Exploring the darker side of U.S. influence in the digital realm
In recent weeks, the debate over U.S. digital hegemony has gained traction. A naive approach to the idea of digital freedom quickly leads to bans by the so-called “biggest” digital powers of the internet. This raises critical questions: Who controls digital narratives? What are the mechanisms behind this control?
Under the guise of commercial freedom, the debate of who has access—and who grants access—to the digital market is rapidly becoming a strategic concern. Companies, often self-promoting as the gatekeepers of a free digital world, block access, deplatform, or ban users under various claims of policy violations. In practice, they assume a Gestapo-like role in policing the digital space, adopting a unilateral position that often lacks transparency. The hegemonic position is comparable to the Lehmann Brothers dominance of buyers and sellers. It created a disparity in the market and eventually caused the financial melt down. We all know how the Lehmann story ended up and we are steering towards another digital melt-down on epic proportations.
One anonymous interviewee put it bluntly: “Companies like [name withheld for fear of retaliation] act as judge, jury, and executioner, hiding behind a veil of secrecy.” U.S. companies, under the pretense of protecting freedom and democracy, perpetuate digital dominance through misinformation, censorship, and technological control, reinforcing their global hegemony. His reaction is not unique and in fact gave rise to an anti-brokerage, anti-Google narrative.
Take the Tik-Tok debate into consideration. The U.S. hegemonic position, wrapped into a national security narrative makes the Chinese the new enemy forgetting the role of the western digital dominance. And the world of digital domains is not about freedom or liberty but plain and simple, control. Control over the information provided and the digital hegemons abuse of power.
The Myth of Digital Freedom
The idea of a free and open internet is a myth. The U.S. hegemonic position is further cemented by its ability to control nearly every major news narrative, and every piece of financial information, in the digital world. U.S. tech giants—Google, Meta, Amazon, Microsoft—have become the gatekeepers of information, crafting and promoting the myth of digital freedom. We are heading towards a digital meltdown.
This control leads to the rise of surveillance capitalism and algorithmic bias. Once the trap is set, companies claim to disseminate information more freely and transparently. However, in practice, they exploit this freedom, twisting and distorting information as it suits them. The result? A system where companies thrive on the exploitation of user data, yet dismiss the very notion of ‘freedom’ they claim to uphold—all while offering this “freedom” for free.
Censorship and the Silencing of Dissent
The digital space, which is often hailed as a platform for free expression, is increasingly dominated by censorship and the suppression of dissent. Deplatforming and algorithmic manipulation are common tactics used to suppress voices that challenge the status quo.
Exporting U.S. norms via content moderation—framed as “community standards” or “policy standards”—has become a convenient justification for the deplatforming of individuals, groups, and even entire movements. The argument is often made that market forces should drive such decisions. However, in practice, those who dissent are swiftly and ruthlessly silenced. In fact, the largest digital mergers in the U.S. often violate anti-trust legislation, consolidating power in the hands of a few companies. The company is govern oddly enough by Australian laws in Victoria.
The digital space is vulnerable because too much power is concentrated within a small group of individuals and companies. What is marketed as openness and freedom is often just a sophisticated form of censorship—using silencing tactics to ensure compliance with the prevailing narrative.
Oddly enough, in a recent interaction the VP for Sales didnt not bother to engage with the plaintiff, but exercised a ‘ban’. In his response innuendos were raised which had no bases in the arugment but a ‘ban’ was applied as a part of a corporate punishment. The allegations are now reviewed by lawyers. Customer service through intimidation seems to be the order of the day. And oddly enough, the customer had no interest to engage with the company in the first place.
Falsehood as Soft Power
The manipulation of information through digital platforms has become a form of soft power. In the age of big data, bots, data mining, and psychographic targeting—methods popularized by companies like Cambridge Analytica—have become common tools for shaping public opinion. So has the voice of a vice president for sales.
But do filters, legislation, and official press releases actually work? Or is the digital space moving in the opposite direction, where slander, innuendos, and falsehoods are more effective in swaying minds? While countries like Russia and China engage in rewriting history or shaping current events in digital memory, the U.S., and moreover corporation, is guilty of manipulating narratives to maintain its hegemonic position.
Experts in the European Union have admitted that efforts to combat this manipulation are futile. “It is widely recognized that the efforts are on the losing side,” said Tolbert Nordberg, a digital policy expert.
Global Pushback and Resistance
Resistance to U.S. digital hegemony is growing, as evidenced by the rise of alternative platforms like TikTok, VK, and decentralized networks. Data sovereignty movements—such as the European Union’s GDPR and China’s digital firewall—are pushing back against the control of major U.S. companies.
There are also growing calls for a more multipolar approach to internet governance, with debates around the UN vs. ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers). Some argue that the digital world should be democratized and decolonized, with regulatory frameworks that challenge U.S. dominance. One proposal involves taxing major digital brokerages and, if necessary, blocking their business operations in certain regions.
What does a decolonized digital future look like? One where digital freedom is genuinely universal, where the concentration of power in the hands of a few tech giants is broken, and where global governance can ensure the internet serves the collective good rather than the interests of a hegemonic few.
Conclusion
The digital realm is no longer a utopian space of limitless potential—it has become a battleground for power, control, and influence. The U.S.’s role in shaping global digital narratives through censorship, misinformation, and technological dominance cannot be understated. But as resistance grows and new models of governance emerge, the future of the internet remains uncertain. The only certainty is we are more vulnerable, less safer in giving our intellectual information to Lehmann Brothers type of business.
“Hell is paved with good intention, is not just a saying, its a reality”, an academic for a major Defence University mentioned. “It is about the dominance of a perceived market that is exclusively run by a small club of individuals and not even national interests.”, he added. Whether we move toward a more democratic and decentralized digital world, or continue to live under the thumb of a few powerful corporations, will depend on how effectively the global community can push back against the entrenched forces of digital hegemony.
