• 1  Armand Mattelart, “Idéologie, information et État militaire,” L’Homme et la société, n° 47-50, 197 (...)

1“Only one economic area seems to escape the accelerated denationalization process, which is the industry of information and information processing”1, wrote Armand Mattelart in 1978. It should be noted that this exception was not confirmed afterwards. Today, the term Gafam refers to the giants of information and communication, US multinational companies, which have conditioned our daily IT uses. However, focusing on this side of imperialism only, without considering the emancipation chances, seems to be an incomplete approach, and as Armand Mattelart reminds us:

• 3  Michael Löwy, Le Marxisme en Amérique latine, de 1909 à nos jours, Paris, La Découverte, 1980. (...)
• 4  Armand Mattelart,La cultura como empresa multinacional, Buenos Aires, Editorial Galerna, 1974, p.  (...)

3In the wake of Armand Mattelart, I would like to tackle the issue of imperialism and social struggles in the field of computer science, and deal with the potential forms of emancipation. To do so, I will resort to the “grammar of sovereignty” adopted by numerous social and political movements in Latin America in this dialectic between imperialism and emancipation.3 While the comparison may not seem obvious at first sight, I will follow on from Mattelart and try to demonstrate that Gafam’s monopolistic position is nothing new, and on the contrary adopts formulas previously tested by other technologies circulated by US multinational companies.4 In this way, the sovereignty practices in the field of connected computing can be used with a view to expand a scope for action which aims to make the imperialist practices visible and propose concrete alternatives.

• 5  [Online]https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litt%C3%A9ratie[accessed 20 October, 2015]. (...)

4Mobilizing associative stakeholders in France, I will use the concept of “technological sovereignty” to shed light on their action. I will take my examples from four fields which play a role in the literacy of common IT uses: e-mails, social networks, search engine browsing, and office automation. They constitute so many areas where computing literacy or information literacy of our daily uses develops. Information literacy is defined by the OECD as “the ability to know when there is a need for information, to be able to identify, locate, evaluate, and effectively use that information for the issue or problem at hand.”5 This literacy can also be regarded as the necessary condition for capitalist countries to continue their mutations. I will study the work carried out by activist (French-speaking) groups and use the observations that I have made in the framework of a research-action among informal collectives, which hold workshops to raise awareness on alternative IT uses.

• 6  Ekaterina Netchitailova, “The Flâneur, the Badaud and Empathetic Worker,” tripleC: Communication, (...)

5Reflecting on daily IT uses demands that one examines the dominant economic players, which, along with others, I will call Gafam (Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft). Numerous studies dedicated to the practices of connected computing pay too little attention to the socio-political context from which they arise. Netchaitailova6 proposes a relevant refocusing:

• 7  On this topic, see the report on the international comparative study on the taxation specifically (...)

7It is yet hard to get information on the turnover of Gafam, since their systems are based on “tax optimization” (a euphemism to describe a process of tax evasion).7 The Fédération française des télécoms has commissioned a report on Over the top operators, in other words on Gafam, which look down on all communications in France. Let us note that this study focuses on the case of France, where the tax rate on Gafam is the highest in Europe, though much lower than in the United States, where Gafam come from.

• 8  Their presence in Europe in the form of subsidiaries is part of their tax evasion strategy, since (...)

8This table (1) provides an overview of the economic weight of Gafam and shortfall for the French and US tax authorities.8 The next table (2) contextualizes the data of the previous table with regards to the global turnover of Gafam, but also of other US economic giants.

• 9  The logic highlighted in this article is not exclusive to Gafam: among others, banks, insurance co (...)

9Looking at the turnovers and profits of Gafam allows one to comprehend their economic weight, yet is not sufficient to understand how imperialism operates in the field of culture. To do so, one has to focus on the introduction of Gafam in our daily lives9, through the literacy of our IT uses.

• 10  Mélanie Dulong de Rosnay, Les Golems du numérique. Droit d’auteur et Lex Electronica, Paris, Press (...)

11As for Apple and Microsoft, the situation is different, but in appearance only. Some of the transactions proposed by these companies seem to be free, yet are charged right away. For example, the iTunes software, designed to listen to, classify and buy multimedia contents, can be downloaded and installed for free. However, it imposes a format, thus restricting the use of acquired goods to individual accounts and preventing copying in all its forms, although the latter is authorized by copyright in many contexts, such as copying for private and family uses or for educational purposes.10 Besides, this software requires updates or else the already acquired contents become inaccessible. What is more, the format in which the acquired goods are coded makes it difficult to use them via another computer program. In fact one does not so much acquire a good as one acquires an access.

• 11  Since October 2015, Microsoft Office 365 is no longer a computer program, but a service. It takes (...)

12The Microsoft Office suite is another example of a seemingly free computer program, which yet confines its users without their knowing. While it is often provided with the purchase, and even if some people use it with pirated licences, the suite requires endless updates. Beyond the trouble resulting from the reminders, one can wonder about the durability of the files produced with these formats. The example of the transition from the .doc to the .docx formats clearly shows that the aim of these technological developments is to incite users to buy a new licence. Confronted with this domination, free and interoperable formats (for example .odt, .rtf, .lyx), in other words formats that are not associated with only one computer program, allow users to choose their office suite, facilitate exchanges and prevent users from being dependent on a specific company, which could change formats or charge any file opening.11

• 12  On this subject, see the following website providing legal information on the possibilities of act (...)

13Other products from hegemonic companies are also charged, despite all appearances. For example, very few users know that the default operating systems and programs installed on our devices (Mac OS, IOS, Windows 7, 8, 9, 10 and Office Suite) are charged on purchase. It is indeed a forced sale made invisible, since this “detail” is not mentioned on the bill, which contributes to “naturalizing” their use. Using them also implies the validation of an end user licence agreement (EULA), which forces users to give all of the data resulting from their use of the computer program or operating system. All of this is included in these EULAs, the complexity of which makes it difficult for users to comprehend their scope.12 All of these examples show how these companies impose their interest, even against existing laws, and despite their looking like they partake in the democratic gusto.

• 13  “In 2015, the fall of the iPad was more significant. Windows has risen up to 8.5% with an expected (...)
• 14  It is possible to uninstall these operating systems and choose one from the available free softwar (...)
• 15  Yarina Amoroso has been working on this issue in Cuba since the 1990s. Amoroso Fernández Yarina, “ (...)

14Virtually all the personal computers, tablets and cellphones available on the market are equipped with software and programs designed by Gafam.13 Google forces Android users to own a Gmail account. Apple equips its computers with the OS Mac operating system and also “offers” a Mac version of the Microsoft Office suite.14 Often without us knowing, these companies determine the property of our productions and uses, by charging and imposing computer programs and formats. There is apparently nothing we can do about it. Unless the user is well-informed, the issue of the possible choices seems irrelevant and its ins and outs are vague, although we are here dealing with the ownership and exploitation of our data and production on these tools. Data and productions are technically locked in machines and programs which belong to us, although their operation remains inaccessible to us. Their use is legally bound by contracts that we are forced to accept as we turn on the computers for the first time after their purchase. Therefore, the issue of the relationships between the law and technique raises numerous questions.15

• 16  In Switzerland, there is even an Anti-PowerPoint party. [Online]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti (...)
• 17  Richard Stallman also explains the difference between free and proprietary software. [Online]https (...)
• 18  This linguistic issue, as well as the study of the mottos of Gafam: “Don’t be evil” for Google, “W (...)

16The predominance of Gafam has many more consequences, including the colonization of our vocabulary and imaginary: “Word” thus seems to refer to the only word processing software, “Internet explorer” or “Chrome” now stand in for the generic term “browser,” the term “Power Point”16 is used for every slide presentation, and “Google” is the favored term for “search engine” and/or “web browsing” as a whole. Our daily IT uses are determined by proprietary software17 down to our vocabulary. However, this practice is not exclusive to Microsoft or Google. Apple has managed to impose terms such as “Cloud™” or “iPad.” Facebook and Amazon are the terms which are used to refer to social networks or online stores, beyond mere metonymies: these proper nouns have become common nouns.18

• 19  [Online] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gmail#cite_note-2 [accessed 15 October, 2015].
• 20  [Online]http://www.maawg.org/about/MAAWG20072Q_Metrics_Report.pdf[accessed October 15, 2015]. (...)

18Let us take the example of Gmail. As of 28 May, 2015, the company declared to have gathered 900 million users19: as many potential targets for its advertisements. While the great storage capacity of Gmail (versus its competitors) is an element of its success, its main advantage lies in its ability to suppress pop-ups (untimely advertisements) and “free” us from spam through very efficient filters. An important and appealing claim, especially since according to the Email metrics report20, over 80% of e-mail exchanges are unsolicited (identity fraud, fishing and undesirable advertisements). The internet giant channels most of the advertisers. In fact, the company has the power to mark certain e-mails as important or as spam.

• 21  “The ten things we know to be true” by Google. [Online]https://www.google.fr/about/company/philoso (...)

19In its “10 founding principles”21, the company states that “it is possible to earn money without selling one’s soul to the devil. The revenues generated by the company come from the research technology it provides other companies with, and from the sale of advertisements broadcast on Google and other websites.” The profound change initiated by Google consists in centralizing and filtering advertisements according to its own formatting. Rather than pop-ups, the company has chosen a banner displaying a text that changes depending on the general content of the e-mails received, or even on the one that is read at a given moment: this is called contextual advertising. Google explains that this form of advertising is proposed with a view to be “useful and relevant [...] by targeting the content of our e-mail exchanges and of the searches we perform.” The company continues “we think that advertising can be efficient without being invasive. Google does not accept advertisements in the form of pop-ups, which hamper the readability of the consulted pages. We have noticed that targeted banners allow for a higher rate of clicks than random banners.” Giving a technical ground allows Google to better avoid the ideological issue. Filtering untimely advertisements enables Gmail to focus its users’ attention on the content that is proposed next, since the latter is relevant a priori: it results from a selection and what is displayed is wished for a priori. In this way, users are yet less likely to ignore the advertisements proposed by Google.

• 22  On request or once the user has consulted the confidentiality pages, Google and Facebook can send (...)

20Having a significant number of individual and voluntary users at its disposal, Google has acquired the power to change the very nature of advertising. Although insidious, the kind of advertising implemented by Google can still be detected by attentive users. However, other subtler and invisible forms of profiling are added, through the capture of browsing data22 and cookies scattered throughout the browsing. Once again, Google justifies its use by emphasizing the benefits for users: “enhance the usefulness of the latter for you,” “without cookies, the use of the web could be much more frustrating.”

• 23  In France, the French Data Protection Authority (CNIL) has tried to regulate their presence via a (...)

21The company claims to be “transparent,” and concerned by the users’ private life. Additionally, it highlights the importance of censoring certain contents for children (“save your SafeSearch preferences”), while the main objective is that of individual identification for commercial purposes. Google is quite vague on this topic (“We use cookies for various purposes,” with a view to “improve the relevance of the advertisements sent to you”), imprecise (“you can check the list of the type of cookies” and not the cookies themselves), and goes as far as choosing misleading wordings (“protect your data”); since it is the usernames and passwords—not the cookies that saved them—which would allow to control access to an e-mail address, for example. Expressed in comforting terms, the displayed discourse is supposed to convey the image of a company concerned with the protection of internet users’ data, while waiving the responsibility of profiling, not to the centralized technology, but to its “partners.” In this way, Google implicitly refutes violating the secrecy of correspondence.23

• 24  The works on Google abound, to the point that some do not hesitate to talk about Google studies. A (...)
• 25  Christian Fuchs and Marisol Sandoval, “Digital Workers of the World Unite! A Framework for Critica (...)
• 26  Evgeny Morozov, Le Mirage numérique : pour une politique du Big Data, Paris, Les Prairies Ordinair (...)
• 27  Trebor Scholz, Digital Labor. The Internet as Playground and Factory, New York, Routledge, 2013.

22The approach sketched out here to Google’s strategy can be extended to the strategies of other Gafam. Several books are specifically devoted to the study of their economic model.24 Faced with the abundance of technical information, the issue is not so much to understand the economic model of Gafam as it is to implement strategies to break free from it. Fuchs25, Morozov26 and Scholz27 introduce the notion of “digital labor,” which, though incomplete, suggest that we totally reconsider the idea according to which Gafam is providing us with services “for free.” To illustrate digital labor, Morozov uses in the introduction to his work a metaphor which enables us to understand that access to free services provided by Gafam does not correspond to a reduction of the gaps between social classes, but to a change in capitalism in the digital era:

• 29  Mattelart Armand and André Vitalis, Le Profilage des populations, Paris, La Découverte, 2014.
• 30  On this issue, see the mobilization of French association La Quadrature du Net. [Online]https://ww (...)

23The standardization of IT practices in our daily uses is operated with a view to maximize profit. Created in principle for commercial purposes, these practices are nonetheless related to the profiling of populations, for certain companies collaborate with the states on a regular basis. In the U.S.A., Edward Snowden has revealed the existence of the Prism program, through which Gafam have provided the N.S.A. with data for surveillance purposes.29 In France, the legislator has ratified several clauses, including the military planning law, which resulted in a flash mobilization.30

• 31  Facebook : la mémoire cachée. [Online]http://www.liberation.fr/futurs/2011/10/22/facebook-la-memoi (...)

24The domination of Gafam thus manifests itself at several levels: economic, through advertising income and tax evasion; social, through the imposition of literacy or ad hoc social literacy; and political, through the involvement of these companies in the profiling of populations. In this situation, not even disconnection can guarantee that there will not be any profiling, as demonstrated by the case of Facebook’s ghost profiles.31

• 32  Ritimo, La souveraineté technologique, Juin 2014. [Online]http://plateforme-echange.org/IMG/pdf/do (...)

26In French, the so-called “sovereignist” discourses historically refer to the royalist positions, thus alluding to monarchic sovereignty. Here, I will use this notion in at least two other senses. The first one is the one coined by members of collectives, whose educational and promotional work results from a desire to restore power to users with regards to their IT uses. I am especially thinking of one of Ritimo’s works entitled La Souveraineté informatique32, which presents this sovereignty as a form of independence. The term of “empowerment” would also be suitable. However, the notion of sovereignty falls within a reflexive approach, like the claims of the Third World.

• 33  On this topic, here is an anecdote: this article was presented at the 2015 colloquium, jointly hel (...)
• 34  In France, Article 9 of the Law of 9 July 2013 on higher education teaching and research timidly s (...)

27The rhetoric of sovereignty was indeed first used by the Non-Aligned Movement, as one of the founding principles of the struggle against colonization and the domination of economic powers, as early as the 1950s. Updated, this rhetoric was picked up by Latin-American state players from countries such as Venezuela, Ecuador, Uruguay, and developed in numerous areas (food, energy, economics). In particular, countries such as Cuba, Brazil and Venezuela have developed so-called “technological sovereignty” policies and explicitly denounced the stranglehold of the United States.33 Therefore, the use of this grammar of sovereignty allows us to get back to this materialist perspective with which Mattelart, Morozov, Fuchs and Sandoval align themselves. It also enables us to put the alternative IT practices in a context of explicit protest, reaching beyond empowerment (in which protest is but implicit). Although this article will not deal with the public policies of these Latin-American countries, thinking these activist alternatives in terms of technological sovereignty helps us to better understand this concept and fit it into this dual heritage.34

• 35  In English, the term “free” is ambiguous, since it appeals to gratuitousness and freedom. Anglo-Sa (...)

30Although adopting a deterministic approach to the emancipating or oppressive nature of technology is not very judicious, the most common use of this technology and above all, the awareness of what the user is no longer allowed to do can say a lot on the economic and social context in which this technology was developed. Let us take the example of the rise of the free software movement and that of the Free Software Foundation (FSF),35 which states that for software to be free, it has to comply with four founding principles, namely: to use, read, examine and redistribute the source code. From a historical perspective, this definition does not refer to the creation of a new object—the so-called “free” software—but to the rise of economic practices throughout the seventies, including that of giants such as Xerox, or simple start-ups at that time, such as Micro-soft (now become Microsoft). Their crucial contribution consisted in imposing the principle according which a computer program corresponds to a paying licence, for a single use. To do so, the source code had to become inaccessible and its modification and redistribution impossible.

• 36  For further study on this issue, see Richard S. Stallman, “Richard Stallman et la révolution du lo (...)

31However, at the time when personal computing was emerging, common practices were very different: software was provided by the companies for free and could be used, read, copied, improved by the users who had the necessary skills. The rise of associations campaigning for free software is reminiscent of this technological shift when companies chose to make free competition prevail and privatize formerly free and noncommercial uses.36 The very label “free software” thus cannot be understood without its opposite, proprietary software, which cannot be used without purchasing a licence, at risk of being accused of piracy.

• 39  “Who’s got nothing to hide” and “I’ve got nothing to hide.” As the collective was working on one o (...)

40The second issue consisted in integrating a reflection on the relevance of implementing alternative practices into the various workshops. This accounts for the name of one of the collectives, “Qui n’a rien à cacher” and its workshop “Je n’ai rien à cacher.”39 It was a matter of overcoming the obstacles to the transmission of our belief in the importance of protecting personal data, by using this recurrent expression among participants.

• 40  By default, tracking is operated through geolocation and other data or metadata used by the vast m (...)
• 41  See tables above.
• 42  Armand Mattelart, La globalisation de la surveillance, Paris, La Découverte, 2008.
• 43  The informal collectives which I was a member of have taken part ThatCamp in Paris in 2015 at the (...)
• 44  Following on from Ritimo’s publications, the author favors the feminine in order to “not use the m (...)

42While few people would accept to confide in a stranger, who, in the street, would ask them where they come from and where they are going, whom they are going to meet and what they are going to buy40, it should be noted that Gafam have achieved literacy by “teaching” us to provide this personal information in the most natural way. Gafam even ask us what we think about—Facebook for example endlessly asks this question at the top of its interface—and end up getting copies of our identity cards, death certificates, or other aspects of our private lives, by persuading us to fill in forms, always on the pretext of “ensuring our safety.” Their present power allows them to shape economics, as we have noticed with Google and online advertising, or with Amazon, whose strategy consists in retaining its customers and crush its competitors, in order to dominate the markets it has created.41 This dynamic is part of a greater history, that of the globalization of surveillance, to quote the title of Armand Mattelart’s book.42 Confronted with these practices, and without going as far as to become an IT expert, one must manage to put one’s daily IT uses in the social world to which one belongs, that of digital labor. One of the alternatives tried out with the members of collective Qui n’a rien à cacher43consists in raising awareness without using computers. The main thrust was to make the unfolding of certain computer operations visible and tangible, for example the circulation of an e-mail. Each participant would embody a different instance (DNS, proxy server, recipient’s server, etc.) and physical objects would represent the messages (postcards with or without an envelope) and the various ways to send them. In this way, we wanted to break the impression of intimacy that the user could feel alone in front of her44 computer. The operation of sending an e-mail would then be placed back into the social and physical world where it occurs in reality.

• 45  Dominique Cardon and Antonio A. Casilli, Qu’est-ce que le Digital Labor?, INA Éditions, Bry-sur-Ma (...)
• 46  Framasoft proposes Framapads for collaborative publishing in Googledocs, Framadates to replace sur (...)

43While this notion has its limits, justly highlighted by Dominique Cardon in his discussion with Antonio Cassili45, the reflections on digital labor have undoubtedly influenced the organization of these workshops. However, we have noticed that the thirst for knowledge and appropriation would hardly ever take the place of usefulness and desire to make the most of the services provided by Gafam. Throughout the workshops, this issue was regularly discussed, because the services provided by Gafam are first perceived as efficient and relevant. Our collective answer was that choosing free software or alternative practices also implied a reflection on our uses. Moreover, collectives like Framasoft, Ritimo or Boum make unprecedented efforts to facilitate their implementation. Let us take the example of the Degooglisons Internet! campaign, which proposes free software as a substitute for the most popular services of Gafam in the same ecosystem and for free.46

• 47  Ritimo (ed.), La Souveraineté technologique, June 2014. [Online]http://plateforme-echange.org/IMG/ (...)
• 48  A digital self-defense guide published by Boum.

44This first step was followed by an explication of the economic model of Gafam, then of an application of alternatives via self-training. We could rely on the documentation elaborated by associations for free software on these issues: Framasoft with their Annuaire de logiciels libres and Degooglisons internet! campaign, April with its Livre blanc sur les logiciels libres for associative uses, the manual on La Souveraineté technologique published by Ritimo47 and the Guide d’autodéfense numérique published by Boum48. As precious as free tools are, it is still necessary to introduce them to users and raise the latter’s awareness for those tools to be really useful. No specific system was designed to measure the change in the users’ IT practices in the framework of these workshops, since we were aware that such a change takes time and requires a certain investment. However, after these interventions, some participants asked us to organize this workshop again. Depending on availabilities, we have organized it again and further developed it, increasingly focusing on the implementation of technical solutions over the course of the workshop. Giving up certain aspects, albeit useful ones, offered by Gafam’s tools is a way to respond to a sensible wish for emancipation and sovereignty and is likely to arouse a desire. It may be relevant to further explore a theory of affects, so as to understand why explaining digital labor is not sufficient to fix alternative IT uses.

• 49  Fabien Granjon, “Fracture numérique,” Communications, vol. 88, n°1, 2011, p. 67.
• 50  My translation of the extract quoted by Mark Hudson, “Un puñado de pioneros que se fueron demasiad (...)

45One can affirm that the issue of data property, raised numerous times by Morozov, concerns us both at the individual and collective levels. Their re-appropriation requires a new perspective on IT tools, “genuine black boxes” that the awareness-raising workshops presented in this article try to make a bit more intelligible. Campaigning for a new digital literacy of daily IT practices also demands that one never forgets that IT and its practices occur in an uneven world. The digital gap and gender gap approaches, which consider that IT expertise is only a question of generation or genre49 seem hardly heuristic. If IT allows one to fight against inequalities, it is not so much through an innate potential of technology as through the awareness of the inequalities existing in the social world which IT is part of. In The Mind Managers, Herbert Schiller goes as far as to conclude that the idea according which the answers to poverty, political apathy and other social issues could be provided by technology is “cruel and deceitful.” He continues: “it would be mean to suggest that children coming from ghettos will manage to put aside generations of hardship simply by sitting in front of a computer.”50 Along with Mattelart, Schiller considers that the emancipation opportunities will potentially come from the digital workers themselves, from people working in the IT industry, who have both the required knowledge, economic resources and time to initiate critical reflection on the devices. This emancipation will not happen by itself and social sciences must play an active role in it.

• 51  This research work is ongoing, especially in the case of Cuba. This country boasts a legal corpus (...)
• 52  Following April’s action, the French Parliament passed a law giving priority to free software in h (...)

46This reflection could certainly be extended from workshops to the institutional level. The only countries in which a reflection on technological sovereignty has been initiated are all located in Latin America: Cuba, Ecuador, Venezuela and Brazil51. As for France, certain precedents may suggest that a national strategy has been developed: take for example the actions of the CNIL, or the various declarations stating that priority should be given to free software.52 However, this effort is hampered by widespread practices, which in my opinion result from the successful computing literacy developed by Gafam with regards to people’s daily uses, including in decision-making positions.

• 53  On this topic, see the previous agreements between the Ministry of Education and Microsoft [Online (...)

48The literacy initiated by Gafam also continues through partnerships with the Ministry of Education.53 Still in this context, technological sovereignty practices stay topical, for example through workshops, and are likely to counter the effects of a literacy left in the hands of Gafam.