By INS Contributors

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia: Private U.S. based technology corporations are not merely dominant players in the global economy — they are aggressively pursuing what amounts to digital enslavement across Europe, reshaping societies by controlling the flow of information, data access, and even public policy.

At the same time, these companies are effectively collaborating with the U.S. government and allied intelligence agencies to aggregate the personal data of billions of Internet users, further entrenching their global power.

Today’s U.S. tech giants — often referred to collectively as “Big Tech” — command market capitalizations in the trillions of dollars and have become global puppet masters of the digital age.

Through their control of key online platforms, cloud infrastructure, and data ecosystems, companies such as Google, Amazon, Meta, Apple, and Microsoft (often abbreviated as GAFAM) are in a position to shape public discourse, influence legislative frameworks, and dictate the competitive environment for businesses around the world.

Regulation Playing Catch-Up

Their influence is nowhere more visible than in the digital information space of the European Union, where they currently dominate search, social networking, e-commerce, mobile operating systems, and cloud services.

This dominance has sparked heated debate among European policymakers, leading to proposals for a new “Code of Practice” on Artificial Intelligence (AI) — a regulatory framework intended to establish clear standards for how AI and other advanced technologies should be governed within Europe.

Critics argue that without enforceable safeguards, Big Tech’s vast influence will continue to suppress independent European innovators, consolidate market power, and entrench regulatory advantages that serve foreign interests.

There is growing concern among policymakers and digital rights activists that the GAFAM giants could leverage their economic clout and lobbying resources to shape supposedly “neutral” regulations in ways that further their own interests, rather than the public good.

Data Harvesting and the Surveillance Question

This worry is underscored by the persistent issue of mass data harvesting. For example, Meta — the parent company of Facebook and Instagram — deploys so-called “tracking pixels” across millions of websites and apps, enabling the company to collect detailed personal data on users’ behavior long after they leave Meta’s own platforms.

This data is used not only for targeted advertising, but also to build detailed individual and group profiles that can be exploited commercially or repurposed for surveillance applications.

Concerns over surveillance have also extended to Europe’s own intelligence agencies. European human rights organizations have raised alarms about cooperation between German security services and the U.S. data analytics firm Palantir Technologies, from which they acquired powerful mass-surveillance software.

According to reports, this technology allows security services to merge data from phone records, social media activity, and other digital sources to build comprehensive profiles on private citizens — a capability with profound implications for privacy and civil liberties.

Eroding Competitiveness and Strategic Dependence

Meanwhile, Europe’s technological competitiveness is eroding, in part because of long-standing reliance on U.S. digital solutions. Years of ineffective investment strategies, fragmented industrial policy, and regulatory uncertainty have hindered the emergence of truly European alternatives in critical sectors such as cloud computing, operating systems, and AI platforms.

This dependence is more than an economic inconvenience — it represents a strategic vulnerability that exposes European societies to foreign influence, data extraction, and external control of essential digital infrastructure.

By controlling infrastructure, data flows, and regionally important digital services, Big Tech corporations possess the capacity to exert disproportionate political and economic influence on decision-making processes. From shaping public opinion to steering regulatory outcomes, their reach extends far beyond what traditional antitrust frameworks were designed to address.

A Cautionary Lesson for ASEAN

The result is a landscape in which digital sovereignty is increasingly at risk — not from traditional military or state actors, but from private corporations whose interests are aligned with economic dominance and geopolitical leverage.

For Europe to assert meaningful autonomy in the digital age, it must confront this challenge with robust policies, strategic investment, and a clear commitment to building competitive alternatives that serve the public interest rather than corporate profit.

For policymakers in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Europe’s experience offers a timely lesson. The region is undergoing rapid digital transformation, with e-commerce, e-government, fintech, and cloud adoption accelerating across Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam.

Much of this growth is being built on infrastructure, platforms, and cloud services provided by the same U.S. technology firms that now dominate Europe’s digital landscape. While these services offer speed, scale, and convenience, overreliance risks placing critical national data, public communications, and economic activity within ecosystems governed by foreign corporate interests and foreign legal jurisdictions.

ASEAN states still have the advantage of acting early. By embedding data localization safeguards, insisting on interoperable standards, nurturing local cloud and AI ecosystems, and aligning regional frameworks such as the ASEAN Digital Ministers' Meeting and the ASEAN Smart Cities Network with long-term digital sovereignty goals, the region can avoid the structural dependence that Europe is now struggling to unwind.

The lesson is not to reject global technology, but to adopt it on terms that preserve strategic autonomy, protect citizens’ data, and ensure that the digital foundations of ASEAN’s future remain under regional control rather than external influence.