A Human Rights Imperative in the Age of Technofeudalism
As we navigate the ever-expanding digital frontier, a new and unsettling socio-economic landscape is taking shape, one that fundamentally challenges the tenets of traditional capitalism and the foundations of democratic governance. This emergent system, which scholars and critics have termed "Technofeudalism," is not merely a technological evolution but a systemic transformation with profound and alarming implications for human rights. It represents a critical new battleground where the rights to privacy, labor, and free expression are being redefined and, in many cases, eroded. For human rights organizations, governments, and every individual who participates in the digital world, understanding and confronting this new order is not an academic exercise; it is one of an urgent and defining challenge of our time.
The New Digital Order &
Defining Technofeudalism
At its core, Technofeudalism is a theory that posits capitalism is no longer the world's dominant economic system. In its place, a new order has arisen, dominated by a handful of Big Tech corporations that function as modern-day feudal lords. The most prominent advocate of this concept, economist and former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis, argues that the 2008 financial crisis marked a definitive break. Since then, he contends, we have not been living in capitalism, but something "much worse." Unlike the feudalism of the Middle Ages, where power was derived from the ownership of land, the power of today's "cloudalists," companies like Google, Amazon, Meta, and Microsoft, stems from their control over vast digital territories. These territories are not built on soil, but on what Varoufakis calls "cloud capital": a vast, privately-owned agglomeration of networked hardware, software, servers, and AI-driven algorithms. This is not capital in the traditional sense; it is, in his words, "a produced means of behaviour modification," engineered to predict, shape, and ultimately monetize our every digital interaction.
This new system diverges from capitalism in several crucial ways. First, it has replaced open, decentralized markets with what are effectively digital fiefdoms (territories controlled by a single powerful entity, like a lord in the Middle Ages). A platform like Amazon.com is not a true market; it is a centrally controlled ecosystem where an algorithm, owned and operated by Amazon, dictates which buyers see which sellers, at what price, and under what conditions. This is the antithesis of the "invisible hand." Second, the owners of this cloud capital extract a new form of payment: "cloud rent." Other capitalists, from multinational corporations to small online sellers, have become "vassal capitalists," forced to pay this rent for the privilege of accessing customers within these digital fiefdoms. They are no longer competing in an open market but are tenants on land owned by a tech overlord.
Perhaps the most profound shift concerns labor. For the first time in history, capital is being generated on a massive scale by the unpaid labor of the masses. Every time we scroll through a social media feed, post a review, upload a photo, or search for information, we are acting as "cloud-serfs." We are unwittingly training the algorithms, enriching the datasets, and building the "command capital" of these tech giants, all without compensation. This creates a state of "universal exploitation," where value is extracted not only from the waged labor of "cloud-proles" (like Amazon warehouse workers, whose every move is dictated by an algorithm) but also from the unwaged digital activity of nearly every internet user. This entire structure, Varoufakis argues, is fueled not by private profit in the traditional capitalist sense, but by massive infusions of central bank money that keep financial markets and the tech giants afloat, creating a self-perpetuating cycle of power concentration.
The Debate Over a Post-Capitalist World
The idea that we have entered a new feudal age has resonated powerfully. In a survey conducted for the International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, an overwhelming 81.7% of respondents affirmed the rise of a new socio-political order akin to techno-feudalism, while 88.6% agreed that the global economy is now controlled by a few tech and financial monopolies. This sentiment is not merely anecdotal; it is supported by a growing body of scholarship. The French economist Cédric Durand argues that Big Tech has achieved a form of digital supremacy by rendering society dependent on its platforms, much like essential utilities. In Brazil, David Nemer has documented how digital monopolies accumulate wealth and control political discourse, posing a direct threat to national sovereignty. Legal scholar Alfred C. Yen, who first drew parallels between cyberspace and feudalism in 2002, revisited his metaphor in 2020, concluding that he had grossly underestimated the sheer scale of the digital "landlords'" estates and their immense political power.
However, the theory is not without its critics. Evgeny Morozov, for instance, challenges the idea that capitalism is dead. He argues that tech companies are not idle rent-seekers like feudal lords; they invest billions in research, development, and infrastructure, which is the hallmark of dynamic, competitive capitalism. In his view, what we are witnessing is not the end of capitalism but a more aggressive, data-driven mutation of it. Similarly, Shoshana Zuboff, while rejecting the "technofeudalism" label, describes a parallel and equally disturbing phenomenon she calls "surveillance capitalism." For Zuboff, this is a "rogue mutation of capitalism" marked by the "unilateral claiming of human experience as free raw material for translation into behavioural data." This data is then used to create "prediction products" that anticipate and shape our behavior for profit. While she sees this as a new form of market-driven governance, distinct from traditional capitalism, she does not believe capitalism itself has been replaced. The debate, therefore, is not over whether Big Tech wields unprecedented power, but over how to define the system that enables it: Is it a radical break from capitalism, or its most extreme and extractive form to date?
Digital Serfdom and The Erosion of Fundamental Rights
Regardless of the label we apply, the human consequences of this new digital order are stark and deeply troubling, creating a modern form of serfdom that touches every aspect of our lives. The parallels to historical feudalism, an era defined by forced labor, arbitrary power, and a near-total absence of individual rights, are too clear to ignore. From a human rights perspective, the impacts are catastrophic and demand immediate intervention.
The Decimation of Labor Rights: The gig economy, a cornerstone of this new system, has systematically dismantled the 20th-century model of stable employment. Workers for platforms like Uber, DoorDash, and Instacart are often misclassified as "independent contractors," stripping them of fundamental rights to a minimum wage, overtime pay, sick leave, and the ability to unionize. They are managed not by people, but by opaque algorithms that can deactivate them without warning or appeal, mirroring the precarious tenure of a medieval serf who could be cast off the land at the lord's whim. This creates a vast, precarious workforce vulnerable to exploitation and devoid of the social protections that form the bedrock of a just society.
The Annihilation of Privacy and Freedom of Expression: In the digital fiefdom, privacy is a relic. Our personal data, our conversations, movements, purchases, and even our emotions, is the raw material that fuels the system, harvested ceaselessly and without our meaningful consent. This practice of surveillance capitalism creates a state of "digital serfdom" where we have unknowingly traded our autonomy for access to services. Furthermore, our freedom of expression is now mediated by corporate gatekeepers. Tech platforms are not neutral public squares; their algorithms determine what we see and say, amplifying inflammatory content to maximize engagement and profit. Their content moderation policies, often applied inconsistently and without transparent due process, give them the power to silence voices and shape public discourse on a global scale, privatizing a function that once belonged to the public sphere.
The Threat to Democracy and Sovereignty: The concentration of power in the hands of a few tech billionaires poses an existential threat to democratic institutions. The algorithmic spread of disinformation can sway elections, incite political violence, as seen in the January 8, 2023 attacks in Brasília, and erode public trust. More insidiously, tech giants are increasingly usurping the core functions of the state. They set the rules for digital commerce, labor, and speech, often operating beyond the reach of national law. When a figure like Elon Musk can openly challenge a nation's Supreme Court, as he did in Brazil, it signals a dangerous shift where the power of a transnational "cloudalist" rivals that of a sovereign state, fundamentally undermining the principle of democratic accountability.
The Entrenchment of Inequality and Algorithmic Harm: This system is engineered to funnel wealth upwards at an unprecedented rate, exacerbating global inequality. Tech barons amass fortunes not through traditional production, but from the vast digital territories and data troves they control, while the general population faces growing economic precarity. Beyond economics, the very algorithms that structure our digital lives pose a direct threat. They create "filter bubbles" that trap us in ideological echo chambers, foster addiction to their platforms, and perpetuate societal biases, leading to discriminatory outcomes in everything from loan applications to criminal justice.
A Human Rights Imperative for the Digital Age
The profound challenges posed by technofeudalism cannot be met with outdated tools. They demand a comprehensive and multifaceted response grounded in the principles of human rights, led by a newly energized civil society and courageous governments. Human rights organizations, as practitioners of intellectual activism, have a pivotal role to play in navigating this new terrain. The immediate mandate is to move beyond traditional advocacy and embrace a new set of priorities. NGOs must champion the principle of human digital rights, advocating for policies that place people before profit. This includes establishing that personal data and intellectual property belong to the individual, not the corporation, and must only be used on an opt-in basis. We must reject exploitative business models and champion the right to a digital commons, free from algorithmic harm and engineered addiction. A core part of this mission must be to empower citizens through digital literacy. A populace that cannot critically assess online information or understand how algorithms shape their reality is a populace ripe for manipulation. NGOs must spearhead nationwide digital literacy initiatives, equipping citizens with the tools to resist the "information cocoon" and reclaim their cognitive autonomy. Finally, we must advocate for social control of algorithms and promote alternative models of collective ownership, such as cooperative platforms, that democratize the benefits of technology.
Governments, for their part, can no longer afford to be passive observers. They must act decisively to reclaim their sovereignty and protect their citizens. This requires the immediate implementation of effective regulatory frameworks. This includes aggressive antitrust enforcement to break up digital monopolies, as seen in the U.S. Department of Justice's actions against Google. It means enacting stringent data privacy protections that give individuals true ownership of their information and establishing fair digital taxation policies. Governments must also safeguard labor rights in the gig economy by adapting labor laws to guarantee fair wages, benefits, and collective bargaining rights for all workers, regardless of their classification. Crucially, states must reduce their reliance on foreign monopolies by investing in public digital infrastructure, such as national cloud services and independent platforms, to protect their digital sovereignty and ensure the free flow of information is not controlled by a handful of foreign corporations.
Ultimately, the rise of technofeudalism forces us to confront fundamental questions about power, freedom, and justice in the 21st century. Are we willing to trade our autonomy for convenience? Who truly governs our societies in the digital age? The "Wild West" metaphor for the internet is long dead; in its place is a rigid, hierarchical structure that concentrates power and wealth in the hands of an unelected few. To resist this slide into a new dark age, we must heed Varoufakis's call: "To own our minds individually, we must own cloud capital collectively." This is a battle for our collective future, waged not just in parliaments and courtrooms, but in our daily interactions with technology. It is a battle that requires our full attention, our critical reflection, and our collective action.
We can ensure that technology serves humanity, not the other way around, and build a digital future that is equitable, democratic, and free, only by working together as users, activists, and governments.
Bibliography
Balkin, J. M. (2018). Free Speech in the Algorithmic Society. Columbia Law Review.
Cadwalladr, C. (2023). ‘Capitalism is dead. Now we have something much worse’. The Guardian.
Durand, C. (2020). Technoféodalisme: Critique de l’Économie Numérique.
Gosztonyi, G., & Gyetván, D. (2025). The applicability of neomedievalism, technofeudalism and sovereignty in contemporary internet governance. Freedom of Expression.
McManagan, J., et al. (2023). What is technofeudalism and are we living under it? ABC News.
Nemer, D. (2025). Threats to Democracy in Brazil. TechPolicy.Press.
Stiefenhofer, P. (2025). Techno-Feudalism and the Rise of AGI. arXiv.
Taghizade, E., & Ahmadov, E. (2025). Techno Feudalism and the New Global Power Struggle. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science.
Varoufakis, Y. (2023). Technofeudalism: What Killed Capitalism. Yen, A. C. (2020). Revisiting the Western Frontier. IDEA – The Law Review of the Franklin Pierce Center for Intellectual Property.
Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism.
