Dear Reader,

As April draws to a close, the US’s brinkmanship in West Asia remains a source of deep concern — threatening to destabilize whatever is left of the fragile coherence in the global political order.  An already troubled economic system is being pushed into acute turmoil. Recent reporting suggests that the situation may be unprecedented: we could now be witnessing the most severe energy crisis in modern history, with oil supply disruptions surpassing even the combined shocks of the 1970s OPEC crisis and the aftermath of the Ukraine war.

Among the hardest hit are technology industries, which depend heavily on stable and affordable energy flows. The impact has been particularly pronounced in Asia, where the fallout is most immediate. Analysts note that shortages of critical commodities — such as helium and LNG — are disrupting semiconductor supply chains in key manufacturing hubs like South Korea and Taiwan. At the same time, the energy crunch is affecting data centers across the region.. Spiraling costs are also straining the production of consumer electronics, while also increasingly affecting fast fashion platforms and their suppliers.

These developments represent significant blows to the core regions of the global tech manufacturing belt, with consequences that are likely to persist long after any resolution to the conflict. Yet the most decisive impact of this crisis may lie in the potential structural shifts it has brought into consideration. Much like the Gulf countries, East Asian technology hubs such as South Korea and Japan are key US allies, whose economies are now bearing the brunt of what is increasingly seen as an erratic and destabilizing turn in US foreign policy. As these regions reassess both their dependence on fossil fuels and their reliance on an increasingly uncertain American security umbrella, space may open for new alliances — potentially ones that serve more progressive ends.

In speaking of the shifting tides of geo-economics, the recent World Trade Organization Ministerial Conference also saw interesting developments. After nearly 28 years in place, the longstanding moratorium on customs duties for electronic transmissions expired this year, following a deadlock in negotiations. Developing countries such as Brazil and Turkey resisted US pressure to extend the moratorium, signaling the emergence of a new phase in the politics of digital trade.

Historically, the moratorium has prevented countries from expanding their taxation frameworks around transnational flows of data, software, and digital content — effectively granting a free pass to Silicon Valley firms and closing public financing avenues to foster digital industrialization in the Global South. This helps explain why major emerging economies such as Brazil, India, and South Africa have long opposed the provision. Now that it has lapsed, it remains to be seen how these countries and the rest of the world, including the North, will make their next move.

Unfortunately, there is currently little unity within the South. Dozens of countries have signed on to the WTO’s Joint Statement Initiative on E-Commerce — a controversial subgroup of member states pushing for a digital trade agreement that would extend the moratorium in another form. At the same time, the US has adopted an increasingly aggressive posture in recent months, threatening tariffs and other economic measures against countries whose regulations could adversely affect Big Tech’s bottom line. Now that the moratorium has lapsed, ‘Will countries levy taxes on data at the border?’ is something we need to wait and watch.

Taken together, these developments point to an uncertain future for institutions like the WTO, particularly in the digital domain. As consensus becomes harder to achieve, its authority may gradually erode — with regional blocs and bilateral partnerships continuing to gain prominence. In the near term, the more immediate question is how countries in the Global South will navigate these shifting dynamics in digital trade.

Turning to the AI front, this month brought more ominous developments. Anthropic unveiled a new frontier model, Mythos, designed to scan digital systems for software vulnerabilities in the name of cybersecurity. Given the obvious potential for misuse, ranging from exploiting weaknesses in financial systems to disrupting electricity grids and even military infrastructure, the company announced that it would not release the model to the public. Instead, under an initiative dubbed “Project Glasswing,” Anthropic is partnering with roughly two dozen Silicon Valley firms, spanning the full spectrum of Big Tech and beyond, to deploy Mythos to strengthen cybersecurity and safeguard critical infrastructure.

Independent assessments, including those from the UK’s AI Security Institute, have attested to Mythos’s capabilities, which only heightens concern about its implications. Within the first week of its announcement, there were already reports of a security breach, with unauthorized individuals gaining access to the model. Even setting aside such incidents,  the proposed solution of Project Glasswing itself is troubling. It effectively places one of the most advanced tools for identifying and potentially exploiting cybersecurity vulnerabilities in the hands of the US tech sector. This not only intensifies the already fraught geopolitical stakes of the present moment but also introduces a new layer of dependency on Big Tech, one that is likely to be leveraged to preserve existing power structures.

These developments underscore the growing urgency of efforts to build digital and AI sovereignty across the world. The capacity to govern and secure technological infrastructure is rapidly becoming a precondition for meaningful national autonomy in the contemporary era.

Interestingly, recent reporting has highlighted a novel initiative along these lines in the EU. A “Disaster Recovery Pack” was announced by a consortium of leading European technology providers. The proposal centers on creating an integrated system of backups for critical databases and infrastructure that can be activated in times of crisis. It aims to reduce reliance on foreign cloud networks and to build a more resilient digital economy capable of remaining operational even if access to such service providers is disrupted.

Such measures offer an important form of insurance for what has become the technological backbone of modern economic life. However, in the context of building genuine technological sovereignty, they risk falling short. Implicit in these initiatives is the assumption that dependence on foreign providers remains the default, with resilience mechanisms designed primarily for exceptional disruptions. Without a more concerted push toward structural self-sufficiency, the scope for truly independent policymaking in the digital sphere will remain largely curtailed.

Finally, this month, and just in time for May Day, we saw an astonishing proclamation from the Chinese Communist Party. In a sweeping move, the Central Committee introduced a major regulatory framework formalizing new labor protections for China’s roughly 200 million gig workers. These measures include minimum wage guarantees, limits on working hours, requirements for algorithmic transparency, provisions for collective bargaining, and a 2027 compliance deadline.

While it remains to be seen how this framework is actually put into practice, if it delivers on these ambitious promises, then it may well go down as a historic breakthrough in platform worker struggles. Notably, as analysts have observed, the policy appears to be driven by a dual logic. On one hand, it responds to longstanding worker grievances. On the other hand, it reflects a form of demand-side economic thinking. Faced with a slowing global economy, China must find ways to expand domestic consumption to absorb the output of its vast manufacturing sector. The calculation seems to be that stronger protections will raise incomes and stability for gig workers — enabling them to play a more significant role in the consumption cycle — while the country’s large platform companies remain profitable enough to absorb the associated costs.

If successful, this intervention could demonstrate both the broader macroeconomic benefits of investing in platform workers’ rights and the capacity to decisively shape economic outcomes when sufficient political will exists. It would stand as a welcome retort to neoliberal orthodoxies at least. As attention turns to a major battle over workers’ rights at the ILO conference in the coming months, this should serve as a galvanizing reminder of what is possible and a call to redouble efforts.

The Sins & Synergies Lounge

Start with this sharp essay on the battle for human attention, which argues that attention has become a key site of geopolitical and economic power, a finite cognitive resource now industrially extracted and increasingly weaponized in the age of AI.

Also read AI Now Institute’s report on the platformization of care work that shows how data-driven management is reshaping nursing labor, raising urgent questions about precarity, quality of care, and the future of public health systems.

For a concise background on the stakes at the International Labor Convention 2026, revisit Shobhit S.’s two-part Bot Populi feature on platform power and teh future of work.

Don’t miss the Balanced Economy Project’s new report on how speculative investment, political influence, and concentrated corporate power have fueled an AI infrastructure race to the bottom whose costs fall on the public.

For a more technical deep-dive, explore Stefaan Verhulst’s research examining the political economy of AI systems, building on his concept of data collaboratives as seven governance archetypes and the specific coordination problems they address.

On philosophizing in resistance to technofascism, check out Alice Crary’s lecture on the ideological covers for the harms of artificial intelligence.

Read this forceful challenge to early internet nostalgia by Noemi Garay Murcia, which asks, “When we say the internet was ‘better’ before, we must ask: for whom was it better?”

As a final act of creative resistance, get your data too dirty to train with this playful art project.