I recently re-read a book I wrote Giuliano da Empolithe latest story of a French mayor labeled “anti-Waze” by the press. It’s about to Michelle BessonMayor Lieutenant (“Holy Place” in Spanish), a quiet and familiar residential town, located on the second ring road of the city Greater Paris. The calm of the population was suddenly broken in 2024. From day to day, the transportation application algorithm changes com. waze Thousands of motorists traveling to or from Leuzent have begun to be diverted to the inner streets of Leuzent Paris. What was once a quiet area has become a busy corridor: cars cross school zones, plazas, hospitals and residential lanes, jamming everything in their path.
Bisson, not a technophobe but an innovation enthusiast, first tried to “beat” the algorithm: he changed street directions, adjusted traffic lights, and consulted local cartographers because there was neither Waze nor its controller; GoogleThey have dedicated teams to map the area. Nothing worked. When he summoned the press, it gained international resonance, but without a solution. Only then did app executives agree to listen to him. However, the problem still exists today.
This incident is not strange to what we are experiencing Argentina. For example, something similar is happening now in a city Cordoba with Uber. This platform operated for years without obtaining a license from the municipality until social pressures, as well as a court ruling, forced the government to do so Deliberative Council To organize it. Although the regulations have been approved, the company has not yet begun the required registration process. It is a pattern that repeats itself: first the platforms arrive, then mass adoption occurs, and only finally, if possible, does the state appear to attempt to order disaster, by agreeing to what the foreign company has imposed.
“First the platforms arrive, then mass adoption happens, and only finally, if possible, does the state appear to be trying to make it a disaster.”
If we continue with this logic, it would not be strange if it became a company like Google or… apple We decided to upload data into our digital wallet that today is the exclusive authority of the state: ID, driver’s license, car ID, vaccination card. It has the information, technological resources and integration capacity to do so. If we do not set clear limits, nothing will prevent these types of public functions from ending up de facto privatized due to simple technological inertia, without a democratic decision.
It doesn’t sound like science fiction. There are already local governments experimenting, albeit symbolically, with digital “secretaries” based on artificial intelligence. We also observe how dozens of algorithm-based companies, without acknowledging it, compete against or directly replace essential state services at their convenience.
I use these tools heavily myself: I use Waze, Google, and do paperwork WhatsApp. Technology improves my life. But I also realize something fundamental: I choose my country, regional or national officials. I can control them, question them, or even remove them if they make a mistake. I do not have this possibility with a giant multinational company that does not open offices in my country and does not even provide an 0800 number for complaints.
“I don’t have that possibility with a giant multinational company that doesn’t open offices in my country and doesn’t even provide an 0800 number for complaints.”
We must decide whether we prefer an imperfect democracy to a faceless, algorithmic technocracy. Algorithms are not designed to guarantee rights, but rather to maximize efficiency or profits at all costs. And when they fail, like any user ChatGPT They know they have failed, as there is no institutional mechanism to claim compensation. Imagine for a moment that the AI, instead of making a mistake in a trivial answer, leaves you without coverage. Pammy For a sick pensioner, or mistakenly letting a prisoner go free, or mismanaging traffic lights on an entire street.
Technology is not the enemy. The enemy is the dangerous idea that, because it is faster and more convenient, it can replace democratic politics without checks. As long as algorithms advance without accountability, countries will retreat. When that happens, it will not be a programmatic failure: it will be a mass abandonment of citizens’ self-control.
The question is no longer whether platforms can manage central aspects of our public lives: they have already proven that they can. The urgent and political question is whether we are willing to give them that power without democratic oversight, and to accept leaving the course of our daily lives in the hands of algorithms that no one chose and that no one can stop.
In the face of this scenario, politics does not have to compete with technology, but rather regains its ability to guide it. This includes setting clear rules for platforms, requiring transparency about how their algorithms work, establishing independent audits, protecting sovereignty over public data, and creating appeal mechanisms when an automated decision affects rights. But it also means strengthening the state: its own technical equipment, interoperability standards, and a strategic vision that does not delegate to private companies the functions that make up democratic life.
“Governance in the digital age, above all, prevents the exercise of algorithmic power without public responsibility.”
Technology can help improve management; What it cannot do is replace the legitimacy that can only be granted by institutions elected by citizens.