly review the current literature and reference works that study decentralized architectures in different fashions. For instance, the authors could consider citing the work in [doi.org/10.3390/electronics12051086].

Submission Date

23 January 2024

Date of this review

30 Jan 2024 17:40:31

Author Response to Reviewer 2:

Thank you for summing up the article and for understanding the content that I wrote about.

The paper is well-written and flows well. The contribution is not technical but it is solid and well aligned with the body of knowledge. Nevertheless, there are some aspects that could be addressed:

Thank you for your appreciation and for valuing the not technical contribution, which is well aligned with the body of knowledge. Besides, for considering the article is well-written and flows well. I will address the points your raised one by one. Thanks

Web3 is discussed as an evolving landscapes in which data-opolies prolificate. However, a more thorough definition of Web3 should be provided.

Thank you for your observation. It is accurate and necessary. Thus, I have included a new extract and paragraph by providing a full definition and context of Web3. I believe now it presents a more consistent section and article. Thank you.

Web3 is defined in this article as follows: Also known as Web 3.0, it is the next evolution of the World Wide Web, characterized by decentralization, open access, and built on blockchain technologies and developments in the Semantic Web. It should be noted that Web3 is an emerging landscape, and it is still a work-in-progress and lacks a universally accepted definition. The main principle of Web3 is that it will be decentralized, unlike the current centralized web driven by data-opolies, and to some extent, connected to the concept of the metaverse [48,56,73]. Web3 includes various applications such as cryptocurrencies, NFTs, DAOs, and decentralized finance, offering an own version of the web, where users have a financial stake and more control over the web communities they belong to.

Thank you very much for your comment. Yes, you are right, and I have deeply revised the full second section as follows: I have deeply revised the whole content and structured the section in five subsections. In the context of this policy/review article (rather than a technical one), I believe readership will appreciate the content of this section despite it could be longer than the rest. I believe it is well justified insofar as it could be a new topic for many readers insofar as it suggests a paradigm shift because of the Davos event insights, among others.

Thus, the section has been structured as indicated:

The section is structured in five subsections: (i) GAFAM: Data-opolies; (ii) Decentralized Web3 Technologies; (iii) Data-opolies in the Context of Silicon Valley; (iv) Emerging and Decentralized Web3 Technologies: A Paradigm Shift; and (v) Retrospective Literature Review: The History of the Disruption and the Counter-Disruption.

Then, the rest of the section has been restructured from scratch by changing the order and re-writing it. The five subsections provide the structure you suggested and also, I provided a full paragraph on the timeline of most important studies and how they impacted on the current field.

Here the full second section, with the five subsections:

3.1. GAFAM: Data-opolies

GAFAM, an acronym for Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft, is a group of data-opolies that have dominated the tech industry for years [67]. These companies gather extensive amounts of data from their users, which they utilize to develop their intellectual property and create new markets and products based on this wealth of data. However, this raises concerns about consumer privacy and the threat to free market competition [4]. The proprietary data collected by these companies has become a barrier to entry to the market, impeding new competitors and harming industry competitiveness as a whole. Consequently, Big Tech’s dominance has eroded democratic values, as they possess the power to hinder market entry for potential competitors, reminiscent of past monopolies [11].

According to Stucke [59] (p. 1) ‘what is remarkable about the data-opolies is how they have come to dominate numerous markets. Alphabet (which, for our purpose, we will call Google) has dominated over the past decade general search and general search advertising in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere. Google has leveraged its search monopoly to dominate other markets, including web browsers (Chrome), mobile operating systems (Android), web-mapping (Google Maps and Waze), and YouTube, the leading user-generated entertainment and video content platform.’ And he culminates his analysis by asking ‘how did these data-opolies become so powerful’. He provides four factors: economies of scales, network, effects, attention, and the four Vs of persona data (volume, variety, velocity in processing, and value). He concluded arguing that GAFAM successfully dominated multiple markets for years and seem poised to continue their domination over the next decade.

The concentration of power by data-opolies, epitomized by GAFAM raises critical concerns about the dynamics of modern capitalism and its impact on democracy. This echoes Malcolm Harris's exploration in his book 'Palo Alto: A History of California, Capitalism, and the World' [4], where he delves into the intricate relationship between technology corporations, their historical roots, and the global consequences of their dominance. Harris's work underscores the significance of understanding the historical evolution of these data-opolies in shaping not only markets but also influencing political and societal landscapes. By scrutinizing the history of Silicon Valley and its role in the rise of GAFAM, Harris contributes valuable insights into the intersections of technology, capitalism, and democracy. The implications of data concentration, as outlined by Stucke, align with Harris's examination, forming a comprehensive narrative that prompts reflection on the trajectory of these data-opolies and their profound impact on democratic processes.

This section provides a deep analysis of how each data-opoly specifically contributes to democratic erosion. Five case studies or real-world examples are provided to illustrate the analysis:

Google Search Algorithms and Political Bias: During elections, there have been concerns about Google's search algorithms potentially favouring certain political candidates or viewpoints. Algorithms, which are shaped by extensive user data, can influence the information provided to users, potentially leading to political bias and exerting influence on democratic processes.
Facebook and the Spread of Misinformation: The spread of misinformation on Facebook has been a significant issue, with the platform's algorithms amplifying sensational content. This has resulted in the creation of echo chambers and the spread of misinformation, which can sway public opinion and potentially undermine democratic discourse.
Amazon's Market Dominance and Small Business Impact: Amazon's dominance in e-commerce has raised concerns about fair competition and its impact on small businesses. Amazon's control over extensive consumer data enables it to influence market dynamics, which could potentially put smaller competitors at a disadvantage and impact the democratic principle of equitable economic participation.
Microsoft's Role in Election Security: Microsoft's Azure cloud platform plays a crucial role in election infrastructure. The centralization of such a critical component of democratic processes within the control of a handful of tech giants raises apprehensions regarding its potential influence on election security and the fundamental democratic right to free and impartial elections.
Apple's App Store Control and Freedom of Speech: Apple's control over its App Store has raised questions about freedom of speech. The company's ability to regulate and censor certain applications can impact the diversity of perspectives available to users, influencing the democratic exchange of ideas in the digital space.

These examples demonstrate how data-centric monopolies exert significant influence across various facets of society, ranging from shaping political narratives to impacting small businesses and controlling critical infrastructure. The consolidation of power within a small number of major tech corporations carries substantial implications for democratic principles, underscoring the imperative for vigilant oversight and regulation to ensure a just and democratic digital environment.

Web3 and AI introduce multifaceted challenges to the traditional concept of data monopolies. Decentralized applications and data cooperatives, integral to Web3, strive to create a more equitable landscape by empowering individuals and fostering collective governance. In contrast, AI disrupts data monopolies by enabling decentralized decision-making through technologies such as Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs). These autonomous entities governed by code and consensus provide an alternative to centralized control. Additionally, AI contributes to challenging data monopolies by offering enhanced data analytics and insights, potentially reducing dependence on centralized entities for data-driven decision-making. However, the effectiveness of these challenges depends on addressing pitfalls and ethical considerations (i.e. AI Act), such as ensuring equitable access to Web3 technologies, guarding against the emergence of new monopolies in decentralized systems, and addressing potential biases in AI algorithms to ensure fair and transparent outcomes.

Amidst the dominance of GAFAM and the growing concerns about democratic erosion, the exploration of Web3 emerges as a transformative avenue for countering the challenges posed by data-opolies. Web3, characterized by decentralized structures and blockchain-driven innovations, presents a potential paradigm shift in the digital landscape [68].

3.2. Decentralized Web3 Technologies

Web3 is defined in this article as follows: Also known as Web 3.0, it is the next evolution of the World Wide Web, characterized by decentralization, open access, and built on blockchain technologies and developments in the Semantic Web. It should be noted that Web3 is an emerging landscape, and it is still a work-in-progress and lacks a universally accepted definition. The main principle of Web3 is that it will be decentralized, unlike the current centralized web driven by data-opolies, and to some extent, connected to the concept of the metaverse [48,56]. Web3 includes various applications such as cryptocurrencies, NFTs, DAOs, and decentralized finance, offering an own version of the web, where users have a financial stake and more control over the web communities they belong to.

3.3. Data-opolies in the Context of Silicon Valley

Lécuyer [69], among other authors, argues that the success of Silicon Valley can be attributed to its unique culture of collaboration and knowledge sharing. This culture facilitated the rapid development of new technologies, services, and products. Saxenian [70] also emphasizes the role of regional and territorial culture in Silicon Valley's success. She points out that the region's open and flexible organizational structures allowed for easy exchange of ideas and the formation of new companies. However, the dominance of GAFAM and other data-opolies poses a threat to this culture of collaboration and innovation. These companies have the power to stifle competition and hinder the formation of new companies [67]. Furthermore, the concentration of power in the hands of a few data-opolies is a risk to democracy. They can influence political processes and shape public opinion [71]. Therefore, it is crucial to develop emancipatory datafication strategies through Web3. This will ensure a harmonious coexistence between analog and digital realms and prevent further erosion of democracy by Big Techs [68].

Recent research on disruptive technologies extensively describes in depth the decentralized Web3 technological paradigm shift amidst AI disruption [72-74]. Blockchain, a key player in this evolution, not only offers secure and transparent transactions but also redefines the dynamics of digital nomadism [75,76]. As elucidated in Calzada's work on blockchain-driven digital nomadism [72], individuals leverage decentralized technologies to transcend geographical boundaries, reshaping the traditional notions of nation-states and citizenship [77]. This evolution within Web3 offers a counterbalance to the monopolistic tendencies of data-opolies, fostering a landscape where decentralized technologies empower individuals and pave the way for innovative civic engagement. This article, drawing inspiration from this research, posits that a strategic focus on emancipatory datafication strategies through Web3 is essential for safeguarding democratic values and preventing the further erosion posed by Big Tech monopolies [68].

Moreover, Stucke poses an insightful question: Why have GAFAM successfully dominated multiple markets for years and seem poised to continue their domination over the next decade? These data-opolies have controlled the digital economy, and ‘the price we pay includes our privacy, attention, and autonomy’ [59] (p. 1). According to Stucke, four well-accepted factors explain this data-opolistic dominance trend that impacts digital citizens’ data (un)sustainability [78]: (i) economies of scale, (ii) network effects, (iii) attention, and (iv) the four Vs of personal data, which stand for volume, variety, velocity in processing, and value. Once a data-opoly has achieved such economies of scale and established a network effect, it becomes increasingly difficult for new entrants to attract a substantial user base. Network effects occur when a product or service’s value increases as others use it. There are five network effects in the digital platform economy: (i) the direct network effect, (ii) the indirect network effect, (iii) spillover effects, (iv) the learning-by-doing effect, and (v) the scope of data network effect. Utopian resistance movements should clearly address this global challenge beyond the regulatory frameworks that multiply continually. Data-opolies can thus create (or harness) these network effects for their advantage and to lock us in.

Against this backdrop, scholars such as Bucher [79], Forestal [80,81], and Taplin [82] argue that data-opolies or Big Tech platforms, particularly Google and Facebook, employ algorithms and opaque content moderation policies to obscure the prioritization and promotion of content on their platforms. Critics assert that this practice has the potential to amplify misinformation and create echo chambers. They further argue that such an approach conceals the true nature of presented content, eroding public trust and exacerbating the polarization of public opinion. On the other hand, proponents of these platforms contend that they prioritize free speech and user autonomy, while also recognizing the need to address concerns such as misinformation and harmful content. Veliz [83] suggests that enhancing transparency and accountability in the algorithms and content moderation policies of these platforms could help alleviate these privacy concerns. However, Gorwa [84] posits that regulating these platforms is a multifaceted and intricate issue, demanding a nuanced approach. In addressing the broader spectrum of perspectives on data-opolies and democratic erosion, this article delves into viewpoints from scholars such as Bucher, Forestal, and Taplin, who emphasize the potential amplification of misinformation and polarization by Big Tech platforms. Furthermore, by incorporating insights from Veliz and Gorwa, the article expands its coverage to advocate for transparency, accountability, and acknowledges the multifaceted nature of regulating these platforms, presenting a comprehensive examination of the diverse perspectives surrounding data monopolies and their implications for democratic processes.

3.4. Emerging and Decentralized Web3 Technologies: A Paradigm Shift

Considering the arguments and counterarguments in this ongoing debate, an alternative and widespread reaction emerges from crypto-libertarian or pseudo-anarchist perspectives. This reaction has led to the development of an emerging body of literature on decentralized systems in peer-to-peer interactions [74], encompassing (i) blockchain [15,56], (ii) DAOs [28,29,31,74,85,86], and (iii) data co-operatives [13,20,34,35,37,56,73,87-91]. This alternative viewpoint suggests an unexplored research trajectory that could interweave blockchain, DAOs, and digital citizens, potentially fueling a post-identitarian mobility pattern [17,92]. It is essential to acknowledge that this alternative stance, currently advocating for blockchain and DAOs, finds its origins in The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto launched in 1988 in Silicon Valley by Timothy May [26].

Consequently, in the face of the formidable challenges posed by Big Tech's unchecked data practices, a beacon of hope emerges on the digital horizon in the form of Web3 decentralized technologies. Web3, which is guided by the principles of decentralization, transparency, and data sovereignty, provides a powerful solution to the unsustainable data practices that have become prevalent in the digital age. At its essence, Web3 signifies a fundamental change in our understanding and handling of data, promoting a vision of a sustainable digital future. In the realm of Web3, blockchain technology takes a prominent role as a decentralized ledger, guaranteeing the integrity and immutability of data [16]. This digital foundational economic model empowers individuals, allowing them to reclaim their digital identities from the grasp of monolithic tech giants [93,94].

However, Web3's true revolutionary potential extends beyond blockchain [23,25]. It gives birth to DAOs, autonomous entities governed by code and consensus, where decisions are made collectively by stakeholders rather than dictated by corporate hierarchies [22,28]. This shift towards decentralized governance challenges the very core of Big Tech's dominance, offering a more equitable and democratic approach to data management [95]. In this digital utopia, data cooperatives emerge as key players, enabling individuals to collectively manage and profit from their data [34,87]. Digital citizens are no longer mere consumers; they become active participants, shaping the rules and benefits of the data ecosystem of which they are a part [48,96].

What makes Web3 truly utopian is its inherent resistance factor. It is a grassroots movement that opposes the centralization of data power and imagines a world where digital citizens regain control over their online lives. Web3 advocates for a sustainable ethos that prioritizes data privacy, environmental responsibility, and economic fairness. By embracing Web3, we are embarking on a journey towards a digital future that replaces the unsustainable practices of Big Tech with a more equitable, sustainable, and democratic data ecosystem. The potential of Web3 lies not only in its technological advancements, but also in empowering digital citizens to shape a future where data benefits the collective good, and where sustainability, privacy, and resilience are of utmost importance [50]. In this way, Web3 charts a path toward a digital utopia, where people reclaim their data destiny and forge a more sustainable and just digital world [97-103].

3.5. Retrospective Literature Review: The History of the Disruption and the Counter-Disruption

Consequently, in the digital age, the ominous shadow of data-opolies looms large over democratic ideals, echoing the sentiment that "They Do Not Represent Us." This phrase, a rallying cry of discontent, finds resonance in the works of visionaries like John Perry Barlow, whose "Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace" boldly proclaimed the autonomy of the digital realm from traditional governance structures [104]. Barlow envisioned cyberspace as a sovereign space, free from the constraints of physical borders and governmental control. However, the rise of data-opolies has disrupted this vision, creating powerful entities that transcend geographical boundaries but wield immense influence over the digital landscape. As we navigate these complexities, the call to reclaim agency through emancipatory datafication strategies within the framework of Web3 becomes imperative, offering a path to counteract the erosive forces and reinstate the principles of democratic governance in our interconnected world.

Lizzie O'Shea [65], in her work "Future Histories," adds a contemporary perspective to this discourse, shedding light on the evolving dynamics between technology, power, and democracy. O'Shea prompts us to critically examine the narrative of progress intertwined with technological advancements. In the era of data-opolies, the narrative is nuanced, revealing not only the promises of connectivity but also the perils of concentrated control. The monopolization of data by a handful of corporations challenges the foundational principles of democratic representation, as decisions affecting the digital public sphere are increasingly shaped by the interests of these data behemoths.

With this literature review, we embark on an odyssey to decode the intricate script of data's destiny. This is an exploration that delves beyond the surface, uncovering not only the quandaries but also the pathways to redemption. As we stand on the brink of a new era, we face the crucial task of steering our course towards a digital future that prioritizes emancipation over subjugation and sustainability over recklessness. This future should serve as a testament to our capability to address the immense technological challenges that lie ahead. In an age characterized by unparalleled technological advancements, our world has become intricately intertwined with the digital domain. The influence of technology giants and their data-driven ecosystems has permeated every facet of our lives, fundamentally reshaping societies and economies with remarkable force. As we navigate this intricate landscape, it becomes increasingly clear that the idealistic vision of a utopian digital future, once championed by forward-thinking individuals like John Perry Barlow, has encountered substantial obstacles along its path to realization. The interplay between data, sustainability, democracy, and emancipatory strategies stands at the forefront of our contemporary discourse, demanding urgent attention and collective action [81]. As such, John Perry Barlow's Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace in 1996 projected a vision of a digital realm free from the constraints of physical borders, a utopia where information would flow freely, transcending traditional hierarchies and power structures [105-107]. However, as the years unfolded, this vision collided with the reality of Big Tech's monopolistic practices, privacy breaches, and the rise of surveillance capitalism, all of which stand as stark reminders of the unfulfilled utopia [59].

In the shadows cast by the 'dark side' of technology, James Bridle's expose on the hidden infrastructure of the digital world unearths troubling realities that lie beneath the surface [2]. The tension between utopian aspirations and dystopian consequences invites us to reconsider the narrative surrounding our digital existence. Similarly, Ekaitz Cancela's work on 'Utopías Digitales' urges us to critically examine the potential and limitations of the digital sphere as a tool for societal transformation [7]. It prompts us to explore strategies that might enable us to harness the emancipatory potential of technology while addressing the pressing issues of data sustainability. Javier Echeverría's concept of 'Telépolis' further deepens this exploration [108]. The idea of a technologically enabled global village offers glimpses of connectivity and collaboration, but it also demands careful consideration of the environmental, social, and ethical implications. As we grapple with the all-encompassing reach of technology, we find ourselves in need of a new paradigm that aligns digital innovation with sustainability goals. Cal Newport's [1] proposition of 'Digital Minimalism' suggests a recalibration of our relationship with technology to undermine hyperconnectivity, as advocated by Calzada and Cobo [109] in their article ‘Unplugging.’ It encourages intentional and mindful use to counter the digital overload that threatens to engulf us. To navigate the intricate web of issues surrounding data (un)sustainability, we must also address the economic dimensions. Lizzie O'Shea's concept of 'Future Histories' reminds us that the choices we make today in shaping our digital landscape will reverberate through history [65]. This realization calls for strategic foresight and a proactive approach to crafting policies and systems that withstand the test of time. Markku Lehdonvirta's exploration of 'Cloud Empires' delves into the power dynamics of data accumulation, shedding light on the concentration of authority within the hands of a few corporate behemoths [110]. As we seek to foster a more sustainable digital ecosystem, it becomes imperative to rebalance these power structures and cultivate equitable data governance mechanisms [111].

In this digital journey, the writings of Hannah Arendt in 'The Origins of Totalitarianism' [63] offer a profound historical backdrop for comprehending the intricate interplay between technology, power, and societal transformation. Arendt's examination of the emergence of totalitarian regimes in the 20th century provides a cautionary narrative that resonates deeply with our present digital era. Her insights into the perils of political and technological systems that erode human agency hold particular significance as we grapple with the repercussions of data extraction and surveillance capitalism in the digital realm, underscoring the importance of asserting the 'right to have digital rights' [112]. In this literature review, Arendt's perspective acts as a historical anchor, reminding us that the struggle for a sustainable digital future is not a new one [65].

The proliferation of digital technologies has brought forth a profound transformation in the landscape of citizenship, extending beyond traditional notions of civic engagement and political participation [113-115]. In 'Emerging Digital Citizenship Regimes,' Calzada provides a comprehensive analysis of the evolving paradigms of citizenship within the digital age [58]. Central to this exploration is the concept of 'datafication,' a multifaceted phenomenon that implicates both the potential for emancipatory empowerment and the inherent perils of data-driven governance. Calzada's work contextualizes the contemporary discourse on digital citizenship within the broader framework of sustainability, elucidating the intricate relationships between data practices, societal values, and ecological considerations in relation to the post-westphalian nation-state [116,117]. Calzada's work sheds light on the interconnectedness between technological advancements, political structures, and digital rights between existing disparities in the Global North and Global South [118]. ‘Emerging Digital Citizenship regimes’ identifies five ideal types of digital citizenship: pandemic, algorithmic, liquid, metropolitan, and stateless citizenship [10]. These five ideal types show different manifestations around the way digital citizens react to an increasing postpandemic datafication processes (dataism) [119]. As such, these ideal types certainly trace emancipatory strategies previously outlined—blockchain decentralized architecture, DAOs, and data co-operatives—which serve as pillars of this utopian algorithmic resistance [120].

As we delve deeper into the age of AI [121,122], the contours of digital citizenship undergo further evolution, introducing unprecedented opportunities and challenges. AI technologies, fueled by machine learning algorithms and data analytics, play a central role in shaping the digital landscapes where citizens interact, engage, and assert their agency. The amalgamation of AI and digital citizenship introduces a dynamic interplay, with algorithms influencing decision-making processes, civic participation, and the very fabric of democratic governance. In navigating this evolving landscape, the emergence of new ideal types of digital citizenship, such as algorithmic citizenship, becomes pertinent. This ideal type reflects the ways in which individuals and communities interact with AI-driven systems, highlighting the intricate dance between human agency and algorithmic influence. Incorporating AI into the realm of digital citizenship demands more than just technological literacy; it also calls for active engagement in defining the ethical standards and policies that oversee AI applications within democratic societies. As we find ourselves at the crossroads of the AI era and digital citizenship, comprehending the intricate dynamics of these technological transitions becomes increasingly pressing. The call for emancipatory strategies, outlined in response to datafication challenges, extends seamlessly into the realm of AI-driven citizenship. By fostering a nuanced understanding of AI-driven citizenship, we can chart a course toward a future where technological advancements align with human values, ensuring a harmonious coexistence between the analog and digital realms.

The timeline of critical studies on data-opolies and Web3 technologies traces the development of our understanding of Big Tech's dominance and its impact on democracy. It all began with Maurice Stucke's groundbreaking analysis of data-opolies' market dominance, followed by Malcolm Harris's contextualization of Silicon Valley's history. These scholars have shed light on the complex relationship between capitalism, technology, and democracy. By examining case studies on Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, and Apple, they have highlighted the challenges that data-opolies pose to democratic processes and emphasized the need for regulatory oversight. Simultaneously, research on decentralized Web3 technologies offers hope for addressing the dominance of data-opolies and imagining a future where individuals regain control over their digital identities and data. By embracing principles of decentralization and transparency, Web3 paves the way for a more equitable and just digital future. However, challenges such as ethical considerations and equitable access must still be addressed.

In conclusion, as we navigate the intricate path of data (un)sustainability, these regimes provide a navigational compass, guiding us toward solutions that harness the power of data while safeguarding individual rights and societal well-being. By understanding and adapting to these new paradigms of citizenship, we can forge a future where data serves as a catalyst for positive change and human flourishing.

Thank you for this comment too. I have gone through results, and I underlined why are they needed and useful.

The results presented in this section underscore the transformative potential of decentralized Web3 technologies within the realm of urban innovation and governance. By elucidating the concepts of People-Centered Smart Cities and Datafied Network States within the Web3 context, the article highlights the profound implications of these technologies for reshaping governance structures and citizen participation. These two results are gradually emerging in cities and nation-states, which is why both are needed and useful in light of their impact on ongoing cutting edge academic global debates in the field of digital politics and governance (https://globalgovernanceprogramme.eui.eu/new-network-sovereignties-the-rise-of-non-territorial-states/). The integration of blockchain technology in People-Centered Smart Cities offers a paradigm shift towards citizen-centric governance, enabling transparent and inclusive decision-making processes. Similarly, the emergence of Datafied Network States signifies a departure from traditional nation-state governance models, ushering in a new era of decentralized, participatory governance facilitated by technologies like DAOs and smart contracts. The distinctions outlined in Table 1 further elucidate the key factors and differences between these two approaches, emphasizing their significance in promoting transparency, citizen engagement, innovation, and privacy within urban and regional territorial scales [136]. By providing a comprehensive analysis of these results, the article not only contributes to advancing scholarly understanding but also offers actionable insights for policymakers and practitioners seeking to harness the potential of Web3 technologies for building more resilient, responsive, and citizen-centric cities and states.

Ethics in the context of DAOs could be briefly discussed. What are the major issues?

Thank you for addressing this important aspect. Actually, I included a new reference and I have added a new paragraph on this main idea:

Having said that, in the context of DAOs, the challenges around ethics need to be addressed. As such, DAOs offer independently-minded internet users a free haven for online extremism. The year 2024 might be the one in which neo-Nazis, jihadists, and conspiracy theorists turn their utopian visions of creating their own self-governed realities into reality, but in the form of DAOs. Today, there are already over 10,000 DAOs, which collectively count millions of participants. The major ethical concerns around DAOs resonate with their potential exploitation for extremist and criminal purposes in a year that will see the greatest number of elections taking place. DAOs are not exempt from ethical and democratic scrutiny and hindrances.

Although the discussion is thorough and solid, it is hard to grasp the limitations of the current study. Also, the authors could discuss practical and theoretical implications.

Thank you for your observation. You are right. Even though in the previous revision I emphasized policy implications and recommendations, in this revision I have just added a new paragraph by going through limitations, practical and theoretical implications, as you suggested. I have included very timely practical implications on this debate by mentioning a forthcoming Summer School and a related research centre operating globally on this topic.

It is important to acknowledge the constraints and boundaries of the study, including potential biases in the literature review towards critical data science, limitations in the scope of analysis, and assumptions underlying the theoretical framework. Practical implications could include actionable recommendations for regulatory frameworks, technological interventions, or community engagement strategies to promote decentralized data practices and enhance digital empowerment. The Summer School that will be organized by the NGO Ayuda en Acción and directed by the author of this article in St. Sebastian (Spain) in September 2024 is entitled "Artificial Intelligence for Social Innovation? Beyond the Noise of Algorithms and Datafication" (www.socialsolver.org). Similarly, the theoretical implications rely on the importance of further researching decentralization, as the Decentralization Research Centre (DCR; https://thedrcenter.org/fellows-and-team/) is doing. The DRC, based in Canada, is dedicated to exploring various aspects of decentralization across different domains, including governance, technology, economics, and social organization. Their research encompasses a wide range of topics related to decentralization, such as blockchain technology, decentralized finance (DeFi), DAOs, distributed ledger technology (DLT), and decentralized governance models. One aspect of their research involves examining the implications of decentralization on traditional governance structures and processes. This includes studying how blockchain and other decentralized technologies can facilitate more transparent, inclusive, and democratic forms of governance, both at the local and global levels. They investigate the potential of decentralized governance models to empower individuals and communities, promote civic engagement, and foster innovation in policymaking and decision-making processes. Furthermore, the DRC explores the economic dimensions of decentralization, particularly in the context of emerging decentralized financial systems and platforms. They analyze the impact of DeFi and blockchain-based financial applications on traditional banking and financial institutions, as well as their potential to provide greater financial inclusion, accessibility, and security to underserved populations. Additionally, the DRC investigates the societal implications of decentralization, including its role in promoting social equity, resilience, and sustainability. They examine how decentralized technologies can be leveraged to address pressing social challenges, such as data privacy, identity management, supply chain transparency, and environmental sustainability. Overall, the DRC in Canada conducts interdisciplinary research aimed at advancing our understanding of decentralization and its multifaceted impacts on governance, technology, economics, and society. Their work contributes to shaping debates, informing policy decisions, and driving innovation in the rapidly evolving field of decentralization.

This comment is welcome. Yes, I have read and cited this article as you suggested.

Decentralized architectures present such challenges that you indicate. I have contextualized the paper amid the reference of the DRC and the Summer School announcement.

The recent rise of diverse blockchains has sparked interest in understanding cross-blockchain ecosystems, where multiple blockchains coexist and interact. As such, decentralized architectures and social networks are effectively imposing different challenges on the possibility of studying them. However, effectively managing such ecosystems is a significant challenge. In a study by Bonifazi et al. [158], they propose using Social Network Analysis (SNA) to address this challenge. They introduce a social network-based model to represent cross-blockchain scenarios and present a multidimensional, multi-view framework to analyze them. By applying this framework to real data from Multichain, the study identifies various user categories and their behaviors within the cross-blockchain ecosystem. Additionally, they propose a novel centrality measure to identify the most significant wallets, considering multiple viewpoints. By incorporating insights from SNA, this research offers valuable perspectives on understanding and managing cross-blockchain environments, contributing to the broader discourse on decentralized architectures and social networks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The argument is intriguing and well-articulated, but it also includes some suggestions. Two of these suggestions, in my view, are imperative, while one is more optional and subject to your discretion. If you believe the latter are not applicable, feel free to disregard them.

Absolutely necessary:

- The work appears to be mostly a hastily drafted submission. There is significant repetition of concepts throughout the text, particularly evident in lines 251-287. Additionally, other parts of the document contain repeated ideas, resulting in an overly verbose article that can be tiresome to read. Please consider reducing the length by eliminating repetitions. For instance, you could condense the discussion and conclusion sections since the concepts and arguments are already expressed elsewhere in the text, including sections 2 and 3.

- Regarding lines 288-313, where "case studies or real-world examples" are discussed, appropriate citations are provided throughout the document except in this section. Are these examples drawn from your own conclusions, hypotheses, or real-life cases from external sources? Please clarify briefly.

At your discretion:

- In the title, emphasize that the article is primarily a review rather than a technical piece.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Absolutely necessary:

At your discretion:

- In the title, emphasize that the article is primarily a review rather than a technical piece.

Submission Date

23 January 2024

Date of this review

05 Feb 2024 10:30:32

Author Response to Reviewer 3:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for considering an intriguing and well-articulated article. I will go through them.

Absolutely necessary:

Thank you for your comment. The article has been thoroughly revised. I have actually reduced by merging and simplifying the content you mentioned in lines 251-287. I have already removed content and merged from three to one paragraph by reducing the content as you kindly requested. The other parts have been revised too and eliminate repetitions.

The term "data-opolies" is a portmanteau of "data" and "monopolies," and it refers to situations where a small number of entities or companies exert significant control or dominance over large volumes of data within a particular industry or market. This term has been coined by Maurice Stucke [59]. According to Stucke [59] (p. 1) ‘what is remarkable about the data-opolies is how they have come to dominate numerous markets. Alphabet (which, for our purpose, we will call Google) has dominated over the past decade general search and general search advertising in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere. Google has leveraged its search monopoly to dominate other markets, including web browsers (Chrome), mobile operating systems (Android), web-mapping (Google Maps and Waze), and YouTube, the leading user-generated entertainment and video content platform.’ And he culminates his analysis by asking ‘how did these data-opolies become so powerful’. He provides four factors: economies of scales, network, effects, attention, and the four Vs of persona data (volume, variety, velocity in processing, and value). He concluded arguing that GAFAM successfully dominated multiple markets for years and seem poised to continue their domination over the next decade. This echoes Malcolm Harris's exploration in his book 'Palo Alto: A History of California, Capitalism, and the World' [4], where he delves into the intricate relationship between technology corporations, their historical roots, and the global consequences of their dominance. Harris's work underscores the significance of understanding the historical evolution of these data-opolies in shaping not only markets but also influencing political and societal landscapes. By scrutinizing the history of Silicon Valley and its role in the rise of GAFAM, Harris contributes valuable insights into the intersections of technology, capitalism, and democracy. The implications of data concentration, as outlined by Stucke, align with Harris's examination, forming a comprehensive narrative that prompts reflection on the trajectory of these data-opolies and their profound impact on democratic processes.

I have removed several content and merged paragraphs. I have reduced the length by keeping the essential parts. In addition, the second section has been entirely re-structure by adding five subsections:

The section is structured in five subsections: (i) GAFAM: Data-opolies; (ii) Decentralized Web3 Technologies; (iii) Data-opolies in the Context of Silicon Valley; (iv) Emerging and Decentralized Web3 Technologies: A Paradigm Shift; and (v) Retrospective Literature Review: The History of the Disruption and the Counter-Disruption.

Thus, second section is entirely revised. The new structure of this section allows a better reading, and the content is necessary to justify the paradigm shift that the article explains. The five subsections are necessary to understand with consistency the main argument of the article you referred to. The article’s argument is intriguing and need to also be well-articulated through five subsections as I tried to improve the structure upon your explicit request. Sections Discussion and Conclusions have been better articulated after this revision.

These five case studies or real-world examples have been inspired by Stucke [59] and the elaborations have been made by my analysis based on this reference. Yes, I clarify, the conclusions are my own conclusions stemming from Stucke. These sections are necessary to understand the impact of data-opolies in the democratic erosion.

This section provides a deep analysis of how each data-opoly specifically contributes to democratic erosion. Five case studies or real-world examples are provided to illustrate the analysis suggested by Stucke [59] and the resulting findings of this article:

Google search algorithms and political bias: During elections, there have been concerns about Google's search algorithms potentially favouring certain political candidates or viewpoints. Algorithms, which are shaped by extensive user data, can influence the information provided to users, potentially leading to political bias and exerting influence on democratic processes.
Facebook and the spread of misinformation: The spread of misinformation on Facebook has been a significant issue, with the platform's algorithms amplifying sensational content. This has resulted in the creation of echo chambers and the spread of misinformation, which can sway public opinion and potentially undermine democratic discourse.
Amazon's market dominance and small business impact: Amazon's dominance in e-commerce has raised concerns about fair competition and its impact on small businesses. Amazon's control over extensive consumer data enables it to influence market dynamics, which could potentially put smaller competitors at a disadvantage and impact the democratic principle of equitable economic participation.
Microsoft's role in election security: Microsoft's Azure cloud platform plays a crucial role in election infrastructure. The centralization of such a critical component of democratic processes within the control of a handful of tech giants raises apprehensions regarding its potential influence on election security and the fundamental democratic right to free and impartial elections.
Apple's App Store control and freedom of speech: Apple's control over its App Store has raised questions about freedom of speech. The company's ability to regulate and censor certain applications can impact the diversity of perspectives available to users, influencing the democratic exchange of ideas in the digital space.

In the section about DAOs (Section 4 Discussion), though, a new extract has been included also providing the counterpart for DAOs and their ethical implications:

This way, the article strikes a balance and provides a neutral standpoint on this debate.

At your discretion:

- In the title, emphasize that the article is primarily a review rather than a technical piece.

I take on board your suggestion, despite was given to me at my discretion. I did emphasize that the unique character or the article within the scope of the journal. Thus, instead of ‘Democratic Erosion of Data-opolies Amid Web3 and AI Realms’, I have renamed the article as follows: ‘Democratic Erosion of Data-opolies: Decentralized Web3 Technological Paradigm Shift Amidst AI Disruption’. I believe now it is much more informative, and it provides more nuanced information about its content. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No more comments to be addressed.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reviewing the article "Democratic Erosion of Data-opolies Amid Web3 and AI Realms," I've identified several areas where amendments could enhance the paper's clarity, depth, and scholarly contribution:

Introduction: Expand on the context of Web3 and AI in the realm of data-opolies, providing specific examples to better illustrate the current landscape.
Literature Review: Include more recent studies and diversify the sources to cover a broader range of perspectives on data monopolies and democratic erosion.
Methodology: Clarify the research methods used, particularly how data was collected and analysed. This will strengthen the paper's academic rigor.
Discussion on Data-opolies: Deepen the analysis of how data-opolies specifically contribute to democratic erosion. Consider adding case studies or real-world examples for illustration.
Web3 and AI Analysis: Provide a more detailed examination of how Web3 and AI can both challenge and reinforce data monopolies. Discuss potential pitfalls and ethical considerations.
Emancipatory Datafication Strategies: Elaborate on how blockchain, DAOs, and data cooperatives can be effectively implemented. Include success stories or case studies to support these arguments.
Conclusion: Expand the conclusion to offer more concrete recommendations or policy implications based on the findings.
References: Update and expand the reference list to include more recent and relevant sources, ensuring a comprehensive coverage of the topic.
Figures and Tables: If applicable, ensure that all figures and tables are clearly labeled and referenced within the text.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I found the English language usage to be generally clear and comprehensible. The language falls under the category of "Minor editing of English language required." While the paper is well-written overall, there are occasional instances where minor grammatical corrections or clarifications would enhance readability and precision. These improvements are relatively small and do not significantly hinder the understanding of the text.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses some very interesting points on the subject of data-opolies, with some insightful comments and analyses. The main concern against the article is its suitability to the journal, as this article is leaning more towards a positional paper rather than a research or a survey one.

The introduction and related works are disproportionately dominating the article, with frequent repetitions of comments and arguments. What is more, the points raised in these two questions end up becoming redundant, lose the focus and the elegance of brevity. Even though the language used is pleasant to read, it is significantly literary which makes one wonder whether an average reader (especially a non-english one) can follow.

The results sections of the paper should be refined. One suggestion is to conduct a proper and systematic literature review from which conclusions and insights can be drawn. What is more, a more elaborate analysis of the implications of the suggested pathways could add to the paper.

One last suggestion is for the sentence on line 110 on page 3 to be rewritten.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper provides a review on how blockchain, DAOs, and data cooperatives help common users to reduce potential harm from data opolies, such as big tech companies. I found it a little difficult to comment on the article; although it has a large number of citations, the content of the paper feels empty and vague, and reads rather like a long blog post. While the paper claims that data opolies pose threat to democracy, there is very little elaboration despite plenty of such cases. The advocacy for Web3 and blockchain also appears stale without much new insights. The writing of the paper feels overly verbose without saying much, as if it has been edited by ChatGPT. I'm not trying to attack the work by writing these comments; I do think the paper touches a very important topic and hope the author can make it into a meaningful work by improve the writing of this article.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See above.

Article Menu

Democratic Erosion of Data-Opolies: Decentralized Web3 Technological Paradigm Shift Amidst AI Disruption

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI