‘In de Verenigde Staten zijn ze op oorlogspad’ | Follow the Money Interviewt Marleen Stikker

Overview

Marleen Stikker (director/founder of De Waag) argues that the early, open internet has been replaced by corporate—and increasingly geopolitical—control. In her view, it has shifted from a “playground for hackers” to “brownfields/smoldering ruins.”

Her central concern is growing dependence of democracy, public services, journalism, and everyday communication on Big Tech platforms—especially US-based companies like Google and Microsoft, and platforms such as X/Meta. This dependence weakens democratic sovereignty and the rule of law because private providers can set the rules, access citizens’ data, and—under US law—be forced to comply with government requests without users being fully aware.

Key Points and Analysis (from the interview)

1) The internet was originally designed as an open protocol

Stikker recalls early internet culture as community-driven, based on shared technical standards, where anyone could participate and connect directly. She links this openness to ideas of sovereignty and self-directed action.

2) From neutrality to control (net neutrality as a long-running struggle)

She connects the historical fight over net neutrality to today’s reality: large companies can restrict access, create paywalled/closed parts of the internet, and effectively “determine the rules”—shaping what citizens and organizations can do.

3) Political failure: governments didn’t treat technology as power

Stikker criticizes Dutch and European politics for not adequately understanding that technology infrastructure and platforms shape society. Her framing is that “plumbing isn’t just plumbing”—control over technological systems determines power relations.

4) Meta/Google didn’t “build the internet”

She pushes back against the narrative that Big Tech “opened up” the internet. In her framing, internet growth came largely from user-driven and earlier scientific/prototype efforts, while Big Tech later monetized others’ innovations.

5) “Big Tech–Big State” dynamics and Europe’s vulnerability

Stikker describes an emerging “Big Tech state” and warns that strategic dependencies enable destabilization and disinformation efforts, especially amid great-power competition involving the US, China, and Russia. She portrays Europe as particularly vulnerable due to technology dependence (alongside other dependencies like fossil fuels).

6) Strategic autonomy as a turning point—but risks half-measures

She believes awareness is increasing, in part because politicians and citizens are seeing “Europe-bashing” and interference. Still, she warns that strategic autonomy can produce watered-down solutions unless there is real investment and development of alternative infrastructure.

7) Case study: DigiD/sovereignty and US jurisdiction

She highlights a proposed sale/transfer of DigiD to an American party, referencing her opposition via a petition. Her core objection is that digital identity functions as a “key” to citizenship and should remain under Dutch/EU control.

She argues that once under US legal scope, companies may be required to comply with requests without transparency and without citizens having meaningful agency. She describes blocking the sale as a “flash moment,” while warning about related “sovereign washing” structures that evade jurisdiction while still exposing data to US law.

8) Dependency can become coercion: the Microsoft/ICC example

Stikker cites the International Criminal Court as an example where Microsoft was no longer acceptable under pressure. She uses it to illustrate how reliance on major platforms leaves organizations exposed to being excluded from their own data and communications when political pressure mounts.

9) Critique of “addiction” and the deeper problem

She agrees organizations are “stuck” because training, IT processes, and workflows are centered on Microsoft/Google ecosystems. But the deeper challenge is not only swapping software—it’s breaking institutional lock-in.

10) Practical alternative: Nextcloud as a “digital commons”

Stikker promotes Nextcloud as an alternative to Microsoft/Google suites, emphasizing commons governance and the ability to host it yourself or through trusted providers. Her focus is reducing reliance on US platforms and minimizing surveillance/logging.

11) Journalism and public institutions need migration strategies

Media organizations are also trapped by audience concentration on Big Tech platforms. However, she argues the solution isn’t merely “shame” or telling people to leave—it’s building and nurturing alternative spaces until they have enough traction.

12) Open Socials and platform portability

She supports Open Socials concepts such as Mastodon-like federation and BlueSky, and upcoming services like “EuroSky/OpenSocials” linked to European data hosting. The goal is to enable moving accounts/audience/content rather than being locked into a single corporate platform.

13) Calls for coordinated “collective switching”

Stikker describes working with news organizations and others to build alternative presence together—coordinating so followers can switch collectively and reduce the inertia of leaving.

14) Policy/political communication on open platforms

She criticizes the idea that citizens must have X membership to access government postings. In her view, public communication should move to public/European-controlled channels (e.g., she mentions social.overheid.nl).

15) Final stance on X and regulation

Stikker argues that X should be blacked out/suspended or replaced in Europe due to systematic disinformation and Musk’s political campaigning effects. She says relying on politicians to address voters on X is misguided; alternatives exist but still require momentum and investment.

Overall Conclusion

The interview frames Big Tech dependence as a structural threat to democratic control and legal sovereignty—amplified by geopolitics and disinformation campaigns. Stikker’s remedy combines:

• Strategic autonomy
• Real investment in alternatives
• Breaking institutional lock-in
• Migrating public services and journalism to commons-based and European-controlled digital infrastructure

She emphasizes federated/open social platforms (“Open Socials”) and interoperable alternatives to Microsoft/Google ecosystems.

Presenters or Contributors

• Marleen Stikker — Director and Founder, De Waag
• Interviewer — Follow the Money (channel/host not clearly named in the subtitles)

Referenced contributors/people (not necessarily present)

• Tim Berners-Lee
• Philippe Rodriguez
• Karin Spark
• Rob Gongrijp
• Nel Cruen
• Erik (mentioned as “our old editor-in-chief” tied to a new NGO)
• Bert Hubert
• Karel Smouter
• Trump

Referenced organizations/technologies

• Bits of Freedom
• Follow the Money
• International Criminal Court
• Microsoft/Google
• Nextcloud
• Open Socials (including BlueSky/Mastodon/EuroSky)