Network Nations: Reclaiming Sovereignty in the Digital Age
Authors: Primavera de Filippi & Felix Beer
An academic essay exploring how digital networks are reshaping sovereignty, and how Network Nations — translocal communities united by shared identity and purpose — offer a civic alternative to both corporate platform sovereignty and state digitisation.
1. Introduction
Every so often, a breakthrough in communication technology transforms the foundations of civilization, introducing a paradigm shift in political systems. From the invention of the printing press to the Internet, each wave of innovation lowered the cost of collective action—redefining how people organize at scale. As new tools allow people to act together in novel ways, legacy power structures are outgrown, replaced by new ones. These shifts change the societal organization but also redraw the boundaries of political order—altering who holds power and how it is exercised (Ronfeldt, 1996). As a result, sovereignty—the authority to govern a defined population within a specific space—is itself reimagined to reflect the dominant coordination logics of the time (Troper, 2012).
A canonical example is the printing press, which shattered the intellectual monopoly of monarchies by reducing the cost of printing books, pamphlets, and newspapers. Ideas could finally circulate rapidly and widely, challenging the divine authority of kings. As Benedict Anderson (1983) argues, this enabled the emergence of “imagined communities”: social groups bound not by face-to-face interaction, but by shared language and experiences. These new cultural identities laid the groundwork for the modern nation-state, gradually displacing dynastic rule. As a result, new generations of communication technologies drove public, long-distance intellectual exchange—such as the transnational Republic of Letters—that in turn contributed to evolving notions of sovereignty.
Today, with the advent of digital technology, the wheel has turned again. The internet has shattered geographic constraints, and enabled new forms of coordination that transcend national borders. People organize across jurisdictions, cultures, and time zones, not as a result of physical proximity, but because of shared affinities. In this context, sovereignty—once tightly coupled with territorial control—is increasingly being reframed through the logic of digital networks (Castells, 2004).
This shift has sparked new claims to authority in the digital realm. States are attempting to assert control over the digital space through surveillance and the regulation of information flows. Corporations govern billions of users via platform rules and algorithmic systems. Perhaps most interestingly for the purpose of this essay, newly emerging online communities are aspiring for new forms of network sovereignty, experimenting with self-governance, shared ownership, and collective agency both in the physical and digital space.
In this essay, we first introduce the three classical dimensions of sovereignty—space, population, and institutions—and explain how digital networks are reshaping them (Section 2). We then investigate how three types of actors—platforms, states, and networked communities—are competing to assert authority in the digital realm (Section 3). Finally, we present the concept of Network Nations (Section 4) as translocal communities united by shared identity, purpose, and values that govern their own affairs across borders without any territorial claims. Our goal with this essay is not to prescribe what network sovereignty should be, but what it’s becoming—and how we may design better systems in its wake.
2. Sovereignty in the Network Society
Sovereignty is understood as the exclusive right to exercise supreme political power over a geographic location or territory, a group of people or population, and/or oneself (Tătar & Moiși, 2022). Effective sovereignty implies both the ability to exercise control over a specific territory and population, and the recognition of this exclusive control by external actors. As such, sovereignty can be reduced to three essential components: the spatial (e.g. territory), the personal (e.g. population), and the institutional (e.g. state apparatus).
Rooted in the Westphalian order of 1648, this conception of sovereignty sees nation-states as primary political units (Besson, 2011) whose sovereign power is exercised over defined populations within stable geographical borders by means of a government. Modern liberal democracies remain largely shaped by this conception of sovereignty, where the institution of the nation-state rules supreme. As a result, contemporary political theory and practice mainly operate around the expectation of a one-to-one correspondence between territory, people, and government (Troper, 2012).
However, sovereignty needs to be understood as a historically contingent and politically constructed concept (Troper, 2012). It is exercised in varying degrees by different actors and shaped by shifting political, social, economic and technical developments (Besson, 2011). Hence, as new communication technologies transform the ways we live and interact, the frameworks through which sovereignty is established and exercised must also adapt.
Networks as a Political Arena
In the 21st century, the rise of global digital networks transformed the conditions under which sovereignty is constituted. At its core, a network can be understood as a dynamic configuration of interconnected nodes linked by flows of information, value, or resources (Castells, 2004). Unlike hierarchical structures, networks are highly adaptable, distributed, and open-ended structures that evolve through the interactions among their nodes.
As such, networks are socio-technical systems that enable new forms of political agency (Van Dijk, 2020), in that they shape, mediate, and reconfigure social relations, producing novel sites and modes of governance. Today, far from being peripheral to political life, networks are becoming the primary architecture through which power is exercised—controlling flows of meaning, attention, capital, and coordination across time and space.
In the “Network Society”, Manuel Castells (2004) captured this shift, highlighting how the dominant logic is no longer confined to the hierarchical structures of states and corporations, but circulates through distributed, interlinked systems: “The power of flows” takes precedence over the flows of power” (1996, p. 469). Similarly, David Ronfeldt (1996) suggests that networks are the latest evolutionary form of societal organization. Rather than fully replacing earlier structures like the institutional logics of states and markets, networks coexist with them, layering new forms of coordination atop the old.
This transformation invites a fundamental question: How do networks generate new forms of sovereignty? Rather than adapting old notions of sovereignty to new technical realities, we must ask how networks are generating new forms of political agency in their own right.
Definition: Network Sovereignty
Network sovereignty captures the emergence of new forms of sovereignties grounded in network technologies and digital infrastructures. Network sovereigns do not operate within the territorial borders of the nation-state, instead, they exercise political agency within, through, and by virtue of networks. To analyse this emerging concept as both a continuity and a rupture with the Westphalian model, we can revisit the classical triad of sovereignty—space, population, institution—through the lens of networks.
1. Networked Spaces
Traditional sovereignty presupposes a territorially bounded, continuous, and mutually exclusive domain in which each point of land, sea, air, or even outer space can be assigned to a single jurisdiction. Digital networks unsettle this territorial approach, introducing what Castells (2004) terms a space of flows—a global, real-time interaction arena constituted by data routes, cloud infrastructures, and software protocols. This new form of spatial arrangement—operating across time zones and jurisdictions—overlays and reorganises the space of places—rooted in physical proximity and territorial continuity, enabling distant, synchronous, and distributed coordination.
In this topology, sovereignty is not tied to territorial control but to the ability to configure and govern the infrastructures that mediate digital flows. Whoever can design, maintain, or disrupt these flows—whether through routing architectures, content moderation systems, platform interfaces, or cloud-based storage—exerts a new form of power, which Laura DeNardis (2014) describes as infrastructural power: the authority to allow, deny, prioritize, or surveil interactions by shaping the underlying technological stack.
2. Networked Population
Traditional sovereignty regards citizens as residents of a nation-state, recorded by census and governed by territorial jurisdiction. This link between people and place has long underpinned the legitimacy of sovereign power, as governing a territory meant governing those inhabiting a defined space.
In networked environments, populations are held together by relational connectivity rather than physical proximity. They are constituted by individuals who may reside across multiple geographies but are linked through continuous digitally mediated relationships. What defines closeness is not location on a map but position in a social graph, where proximity is ultimately a function of relationality: two actors are “close” because they are linked by flows of information, attention, value, or resources (Wittel, 2001). Similarly, identity becomes fluid and relational rather than defined by place of birth or residency.
One defining characteristic of networked populations is their plural and overlapping affiliations — a condition of multi-positionality (boyd, 2010), in which individuals are subject to various—and often conflicting—forms of allegiance and authority.
3. Networked Institutions
The third pillar of sovereignty relates to institutional capacity—the ability to establish rules, enforce decisions, and maintain legitimacy over time. Digital networks are subject to regulation from traditional institutions; but they are also increasingly capable of building native governance systems that reflect their distributed, modular, and protocolized logics.
Yet, in terms of governance, networked institutions are still in early stages of development. They are either consolidated but proprietary (e.g. run by corporations), flexible but fragile (e.g. based on informal norms and practices), or fully experimental (e.g. using new technological frameworks).
The main challenge—and opportunity—lies in designing institutions capable of legitimizing and operationalizing sovereignty within networked digital systems. This means moving away from traditional territorial forms of authority toward new institutional grammars that reflect the realities of digital life: decentralized, participatory, interoperable, and adaptive.
3. Claims for Sovereignty in Network Landscapes
The digital landscape is characterized by three distinct categories of actors with contending claims to a new form of “network sovereignty” over the digital realm: corporate platforms, nation-states, and networked communities.
1. Corporate Platform Sovereigns: The Rise of Techno-Feudalism
A striking manifestation of network sovereignty comes from the rise of large digital platforms—such as Meta, Google, Amazon, Apple, or Microsoft—which control key services and infrastructure (e.g. search, app stores, e-commerce, social media), setting and enforcing rules that shape public discourse, economic activity, and data flows. Shoshana Zuboff (2019) and other critics (e.g. Pasquale, 2023) argue that these firms have accumulated governing power that enables them to act as “quasi-sovereign” actors.
Platform giants have constructed vast, enclosed digital spaces — walled gardens — that are not geographic but infrastructural, defined by proprietary protocols, algorithms, and interfaces. Julie Cohen (2017) terms these “techno-feudal” spaces: governed, enclosed, and extractive. Meta’s Facebook hosts over three billion users, a population larger than any existing country. Users engage under quasi-citizenship: subject to platform rules via terms of service, algorithmic governance, and discretionary enforcement.
Platforms maintain institutional architectures that mimic state functions — moderation policies, trust and safety teams, and quasi-judicial bodies like the Oversight Board. These structures often operate beyond the reach of democratic oversight, creating what Frank Pasquale (2023) calls “functional sovereignty”: the ability to define and enforce norms of participation, communication, and commerce within a governed domain.
2. Digital Statehood: Extending Nation-States into the Digital Realm
Nation-states are developing their own strategies to assert sovereignty in networked spaces. Some states are actively re-territorializing the digital realm: China’s “Great Firewall” represents the most comprehensive attempt to create a controlled national digital space through technical means. Russia’s “sovereign internet” law similarly aims to create a nationally bounded internet infrastructure. Conversely, Estonia’s e-residency program allows non-Estonians to establish digital identities under Estonian jurisdiction, effectively expanding the state’s digital territory.
States are also building new institutions to exercise sovereignty in the digital realm: dedicated cybersecurity agencies, the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and digital diplomacy frameworks such as the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime.
Over the past decade, “digital sovereignty” has emerged as a central theme in policy debates — particularly in Europe (Pohle & Thiel, 2020). However, the nationalisation of cyberspace represents a significant transformation of sovereignty itself, as states must increasingly contend with the technical realities of borderless networks.
3. Networked Communities: Civil Society Seeking Political Agency
The third actor category emerges directly from the social fabric of global connectivity itself: networked communities. These range from open-source software communities and decentralized autonomous organizations, to diaspora networks and translocal cultural movements.
Networked communities operate primarily through shared digital commons and platforms built around community governance. The Bitcoin network exists as a distributed ledger maintained across thousands of computers worldwide. Federated social networks like Mastodon establish interconnected but autonomous “instances” that function as semi-sovereign digital territories.
Networked communities construct their populations through voluntary affiliation rather than citizenship or platform enrollment. Members join based on shared values, interests, or identity, progressively building the cultural and social foundations of nationhood — a shared sense of identity, purpose, history, and future vision.
Balaji Srinivasan’s (2023) concept of the “Network State” represents a novel approach to institutionalizing these communities. Yet despite its disruptive rhetoric, the Network State largely recreates traditional forms of sovereignty, integrating the corporate logics of tech startups into a nation-state institution.
The sovereignty claims of networked communities raise an important question: Can emerging forms of network sovereignty serve collective self-determination rather than corporate profit or state control?
4. Network Nations: A New Type of Self-Sovereign Communities
Network Nations represent an alternative path — one that recognizes networked communities as legitimate political entities without forcing them into legacy institutional templates. Rather than mirroring the structure of nation-states or startups, Network Nations emerge from communities with shared purpose and identity—not to seize territory, but to enable collective self-determination and resource stewardship across jurisdictional borders.
We define Network Nations as translocal communities united by a collective identity, culture, and aspirations that mutualize resources, exercise self-governance, and engage in collective action as a common political entity by leveraging various tools that empower them to operate in a sovereign manner.
The fundamental innovation of Network Nations lies in their potential to provide institutional scaffolding specifically designed for networked civil society—infrastructure that remains accountable to communities rather than shareholders, and frameworks for managing shared resources as commons rather than commodities.
1. The Emergence of Networked Nationhood
In the digital age, we are witnessing the emergence of a digital community with a strong collective identity that could potentially evolve into a new form of “networked nationhood”. Unlike traditional nations bound by territorial proximity, these communities form through networked proximity and digitally mediated interactions, creating robust cultures, shared histories, and collective identities that transcend geographic boundaries.
As Benedict Anderson (1983) observed, nations have always been “imagined communities” where most members will never meet each other, yet share a profound sense of kinship. The advent of the Internet intensified the opportunities for community building in a networked environment, enabling sustained interactions that foster collective identity and cultural development.
Anthropologist Arjun Appadurai (1996) noted that in an era characterized by global media and migration, imagined communities form around a collective identity that is no longer bounded by national borders. These communities challenge the conventional idea that nationhood requires contiguous territory.
Functional Sovereignty and Community Self-Governance
What distinguishes these networked communities from mere online communities is their growing aspiration for self-determination — a defining characteristic of nationhood. This aspiration manifests not as a desire for territorial sovereignty but as a pursuit of [[concepts/functional-sovereignty|functional sovereignty]]: the capacity to define and govern their own affairs with meaningful autonomy.
Unlike territorial sovereignty, which claims absolute authority over a defined geographical area, functional sovereignty focuses on operational autonomy within a specific domain of service provision (Pasquale, 2023). As such, it is inherently relational rather than absolute. It doesn’t seek power over others, but rather power to act with minimal external interference.
Examples of functional sovereignty in action include:
- Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) that govern open-source software ecosystems such as Polkadot OpenGov or Optimism Collective: these organisations rely on decentralized blockchain technology, establishing their own rules for governance and public goods funding (Poux, De Filippi, Ramos 2020), resolving disputes, and maintaining their own infrastructure.
- Diaspora network cooperatives, such as Afro-descendant communities in Latin America and Europe: these communities use digital tools to coordinate remittances, fund community-led archives, and govern cultural projects through collective voting — outside the control of any single state.
- Burning Man regional events: all “local burns” adopt shared principles — like radical inclusion and mutual aid — internalised into their own localized governance frameworks, showcasing how cultural coherence can sustain autonomous coordination across diverse geographies.
These examples demonstrate that functional sovereignty can thrive in networked spaces, where community governance is sustained through shared protocols, practices, and norms rather than territorial control.
Instantiating Network Nations as Political Organizations
For networked communities to fully realize their potential as Network Nations, they must evolve beyond informal communities into coherent political entities capable of sustained collective action. This transition requires organizational structures that balance seemingly contradictory imperatives: providing enough coherence and alignment for effective coordination, while maintaining the decentralized character that supports resilience and adaptability.
Importantly, even if they qualify as political actors, Network Nations are not trying to replace nor supplant territorial states. Instead, they seek to establish complementary forms of collective organization that address needs and aspirations that traditional nation-states cannot adequately fulfill — particularly for translocal communities whose interests span multiple jurisdictions.
2. Defining Sovereignty for Networked Nations
Drawing from our previous definition of sovereignty and its three constitutive elements — space, population, institution — we analyse below the extent to which Network Nations exhibit these components.
1. Networked Space: Self-Sovereign Infrastructure
In a network society, infrastructure is territory. Network Nations assert spatial authority through the design, operation, and stewardship of self-sovereign infrastructure. The polity’s survival does not depend on a fixed location, but on its ability to persist across distributed digital environments — to exit, fork, and reassemble without loss of data, identity, or integrity.
Network Nations treat their digital stack as a commons, not a commodity. This stack spans three nested layers:
- Physical substrate: Community-run hardware infrastructure such as data centres, off-grid mesh relays, and hyperlocal microgrids.
- Protocol substrate: Open standards for routing, storage, and consensus (e.g. IPFS, Secure Scuttlebutt, libp2p) providing cryptographic auditability and encoding the right of exit.
- Application substrate: Governance functions such as identity, treasury, and voting built as composable, modular services.
2. Networked Population: Voluntary Citizenship
Membership in Network Nations represents a fundamental shift from traditional citizenship paradigms. Rather than being assigned at birth or through residency, citizenship is voluntary, not inherited. Individuals can hold multiple forms of network affiliations without triggering zero-sum loyalty conflicts. This model embraces multi-positionality, reflecting the layered, intersectional nature of identities in a hyperconnected world.
Network Nation citizenship is revocable — members retain the right to exit if a community no longer aligns with their needs or principles. This right of exit functions as a critical mechanism of accountability, compelling governance structures to remain responsive and adaptive.
The population of a Network Nation is bound together through active cultivation of collective identity. As Benedict Anderson (1983) described in his concept of imagined communities, such belonging emerges not from face-to-face interaction, but from a shared imagination of collective life.
3. Networked Institution: Polycentric Scaffolding
In a Network Nation, authority is fundamentally polycentric: multiple semi-autonomous centers handle complementary functions within a shared constitutional framework (cf. Ostrom, 2005). Power is deliberately distributed — horizontally across functions and vertically through checks and balances — to prevent capture by any single interest group.
Governance in Network Nations combines social processes — such as deliberation, norm-setting, and reputation — with technical functions, including automation, data analysis, and networking protocols. Crucially, governance rights are contribution-staked rather than capital-staked. Influence is earned through verifiable, sustained service — whether via code contributions, mutual aid, research, or cultural work — and recorded in non-transferable credentials.
| Layer | Core Function | Illustrative Primitives |
|---|---|---|
| Deliberation | Collective sense-making to surface problems & options | Open discussion, sentiment-mapping, moderated fora |
| Decision | Decide on collective action & binding resolutions | One-person-one-vote, quadratic vote, delegated proof-of-personhood |
| Membership | Define and verify community boundaries; issue and revoke citizenship credentials | Peer endorsement, trust-graph consensus, credential issuance rites |
| Execution | Deploy resources and deliver common goods & services | Multisig thresholds, work-stream budgets |
| Adjudication | Interpret rules and resolve disputes | Random-jury arbitration, restorative circles |
| Diplomacy | Interface with external agents such as states, platforms, or other NNs | Elected stewards acting under time-limited charters |
3. Web3 & Network Nations: Building the Sovereign Stack
The flourishing of Network Nations hinges on developing robust self-sovereign infrastructure. This is where Web3 technologies play a crucial role: as the building blocks for new infrastructural systems that are collectively owned, transparently governed, and resistant to external control, they offer a practical pathway toward self-determination in the digital age.
Web3 is a term used to refer to a wide variety of open-source, permissionless, and decentralized technologies — ranging from blockchain networks to peer-to-peer protocols, distributed file storage, and verifiable identity frameworks. Together, these tools provide the necessary foundation for programmable governance architectures that are privacy-preserving, censorship-resistant and transparency-enhancing.
For Network Nations, Web3 is not just a toolkit — it is a precondition for [[concepts/functional-sovereignty|functional sovereignty]]. By leveraging these technologies, they can make collective decisions, manage shared resources, and coordinate actions across jurisdictions — with minimal external interference.
Moreover, Web3 technologies make it possible for Network Nations to develop, manage and fund shared resources — or commons (Ostrom, 2005) — in ways that go beyond the constraints of both markets and nation-states. Mechanisms such as blockchain-based tokenization, programmable incentives, and protocol-based governance enable the design of new forms of value creation, while ensuring that the value generated can be transparently and equitably redirected toward public goods.
| Triad Pillar | Web3 Contribution | Illustrative Protocols |
|---|---|---|
| Network Nation Space | Cryptographic infrastructure: Web3 systems ensure data integrity and resistance to external control through consensus-based modification, collective ownership and censorship resistance. | Programmable smart contracts, decentralised ledgers and storage, peer-to-peer bandwidth markets, roll-up-based compute clusters |
| Network Nation Population | Self-sovereign identity: Decentralized identifiers (DIDs), verifiable credentials, and zero-knowledge proofs enable individuals to authenticate and build trust without dependence on state-issued documents or centralized ID providers. | DIDs, verifiable credentials, zero-knowledge proofs, proof of personhood, soulbound tokens |
| Network Nation Institution | Programmable governance: Web3 systems are governed by their own set of rules, agreed upon and enforced by network participants through smart contracts, consensus protocols and decentralised autonomous organisations (DAOs). | Polkadot OpenGov, Cosmos SDK, multisig vaults, Kleros courts, on-chain proposal systems, quadratic voting |
Conclusion
As the digital realm has become pervasive in our everyday life, sovereignty is no longer a birthright of states alone. Tech platforms, governments, and networked communities already wield overlapping jurisdiction in the digital space. Network Nations offer a civic trajectory that leverages the affordances of digital networks while resisting both corporate enclosure and state surveillance. By re-embedding sovereignty in commons-based infrastructure, voluntary membership, and polycentric institutions, Network Nations could revitalise the democratic promise of collective self-determination for the twenty-first century.
Whether they succeed depends less on code than on culture: the shared willingness of globally dispersed humans to imagine themselves not only as users or consumers, but as co-owners and co-governors of the networks that increasingly shape their lives.
References
Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. Verso.
Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. University of Minnesota Press.
Bennett, K. (2025). The ReFi movement in Web3: Implications for the Global Commons. Frontiers in Blockchain, 8, Article 1564073.
Besson, S. (2011). Sovereignty. In M. Rosenfeld & A. Sajó (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative constitutional law (pp. 354–372). Oxford University Press.
Bhorat, Z., & Rauchbauer, M. (2023). Decoding digital authoritarianism. Global Affairs Canada.
boyd, d. (2010). Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implications. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A networked self (pp. 39–58). Routledge.
Castells, M. (2004). The rise of the network society (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
Cheung, A. S. Y., & Chen, Y. (2021). From datafication to data state: Making sense of China’s social credit system and its implications. Law & Social Inquiry, 47(4), 1137-1171.
Cohen, J. E. (2017). Between truth and power: The legal constructions of informational capitalism. Oxford University Press.
De Filippi, P., & Belli, L. (2012). The Law of the Cloud v the Law of the Land. European Journal of Law and Technology, 3(2).
De Filippi, P., Mannan, M., & Reijers, W. (2022). The alegality of blockchain technology. Policy and Society, 41(3), 358-372.
De Filippi, P., Reijers, W., & Mannan, M. (2024). Blockchain Governance. MIT Press.
DeNardis, L. (2014). The global war for internet governance. Yale University Press.
Li, S., & Chen, Y. (2024). Governing decentralized autonomous organizations as digital commons. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 21, e00450.
Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press.
Pasquale, F. (2023). Two visions of data sovereignty: Functional vs. territorial sovereignty. In A. Chander & H. Sun (Eds.), Data sovereignty: From the Digital Silk Road to the return of the state. MIT Press.
Pinto, R. (2018). Infrastructure sovereignty and the new geopolitics of the cloud. Internet Policy Review, 7(3).
Pohle, J., & Thiel, T. (2020). Digital sovereignty. Internet Policy Review, 9(4).
Poux, P., De Filippi, P., & Ramos, S. (2020, December). Blockchains for the governance of common goods. In Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on distributed infrastructure for common good (pp. 7-12).
Praxis. (2024). The sovereign network: Crypto’s end game. Praxis Society.
Reijers, W., Orgad, L., & De Filippi, P. (2023). The rise of cybernetic citizenship. Citizenship Studies, 27(2), 210-229.
Ronfeldt, D. (1996). Tribes, institutions, markets, networks: A framework about societal evolution. RAND Corporation.
Schneider, N., De Filippi, P., Frey, S., Tan, J. Z., & Zhang, A. X. (2021). Modular politics: Toward a governance layer for online communities. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW1), Article 16.
Tătar, M., & Moiși, A. (2022). Sovereignty in the digital era: Reconfiguring authority in a networked world. Journal of Political Inquiry, 5(2), 91-113.
Troper, M. (2012). Sovereignty. In M. Rosenfeld & A. Sajó (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative constitutional law. Oxford University Press.
Van Dijk, J. (2020). The network society (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Wittel, A. (2001). Toward a network sociality. Theory, Culture & Society, 18(6), 51-76.
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.