Fair Observer’s Communications and Outreach officer, Roberta Campani, speaks with Nuno Guimarães, a professor of Computer Sciences at ISCTE-University Institute of Lisbon. They discuss the complex relationship between technology, privacy, artificial intelligence and global regulation. Guimarães examines how technological progress transforms social structures and individual behavior. Campani notes how digital tools have become both pervasive and intrusive, opening a broader reflection on privacy, power and human agency in the digital era.

Digital privacy

Guimarães traces the evolution of technology from the early days of personal computing — when systems like MS-DOS offered limited, local control — to today’s connected world. He explains that the same connectivity that empowers users also allows corporations to commodify their attention and data. Concentrated control over platforms, he argues, is not a conspiracy but the natural consequence of network effects. Artificial intelligence intensifies these dynamics, and privacy remains possible only at significant cost. For most users, convenience and dependence on digital systems outweigh privacy concerns, which raises questions about whether individuals can truly opt out.

Bridging digital gaps

Guimarães expresses deep concern about what he calls a “flat” and unmediated information space. Without the traditional filters once provided by editors, teachers or institutions, he believes society risks losing the very conditions for rational thought.

He compares the digital commons to a lecture hall where hundreds of people speak at once, producing confusion instead of understanding. Campani agrees that what began as an open space for exchange has evolved into one that rewards emotional and tribal reactions. For Guimarães, defending a mediated, structured public sphere is essential because it keeps conversation grounded in reason rather than impulse.

Regulating the Internet

Turning to solutions, Guimarães advises against obsessive efforts to control technology, arguing that calm assessment is necessary for mental balance. He outlines three levels of intervention: individual efforts, legal regulation and deglobalization. On the individual level, people can use privacy tools or alternative platforms, though these options remain accessible mainly to those with the education or resources to manage them.

At the legal level, regulation often feels like a “guerrilla war,” with governments struggling to keep up with fast-changing global firms. He highlights Denmark’s attempt to treat a person’s face and voice as property — a creative way to counter deepfakes through copyright law. However, he warns that consent mechanisms, such as cookie pop-ups, create an illusion of choice since few users have the time or expertise to review every policy.

Deglobalizing digital media

Guimarães argues that the assumption of a global Internet is outdated. What he calls “deglobalization” acknowledges that the world’s digital ecosystems have already fragmented. China has built its own self-contained system, and India is developing a different model. Europe, by contrast, continues to act as though the digital sphere were unified.

Campani observes that Europe’s reliance on large fines against major US platforms often functions less as punishment than as a cost of doing business. Guimarães clarifies that deglobalization does not mean isolation but rather an effort to break the network effects that entrench monopoly power.

Digital India

Guimarães cites India’s national digital ID system as a model of both opportunity and risk. While such programs can raise concerns about state surveillance, they also reduce reliance on private corporations for identity management and allow citizens to access services more efficiently.

In his view, India demonstrates that sovereignty and accessibility can coexist if democratic systems preserve mechanisms for public accountability. The ability to legally challenge the state, he notes, remains a distinct feature of democratic contexts — a reminder that digital governance must reflect political culture as much as technological capability.

Does restricting social media work?

Campani and Guimarães consider whether limiting technology use can improve public well-being. Guimarães describes a turning point in public attitudes toward technology: After decades of uncritical faith in innovation, societies are beginning to impose limits. He points to policies such as banning mobile phones in schools as a positive sign that “technological sanctity” is fading.

Yet he cautions that new ethical challenges persist. Emotion-recognition software, he argues, crosses moral boundaries by treating private emotions as data. The deeper problem lies in the engineering culture that assumes all technological progress is inherently good. Campani agrees that optimism must be tempered with reflection on how digital systems influence behavior and shape collective values.

How AI changes digital spaces

The conversation concludes with a reflection on growth, sustainability and the future of AI. Campani argues that endless economic expansion is incompatible with a finite planet. Guimarães criticizes the belief that technology can always solve the problems it creates, citing ambitious AI projects meant to address crises such as forest fires or urban congestion. He suggests that many technologists suffer from an “epistemological bug,” a drive to pursue massive, complex problems for their own sake. Campani wonders if this impulse reflects ego as much as intellect.

Guimarães predicts that digital technology will eventually find its rightful place, though only after what he calls a “phoenix moment” — a crisis severe enough to force societies to rebuild their relationship with technology from the ground up.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.