Many tech policy people are pondering the EuroStack proposed recently as a collaboration between Bertelsmann Stiftung and Francesca Bria. I would like to join the discussion with some observations; others like Tara Tarakiyee have already articulated that the proposal contains ambiguities or inconsistencies that remain open for interpretation. (Note that I am not summarising the proposal or giving an overview of the broader debate. Other resources will be more helpful for that.) Hence, I am sharing my perspective on how three important aspects (out of even more) should be resolved. My perspective is grounded in the strong conviction that changes to the current tech stack should focus on addressing market power as a key concern and on fostering an open, less commercially extractive ecosystem instead (leaving the depiction of an ecosystem without commercial extraction to another day).
As little duplication as possible with existing infrastructures
In the current political climate, it might be unavoidable to duplicate certain infrastructure such as a minimum computing capacity in data centres. This seems to be a pragmatic response to US politicians threatening to turn off digital services to exert pressure, as articulated e.g. by US vice-president JD Vance. There is no doubt that democratically legitimate, legal jurisdiction over digital infrastructures needs to be established. (Comments by a UK state secretary even prior to Trump’s inauguration bluntly state that democratic forces no longer control tech companies. This is the only sense in which speaking of sovereignty makes sense to me: Democratically legitimised institutions must be able to make rules for economic markets.) The EuroStack report advocates for building alternatives that can replace today’s dominant players. But duplication should not be without limits, especially in the light of ecological impact, and there is no point in building another set of infrastructures next to those we already have but no longer want in their current form. Instead, we need to establish democratic control over existing infrastructures.
This is not about winning a race between imaginary regions of the world. This is about loosening the grip of tech oligarchs who are working against the public interest.
Let’s be specific about openness
Openness is a paradox – it tends to contribute the largest benefit to the biggest players, possibly further cementing market power. However, it is probably still better to foster open ecosystems (possibly with some restrictions on their use?), instead of resorting to proprietary systems as the only option. The EuroStack report puts emphasis on openness; however, it also expresses a strong commitment to EU proprietary business models like SAP and Siemens as well as the closed data-sharing infrastructure Catena-X. More meaningful openness as that in open hardware is mentioned just once. Building anything really requires us to be clear about what kind of openness we want instead of saying “this is open” while, actually, it is closed (as happened with the definition of open-source AI). A challenge is that the EuroStack wants to attract private investment, and private investors will be reluctant to back open alternatives intended to compete with big tech. These trade-offs need to be made transparent so they can be discussed. Fostering “real” open tech infrastructure requires public money and a different kind of governance and ownership.
Innovation and growth should not be ends in themselves
We need a tech stack to serve democratic empowerment. Profitability is not the sole indicator of whether technologies are useful (it may not be a meaningful one at all). Fun fact: Did you know that when services become cheaper because of, for example, falling costs or more competition, GDP goes down? In addition to concerns about growth being a sensible indicator on an over-exploited planet, economic growth figures can be highly misleading, especially in the digital sector. And if we want innovation, we should seek the kind that is useful for people at large. This means investing only very selectively into technological bets like quantum computing (mentioned 98 times in the EuroStack report) but more down-to-earth aspects that have a tangible impact on people’s lives (“media”, with or without social, is mentioned 9 times, payments 19 times). We urgently need to abstain from technologies that are harmful. And how on earth did blockchain and web3.0 make it into a 2025 report with a call for Europe “to reclaim its footing in this critical domain, presenting a challenge to its broader decentralization ambitions”?!
The discussion will certainly gain more momentum as the geopolitical framing increasingly takes hold. It is impossible to overemphasise this: This is not about winning a race between imaginary regions of the world. This is about loosening the grip of tech oligarchs who are working against the public interest.