AlgoSoc / Opinion
June 16, 2026

When Big Tech rules universities: Reclaiming academic freedom through digital sovereignty

AlgoSoc panel at CPDP 2026, Brussels: “When Big Tech Rules Universities: Reclaiming Academic Freedom Through Digital Sovereignty”

Digital infrastructures are essential resources enabling research and education. Now, however, universities that have long made themselves dependent on cloud services provided by Big Tech are additionally incorporating a variety of AI-tools that it offers. This not only comes with risks to privacy, data protection, and security, but also threatens the very core of universities – academic freedom.

During the CPDP Conference, the AlgoSoc panel “When Big Tech Rules Universities: Reclaiming Academic Freedom Through Digital Sovereignty”, Maria Luisa Stasi, Natali Helberger, Cecilia Rikap, Wladimir Mufty and Michael Veale discussed what this growing dependence on large technology companies means for universities.

Firstly, such freedom, next to the scientific advancements and institutional autonomy may fall victim of changes in transatlantic relations. Secondly, though less manifestly, academia may become shaped by peculiar economic rather than public values underlying research integrity. At this CPDP panel, researchers and practitioners examined how universities' growing dependence on a small number of large technology companies is quietly reshaping academic freedom — not just in terms of research outputs, but in the very infrastructures and tools that make research possible. We considered whether the use of alternative research infrastructures by universities is feasible and can preserve universities’ independence as a prerequisite for academic freedom in the age of AI and cloud computing.

Maria Luisa Stasi opened the panel with a reminder that academic autonomy is not an academic hobby horse, but benefits and serves society as a whole. Explaining why academic autonomy is so important, Cecilia Rikap warned that the commodification of knowledge is accelerating, with Big Tech firms appropriating and patenting research outputs while universities and academics increasingly pay to access the results of their own work. Digging deep into the roots of the problem, Michael Veale observed that organisations are expected to adapt to the technology, rather than technology adapting to the organisation. He called for universities to imagine how technology should look like, instead of simply adapting to dominant platform models. Natali Helberger then shared her experience from the AlgoSoc Nextcloud pilot and some of the key drivers that helped with our transition, including at the level of researchers: a joint momentum and keeping the bigger picture alive, at the level of the university: an organisational culture of thinking in terms of solutions, not problems and investment in technical support and feedback loops, at the level of policy makers: simpler procedures and dedicated funding for public interest pilots, public procurement and legal obligations for large technology companies to cooperate. The importance of co-operation was reinforced by Wladimir Mufty who called to action and explained that giving some autonomy away as part of such cooperations can lead to more autonomy vis-à-vis large tech vendors.

The panel agreed that algorithms are not neutral tools but mechanisms of governance: if universities do not govern the algorithms they adopt, those who design them will effectively govern universities. Speakers called for a fundamental shift in narrative — away from Big Tech's logic of convenience and cost, and towards a model in which universities collectively reclaim control over their digital environments and research agendas.

The key takeaway was clear: this is a collective challenge requiring collective action, political will, and a willingness to invest in the difficult but necessary work of building genuinely independent academic infrastructures.