It is missing calmly to understand what happens to us. But calm is a luxury that we are not allowed. The absence of time and reflection is created artificially, such as debates and preprocessed thoughts packaged in a plot that contaminates everything. The news cycle of this beginning of 2025 looks more like a Iron Man That to the serene life of a cow watching the train pass. We do not know if, developed by the CIA and trained in the Chile of Pinochet, but has not given us a second of tranquility since it swore the position without, by the way, the hand on the Bible that a melania hieratic, dressed as wife of the wife of the wife of the wife Maidhe held indifferently.
In spite of how difficult it is putting it, we must try to be that patient cow that ruminates reality to understand what happens to us. And what happens to us is nothing other than those who have had the monopoly of complexity have now also won the legitimacy they were missing, self -regulating or ceasing to regulate themselves from the parliaments and administrations they have taken to the assault. For years, technological corporations have maintained their hegemony cultivating a seemingly impregnable complexity, a maze of innovations and systems that only they could navigate.
The sector giants have perfected, over years of incontestrated domain, the art of creating hermetic and highly integrated ecosystems that generate a deep technological dependence, weaving a network where the transition cost is prohibitive for most users. This strategy is not only technique: it represents a deliberate power architecture that makes user emigration virtually impossible, trapped in a digital maze that is increasingly difficult to escape.
The informative asymmetry that results from this has reached unprecedented dimensions in economic history. While classical industrial monopolies based their power on the control of physical resources or distribution networks, technological corporations have achieved something much more valuable: the monopoly of technical knowledge necessary to understand their own systems. This cognitive advantage allows them to mold the public debate about technology at their convenience, presenting each corporate decision as a technical inevitability and each criticism as a threat to innovation.
When they face regulatory scrutiny, they display a defense strategy based on complexity: they flood regulators with impenetrable technical documentation, they argue that any change in their systems could have unpredictable catastrophic consequences, and present their monopolistic practices as unavoidable technical requirements to maintain the safety and efficiency of their services. The result is a system where technical knowledge has become the last border of corporate power, a more effective barrier than any patent or regulation.
This instrumentalization of technical complexity has produced a fundamental transformation in the very nature of corporate regulation. The traditional state supervision model, designed to control companies with defined physical operations and transparent business processes, has become obsolete in front of corporations that operate in a practically inaccessible technical abstraction plan for regulators. Large technology have perfected the art of regulatory ubiquity: they can provide services simultaneously in multiple jurisdictions without significant physical presence, multiplying their ability to influence while minimizing their exposure to legal supervision.
This technological relocation is not an accident, but the natural result of a business architecture specifically designed to evade traditional state control mechanisms. The result is a new type of corporate entity that exists simultaneously everywhere and in none, capable of accumulating an unprecedented power while systematically avoiding any significant attempt of regulation.
This strategy has allowed them to resist regulations, dissuade competitors and keep their user base captive, but they have never provided them with the legitimacy that the polls give. In recent years, legitimate criticism, calls to transparency and attempts at regulation, not only from old Europe but from the heart of their own country: prosecutors against technological actions by user addiction, privacy laws, control of access to minors to platforms and prohibition of porn in some states, and models of quasi-editorial moderation expensive and dangerous, first step to establish a responsibility for a liability for content. The economy of breaking things and going quickly, fake it ‘til you make it They had passed to better life. White men at the forefront of these corporations began a physical mutation towards bodybuilding, pelazo and misogyny.
This technological relocation is not an accident, but the result of a business architecture
The arrival of Trump to power represents his bolder attempt to resolve this contradiction: the alliance between the power arising from the technological complexity and the legitimacy emanating from the polls, although these have been systematically manipulated by the same algorithms that now seek their democratic blessing. We are not facing a simple convenience pact, but before a deep transformation in the very nature of power: the fusion between a meticulously designed control architecture to consolidate digital domain and a technological populism that promises to convert technical opacity into political virtue.
This milestone marks a fundamental change in the relationships between truth, power and technology. For the first time, we witness an explicit alliance between political power and technological corporations that control the flow of global information. This symbiosis has legitimized informative manipulation practices that were previously carried out undercover, normalizing the direct intervention of technological platforms in the public debate and democratic processes.
The support of Peter Thiel, Elon Musk’s carnival adhesion, Bezos’s complicit shyness from the Wall Street Journal And the posterior alignment of the rest of digital magnates, from the Google CEO to the always discreet Tim Cook, reveal a new reality: the owners of complexity have finally found the legitimacy that they were missing at the polls, promising a return to the distant regulatory west where the regulations dissolve on the horizon of digital impunity.
The president of the Government in Davos, first, and in the presentation of the Observatory of Digital Rights, promises more regulation without giving the slightest clue to how we are going to resolve the issue of complexity. Hugging the Official State Gazette is the expected reflection of a government that has grown under the paradigm of legal systems born in the nineteenth century, but it is only a source of frustration. You cannot regulate without understanding. You cannot regulate to harm yours and not those you wanted to tie short.
There is nothing more deactivating than dystopia, and nothing more exciting than creating utopias that work as a lighthouse of action and hope. There are two recent examples that show that we are not condemned to suffer from Technocasta, that the solution is transparency in the code and the decentralization of infrastructure. In returning to the foundational origins of the Internet. It has shown that the most advanced technical results are attainable with a fraction of the investment that large technological corporations have been demanding, suggesting that their business models could be more based on financial speculation than in true technological innovation.
It shows that there are viable alternatives to the monopoly of complexity when transparency on opacity and antithonxication measures against anger are prioritized. In both cases, its code is available to be used and replicated, and its infrastructure allow decentralization. Anyone could set up a Deepseek or a bluesky.
The true digital emancipation will not come from the hand of pacts between political power and technological corporations, but of a silent revolution that is already underway: that of democratized technical knowledge, radical transparency and effective control by users. Deepseek and; They represent the first cracks on the wall of artificial complexity, demonstrating that the supposed impregnability of complex systems falls apart when real innovation displaces financial speculation, when the opening expires to opacity, and when users recover control that they never had to lose. In this new battle for digital freedom, simplicity is revealed as the most powerful weapon against tyranny of false complexity.
