Reflections on Algorithmic Governance Responding to AI-Mediated Mobilization and Computational Propaganda Within the Framework of Digital Sovereignty
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54691/ya7vcz95Keywords:
Algorithmic governance; digital sovereignty; computational propaganda; AI-mediated mobilization; surveillance capitalism; risk-based regulation.Abstract
In this article, we contextualise the response of algorithmic governance to AI-mediated mobilisation and computational propaganda within the broader frame of digital sovereignty. The study does not focus on technicalities of single systems, but contextualises algorithmic governance in relation to central arguments on code as regulation, surveillance capitalism, digital sovereignty and risk-based AI regulation. It argues that AI-mediated mobilisation and computational propaganda reveal systemic tensions between claims of sovereignty, transnational infrastructures and design-based modes of control, such as hypernudging and lex algorithmica. This essay explores how discourses of digital sovereignty, algorithmic risk governance and binding frameworks like the EU AI Act can be read as attempts to regain meaningful control over the algorithmic infrastructures that govern public communication by drawing on conceptual and regulatory literature. The essay argues that good solutions to AI-mediated mobilisation and computational propaganda require multi-layered governance designs that take digital sovereignty as a substantive goal, without resorting to purely defensive or isolationist approaches.
Downloads
References
[1] Lessig, L. (1999). Code and other laws of cyberspace. Basic Books.
[2] Woolley, S. C., & Howard, P. N. (2017). Computational propaganda worldwide: Executive summary. Computational Propaganda Project, Oxford Internet Institute.
[3] Benkler, Y., Faris, R., & Roberts, H. (2018). Network propaganda: Manipulation, disinformation, and radicalization in American politics. Oxford University Press.
[4] Yeung, K. (2017). ‘Hypernudge’: Big data as a mode of regulation by design. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 118–136.
[5] Latzer, M., & Festic, N. (2019). A guideline for understanding and measuring algorithmic governance in everyday life. Internet Policy Review, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.2.1415
[6] Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.
[7] Pohle, J., & Thiel, T. (2020). Digital sovereignty. Internet Policy Review, 9(4).
[8] European Parliament. (2024). Artificial Intelligence Act: Legislative resolution of 13 March 2024 on the proposal for a regulation laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence.
[9] Graux, H., Garstka, K., Murali, N., Cave, J., Botterman, M., & Pellegrin, J. (2025). Interplay between the AI Act and the EU digital legislative framework. European Parliament. https:// doi.org/ 10.2861/4863883
[10] Odion, S., & Addula, S. R. (2026). AI risk governance for advancing digital sovereignty in data driven systems: An integrated multi layer framework. Future Internet, 18(4), 209. https://doi.org /10.3390/fi18040209
[11] Ishkhanyan, A. (2025). The sovereignty internationalism paradox in AI governance: Digital federalism and global algorithmic control. Discover Artificial Intelligence, 5, 123. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s44163 025 00374 x
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Frontiers in Humanities and Social Sciences

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.






