Defending Public Deliberation in Techno-Feudal Times

Prof Nicole Curato – Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance, University of Canberra.

Our political conversations are increasingly taking place in a privatized public sphere. This is a space where the platforms we use to discuss politics are but designed and controlled by tech corporations with the primary goal of maximizing profit. What this means is that our ability to communicate and deliberate on critical issues is shaped by forces that are neither democratic nor transparent. These corporations profit from division, outrage, and engagement metrics that prioritize viral content over meaningful discussion. This is the world we now inhabit, a reality that Yanis Varoufakis calls “techno-feudalism.”

Techno-feudalism describes a system where, instead of land, wealth and power are concentrated in the hands of a few tech giants who control digital infrastructure, data, and algorithms. This system turns us into products, as our behaviour, relationships, and interactions are harvested as data. Ulises Mejias and Nick Couldry further this critique by labelling it “data colonialism,” emphasising how big tech extracts value from our personal data, similar to how colonial empires once extracted resources from conquered lands.

This presents a significant challenge to the ideals of deliberative democracy. In my work, I define deliberative democracy as a political aspiration grounded in the belief that collective decisions should be shaped by inclusive, informed, and reflective conversations. In a world where digital platforms profit from sensationalism and division, is deliberative democracy even possible? Can we create spaces where citizens genuinely listen to each other, engage with evidence, and work towards the common good?

The answer is a resounding yes. Deliberative democracy is not a naïve fantasy. Rather, it is a political project that seeks to build what sociologist Erik Olin Wright calls “real utopias”—visions for a better world that are both aspirational and achievable. As a professor at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance, I have the privilege of witnessing communities around the world experimenting with innovative democratic practices that create such utopias.

Real Utopias in Practice

In Iraq, I met with youth leaders who decided to form “listening circles” to engage their peers in conversations about sensitive political issues. These young leaders recognised that many young people are reluctant to speak in public, especially on topics that could be dangerous to discuss. By creating spaces that prioritised listening over debate, they fostered trust and opened up new avenues for dialogue.

In Cambridge in the UK, I observed patients and carers of people with genetic diseases come together to deliberate on the ethics of genome editing. Their discussions were not just about scientific facts but about values, shared experiences, and what kind of future they wanted to shape for themselves and their loved ones.

In my home country, the Philippines, I witnessed supporters and victims of populist strongman Rodrigo Duterte’s violent war on drugs engage in deliberations that bridged deeply polarized views. Through structured dialogue, participants found common ground, recognizing that their shared humanity transcended their political differences.

And globally, I saw 100 everyday citizens from around the world—including a waitress from Brazil, a student from China, and a former humanitarian worker from Syria—deliberate online for 68 hours to craft a People’s Declaration for the Sustainable Future of Planet Earth, presented at COP26. These citizens demonstrated that, even in our fragmented digital spaces, meaningful, reflective, and informed deliberation is possible.

Reclaiming Deliberation from Techno-Feudalism

These examples give me hope. They show that even in the age of techno-feudalism, people are still finding ways to engage in thoughtful, productive conversations. However, we must confront the fact that the current structure of our digital spaces is fundamentally hostile to these kinds of democratic practices. To move forward, I offer two proposals.

First, we need to resist the narrative that citizens have lost their agency in the face of technology. Popular books like Jaron Lanier’s Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now suggest that we have become little more than “well-trained dogs” manipulated by tech platforms. Filipino journalist and Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Ressa echoes this sentiment, describing social media users as “Pavlov’s dogs” conditioned by disinformation.

While these critiques are valid in highlighting the dangers of our digital ecosystem, I find these characterizations dangerous. Dehumanizing citizens as mindless puppets reduces our capacity for dialogue and empathy. It forecloses the possibility of collective action and assumes that technological solutions are our only hope. We must remember that citizens, even in the most challenging circumstances, retain the ability to reflect, deliberate, and organize for change.

Second, we need to design and protect spaces for genuine public deliberation. A powerful example of this comes from the Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression in Canada. Here, 120 randomly selected citizens came together to deliberate on the impact of digital technologies on Canadian society. Their recommendations were insightful and included affirming users’ rights to control their data and establishing a Digital Ombudsperson’s Office to address complaints about online platforms. Importantly, they also called for the decolonization of platforms, advocating for Indigenous and underrepresented voices to be heard.

This recommendation is particularly important because it reminds us that digital platforms are not neutral. They are built on power structures that often silence marginalized voices, especially those from indigenous populations and actors from the Global South. As tech companies set their sights on “the next billion users”—the majority of whom will come from the Global South—we must ensure that these users are not passive consumers of technology but active participants in shaping the digital public sphere.

Towards a Global Ethos of Deliberation

Deliberative democracy must have a global ethos. It is not enough for democratic innovations to take place in Europe and North America if the voices of the Global South are excluded. Consider the example of green energy. Citizens’ assemblies in Europe may recommend investing in electric vehicles, but this green transition often relies on the exploitation of labour and natural resources in countries like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where cobalt mining supports battery production. Similarly, recommendations on enhanced social media content moderation in wealthy countries often depends on the labour of poorly paid workers in the Philippines, Kenya, and India, who are exposed to traumatic content with little support.

If we are serious about reclaiming the power of political conversations, we must centre the voices of the Global South. We must ensure that the next billion internet users have the agency to shape the platforms they use, rather than being exploited by them.

Conclusion: Reclaiming the Public Sphere

In conclusion, we cannot allow the privatized public sphere to define the limits of our political imagination. Yes, big tech companies profit from division, disinformation, and disengagement, but real utopias are being built in communities around the world. These utopias show us that inclusive, informed, and reflective public deliberation is not only possible but essential for addressing the complex problems we face.

As we move forward, we must design democratic innovations that embody a global ethos, recognising our shared, interconnected politics. By doing so, we can build a future where the power of political conversations is reclaimed for the many, not the few.

You can download the text of Nicole Curato’s keynote presentation here.