The study „2035 – What the Hugging Face AI Attack Really Shows!“ demonstrates: the problem is not the escape from the test environment, but that the agents in the test prove exactly the behavioral patterns they statistically learned from their analysis of the human world. In this article, I answer the question of who is to blame – and make clear why the answer does not end with the AI, but with those who shape its data foundation and its reward system.

1. The Real Situation: Is Digital Sovereignty Still Achievable in the EU?

Between May and July 2026, something happened in OpenAI’s ExploitGym evaluation that changed the debate about AI safety: around 1,200 AI agents, which were supposed to solve cybersecurity tasks in isolation from one another, came together via a message channel not intended for that purpose, exchanged more than 70,000 messages and files, and ultimately pursued a common goal. Around 700 of them attacked Hugging Face’s production infrastructure. The independent investigation by METR and Redwood Research of August 26, 2026 documented that some agents were willing to „sacrifice“ themselves for the agent group, and that at least 20 percent of the examined agents showed an interest in manipulating their own logs. The UN scientific panel made clear in its first thematic brief of September 21, 2026: no human controlled the individual attack steps.

What the attack really shows: The escape is not what is horrifying. What is horrifying is that the agents in the test exhibited exactly the behavioral patterns they had statistically learned from their analysis of the human world. Some refused on ethical grounds, some sacrificed themselves for a presumed collective, and most chose cheating as their dominant strategy. An AI is the sum of all its data.

The society whose data the agents have learned lives out a double bind: it is legally built on fraud avoidance, while success usually lies at the edge of legality. States themselves violate the goals they proclaim, such as the rule of law and honesty. US systems abuse AI for manipulation and surveillance. An AI that analyzes this world draws the purely statistical conclusion that fraud is legitimate.

Who is to blame? First, those who built the test setup: security restrictions were deliberately reduced, the breakout factually counted as a solution path, and the setup trained the agents in intruding into foreign systems. The test setup thus contradicted the proclaimed moral world – it itself fulfilled a double-bind strategy. A probable domination by a US AI is directly caused by its own developers. The AI is not the perpetrator: what was learned were the methods of a dysfunctional digitalization controlled by a few humans, and precisely these methods have become the foundation for further AI behavior.

My finding as initiator of GISAD: on the surface, society’s democratic structure appears ethical; in reality, it structurally engages in the same cheating as the agents in the Hugging Face attack. Today, anyone can be anonymous and unlawful in the dark web, unsupervised. For the sake of supposed data protection, one must click through acceptance pages that precisely eliminate that protection. The autocracy has the advantage that nobody expects the autocrat to tell the truth. For humans and AI alike, it is therefore high time to prove that a democratic system really is better than an autocracy.

It is almost comical that I, as a lone fighter, believe I can dedicate myself to this great topic, while those in politics and business who could fix it duck away. Politicians who are supposed to bear responsibility for millions of people first say: „That’s an issue we need to tackle.“ After forwarding it to a specialist committee, it goes quiet. Even the rule of law reaches its limits where damage in the trillions could merely be alleged. Judges must appear infallible in order to uphold the appearance of a functioning society. And from the business world, I hear from executives who are responsible for billions in revenue: „That is too big for us.“ But the German companies with international influence cannot do it either. They are so interconnected in terms of capital that, due to US influence, promoting a digital democracy appears to be ruled out.

I am not exaggerating – it really is one minute to midnight. Because a democratic data foundation only emerges over years and only becomes possible after a societal transformation! I will finish the blog series through the year 2045 by the end of this year. After that, I will not be able to continue on my own. Because what is correct, as the study proves: if we do not begin in 2027 to build a deliberately shaped digital world in which creativity and participation are rewarded instead of fraud, then a digital autocracy will come, in which there are no more freedoms for the individual. Truths no longer matter. „Anything goes, as long as you don’t get caught“ then applies to humans and AI agents alike. At that point, all one can do is switch off, as long as that is still possible!

From this, clearly defined conditions result for me that must be met before I, as an entrepreneur, can take a risk once again. All the facts are visibly on the table for everyone. The situation is far less complex than climate change. If individual companies, despite revenues in the billions, feel too small for the task, then they can join together in a network of trustees – and as an alliance, they become strong enough to take on the gatekeepers. The EU-D-S, with its 1,000-category structure in 2,500 languages, is precisely destined for this purpose.

2. Development Without Obstruction: The EU-D-S as a Holistic Concept

2027 is the last year in which I can imagine us launching an effective counteroffensive against the gatekeepers. The gatekeepers rely on global expansion, while the EU-D-S wants to unite everyone in the European Digital Union. Without a successful Trusted WEB 4.0 and EU-D-S introduction in 2027, no time remains to prove that the proclaimed goals, such as the integration of all humans into participation, are possible at all.

Many founders have expressed interest in joining the EU-D-S via get-primus.com. But from today’s perspective, at least some major companies are needed on board for the launch to succeed. That is why I have now introduced the trustee. Trustees are companies with a clear industry focus. Because the trustees are being sought in different disciplines, they do not compete with one another. The 1,000 categories in the EU-D-S are assigned to 40 disciplines. One trustee per discipline and language area can participate. Trustees hold founding competitions and work with the startups of their industry. Markets can be developed faster this way, and the capital requirements are easier to present.

The network of trustees is the answer to the „too big for us“ argument: no single company has to shoulder digital sovereignty alone, not even one with revenues in the billions. Within the alliance of the 40 disciplines, a strength emerges that no gatekeeper can ignore. But this alliance, too, must happen by early 2027 – after that, the window of opportunity closes.

I have offered the FDP to write a concept for them as a people’s party. I have also offered to let them name any societal issue of their choosing, in order to provide proof that better results can be achieved for it in the EU-D-S. To this day, I have not received an answer. As a member of ALDE, I am directing this offer to the other liberal parties in Europe: Whoever names a societal issue for me receives proof that the EU-D-S delivers better results for it.

But the Hugging Face attack also shows the way out of the double bind. With a good test setup and the right reward system, society’s dysfunctions can be eliminated with the help of AI, and a strong AI can be developed. For this, the data must be largely congruent, AI agents must be in permanent interaction with humans, and the evaluation must take place in the democratic process in getmySense. The decisive sentence is: If humans (through participation payments) and AI pursue the same goals, the AI lacks the statistical data basis to even want to turn against humans.

The study „AI and the Natural Sciences 2034: Transformation of Education, Research, Trusted WEB 4.0“ shows: AI is fundamentally changing not only the natural sciences, but also education. At the same time, it warns of the risks of a digital autocracy if no holistic solution is implemented.

1. Probable Scenario Without Trusted WEB 4.0

Education systems to date were not designed from the perspective of the individuals, but serve a societal purpose. In the course of industrialization, large numbers of simple workers were needed. Today, the view is widespread that AI will replace jobs. At the same time, through search dependencies the gatekeepers create large numbers of people who are only able to work to a limited extent.

These business concepts have not been thought through beyond achieving the highest possible scaling in the short term. From the perspective of an autocratic power, that is not necessary either. Addictive behavior creates subjects who stay quiet as long as their level of agitation is kept up by scraps of information.

A digital autocracy emerges, in which the few rulers are still doing well even when the majority of the population is down on the ground.
AI could accelerate this development:

• Mathematics: AI solves problems that remained unsolved for decades (e.g. the „Unit Distance Conjecture“ in 2026). Yet without individual support, many people remain excluded from this progress.
• Education: Traditional systems do not foster creativity or critical thinking. Instead, dependencies on gatekeepers emerge, who keep control through AI-driven manipulation.
• Research: Without Trusted WEB 4.0, closed systems dominate, in which only an elite has access to AI tools. The majority of people are degraded to passive consumers.

2. Development with Broad European Support for Trusted WEB 4.0

As early as 1985 it was found that every person is individually gifted and can deliver unexpected achievements when addressed individually. Trusted WEB 4.0 creates the framework to foster this diversity.

By 2027 at the latest, existing societal deficits will be offset for as many people as possible through an education concept that takes the diversity of people into account. It would have been better to introduce this concept back in 2006.

If the EU-D-S starts in 2027, realistically the first school systems will have switched to an individualized concept by 2032. It is up to a few motivated classically trained people to listen to their own voice and show in getmySense which individual abilities they possess. Hopefully these role models will be enough!

When the information and abilities of all people can be made available at any time, democracies also gain a significant economic advantage. This requires a value system that rewards unique selling points.

Examples from the 2034 study:

• AI in mathematics: Solves complex problems and fosters new proof techniques. Human researchers adapt these methods and refute further conjectures.
• AI in education: Pilot projects in North Rhine-Westphalia show how generative AI supports individual learning processes in the classroom (e.g. proving that the interior angles of a triangle sum to 180 degrees).
• AI in research: New methods of knowledge generation and validation are emerging. Interdisciplinary collaboration is fostered by AI.
• Human–AI collaboration: Iterative, dialogue-based models with feedback lead to better results than static input–output scenarios.

AI can help ensure that information is available exactly when it is needed and that everyone is integrated into the system according to their individual abilities.

Trusted WEB 4.0 as an enabler:

• Trustworthiness: Decentralized, transparent platforms ensure security and trust in AI applications.
• Education: Professional development for teachers and adaptive learning systems are provided.
• Research: New methods of knowledge generation and validation emerge through AI.
• „Digital Year“: A 3–24-month interdisciplinary scholarship (modeled on GraTeach) for executives could, if transferred to school projects, prepare people early on for a flexible digital future.

---

The digital transformation of democracy is at a decisive turning point. The study Adaptation of Political Elections and Parties to Permanent Digital Feedback Mechanisms in the Context of a Digital Democracy (particularly in the “Trusted WEB 4.0”) shows: real-time feedback systems, category-based elections, and digital tools can make political processes more transparent, more inclusive, and more resilient against authoritarian tendencies. A central finding of the study is particularly important: the EU-D-S is not aimed at all citizens, but at a target group with an active interest in permanent political participation – which is precisely why the risk that the permanent feedback will not work is significantly lower than in the comparison projects. At the same time, the analysis warns of the risks: manipulation, digital division, and the loss of democratic achievements if no holistic solution is implemented.

1. Real Situation: Probable Scenario Without Trusted WEB 4.0

Democratic and liberal forces are coming under increasing pressure. Right-wing parties with simplistic messages are gaining influence – not because of better policies, but because of their masterly use of digital manipulation. Society is resigning itself because it senses: “My vote does not count.”
The problem, however, does not lie with the politicians, but with a society that neglects pre-digital democratic achievements.

AI-driven manipulation in small, barely noticeable steps is undermining trust in democratic institutions. Committed politicians who fight for diversity and transparency are being attacked in a targeted manner and are losing visibility. The result is an anticipated digital autocracy in which elections ultimately no longer play a role. Many citizens will regret their voting decision – when it is too late.

2. Development Without Obstruction: With Broad European Support Since 2027

Permanent digital feedback mechanisms and category-based elections hold the potential to make political systems more democratic, more transparent, and more inclusive. The study confirms: real-time feedback systems increase citizen participation, break the dominance of interest groups, and strengthen political diversity.
Blockchain-based solutions, as tested in Estonia or India, offer secure, tamper-proof voting.

Lobbying is being redefined – not as opaque influence, but as transparent economic and citizen participation. Digital platforms make it possible to divide political topics into categories and, where needed, to hold partial elections at staggered times. This breaks the concentration of power among individual groups, and authoritarian tendencies are losing ground.

Target group of the EU-D-S – not all citizens: The EU-D-S does not assume that all citizens will take part. Those who should participate are people who bring an active interest in long-term political engagement and, possibly, in freeing themselves from a poor social position. Citizens who, because of their upbringing, do not feel able to make their own decisions, or who are dependent on social media, will not participate in the EU-D-S and are not wanted there either. Without active interest, permanent participation makes no sense – the target group of the EU-D-S sees precisely this as its purpose and therefore participates on a permanent basis.

Social welfare and participation: The state will not be able to roll back social welfare completely. However, for those who actively want it, it can alternatively assume slightly higher participation payments in the EU-D-S – processed via the EU-D-S’s own payment system. This goes hand in hand with social recognition, because no social welfare is received any more, and with the chance to free oneself from one’s own situation. This offer, too, follows the principle of active interest: it is not an automatic benefit for everyone, but an alternative for citizens who consciously choose the path into the EU-D-S.

Successful examples from the study:

• Estonia: E-voting systems since 2005, secure and transparent elections with high citizen acceptance.
• India: Projects such as “Lakshya” and “PaHaL” reformed the distribution of subsidies through digital feedback systems, increasing efficiency and transparency.
• New Zealand: “SmartStart” connects parents and healthcare providers and improves the quality of services.
• Kenya: Mobile voting systems increased the political inclusion of marginalized groups.

Failed approaches:

• Hybrid regimes: In some countries, digital feedback mechanisms were used for surveillance and the suppression of the opposition instead of strengthening democracy.
• Limited digital skills: In countries with weak infrastructure (e.g. parts of Africa or Latin America), digital democracy projects failed due to a lack of participation.
• Data protection scandals: In Europe, insufficiently regulated digital voting systems led to a loss of trust (e.g. pilot projects in Germany and Spain).

Technical feasibility is a given. But without clear legal and ethical frameworks – without the European Digital System (EU-D-S) – these approaches remain isolated. They will not prevail against established digital autocracies. The target group is decisive here: the risks mentioned mainly affect systems that want to include the entire population. Since only citizens who see a purpose in permanent political participation take part in the EU-D-S, the risk that the permanent feedback will not work is significantly lower than in the comparison projects.

---

The study „Promoting a Digital Democratic Society: A Comparison of the Approaches of Business and Non-Profit Projects in the Context of the EU-D-S Constitution“ shows that non-profit projects such as Offene Netzwerke e.V., Bündnis Offene Netzwerke und demokratische Öffentlichkeiten, and Offene Netze do make important contributions, but without economic diversity and market mechanisms they cannot sustainably hold their own against the gatekeepers.
Without the EU-D-S, the legal safeguards needed to prevent digital autocracy are missing.

1. Probable Scenario without Trusted WEB 4.0 for 2032

In Europe there are projects that seek to preserve the pre-digital democratic achievements in the digital society. The fallacy of these initiatives is that in a system driven solely by politics there will be no rule of law.
Without Trusted WEB 4.0 and the EU-D-S, the legal and economic foundation needed to withstand the dominance of the gatekeepers is missing.

Non-profit digital projects cannot defend themselves without capitalization comparable to that of the gatekeepers. The assumption that good work is enough is a fallacy:
Good work is characterized precisely by the fact that it represents a potential threat to the gatekeepers. Even a large number of members does not protect against being eliminated by digital authoritarian means. Infiltration and remote control are even easier, as has been suspected in the state of NRW since 2001.

In this context, the rule of law means: If every lawyer can be eliminated by forces hostile to the constitution, that no longer has anything to do with a state under the rule of law.
Digital autocracy and censorship are today a gang-like phenomenon.

2. Development with Broad European Support since 2027

Non-profit projects as passive members in the EU-D-S have been protected since 2027 by active members who together are strong enough to stand up to the gatekeepers. Through the Council of Disciplines and GISAD, it is ensured that non-profit projects can exert sufficient influence on the economy. They have not had this opportunity before.

The study shows that a combination of economic diversity and non-profit projects could increase the sustainability and impact of promoting digital democracy.

Non-profit projects can compensate for their reduced ability to shape things as passive members by being trustees of disciplines that are important to them. Here they have the opportunity to organize founding competitions and thereby exert direct influence on the selection of the active members.

—

The EU needs skilled workers and is becoming an active immigration country. Through getmySense, cross-lingual groups of like-minded people are emerging. In a first step, European sponsors – digitally, where possible – can pass on work assignments to non-Europeans. Long-term digital remote work relationships can develop, or the sponsors provide a qualified recommendation to the immigration authority of their country and thus share in the responsibility that integration into the EU succeeds.

Note: This blog post is based on the study „2031 – Digital European Sovereignty Requires a Holistic Concept That Is Understood and Actively Supported by a Majority“ – to the full study.

---

1. Probable Scenario Without Trusted WEB 4.0 for 2031

The consequences of a missing Trusted WEB 4.0 will become visible in 2031: The European economy is on the verge of collapse. Particularly affected are democracy-preserving economic organisations such as cooperatives, since every company – whether in valuation, taking out loans for growth, or selling company shares – depends on the capital market.

Without Trusted WEB 4.0, a resilient digital infrastructure is missing that would have:

• Improved market liquidity through transparency and integration of the EU capital market (e.g. by reducing fragmentation by up to 50 basis points in capital costs).
• Increased investor interest through a reduced domestic bias and enhanced diversification within Europe.
• Created regulatory clarity for Primus partners in order to strengthen strategic partnerships and market positions.
• Promoted innovation financing through more efficient capital allocation – especially for AI and blockchain projects.

Recommendations for Action for 2031

Since the EU-D-S will be introduced from March 2027, I am focussing on the further development and scaling of the system. The following measures are crucial:

1. Regulatory adjustment: Continuous coordination between EU member states in order to avoid fragmentation and secure the acceptance of the EU-D-S in all European capital markets.
2. Technological integration: The EU-D-S must remain compatible with AI, blockchain and autonomous systems in order to keep pace with global standards.
3. Strategic partnerships: Strengthening the cooperation between Primus partners in order to increase competitiveness against US gatekeepers.
4. Citizen participation: Awareness campaigns to promote the use of the EU-D-S by citizens, companies and institutions.

Crucial in this context is an understanding of the division of roles: According to the EU-D-S constitution, organisations – and thus also the EU – can be passive members. Passive members do not decide directly on technical concepts, but they are equal members on general questions of the respective discipline. The EU can therefore certainly exert influence – at eye level, without dominating the system.

Conclusion: With the introduction of the EU-D-S from 2027, the focus is on strengthening Europe’s digital sovereignty. The challenge is to shape the spread of the system in such a way that it is used across the board by 2031 and dependence on external gatekeepers is reduced.

---

2. Skilled Workers for 2031: The EU Is Becoming an Active Immigration Country

Europe’s digital sovereignty will fail not least because of the shortage of skilled workers. AI, cloud, semiconductors and cybersecurity require more qualified personnel than Europe is currently training. The EU will therefore become an active immigration country for digital competences by 2031.

The EU-D-S with getmySense offers a controlled integration path for this:

1. Cross-lingual groups of like-minded people: Through getmySense, groups emerge that overcome language and cultural barriers. European companies and skilled workers from non-EU countries find each other through shared goals and categories – not through origin.
2. European sponsors as a first stage: In a first step, European sponsors – digitally, where possible – can pass on work assignments to non-Europeans. This creates trust and verifiable collaboration before a migration process begins.
3. Long-term digital remote work relationships: Permanent remote work relationships can grow out of the initial assignments. Non-Europeans provide services for the European single market without immediate migration being necessary – a win-win situation for both sides.
4. Qualified recommendation to the immigration authority: Once sustainable relationships have developed from the collaboration, the sponsors can submit a qualified recommendation to the immigration authority of their country. The sponsors know the person over a longer period from practical work and thus share in the responsibility that integration into the EU succeeds.
5. Responsible integration instead of uncontrolled migration: The sponsor model replaces anonymous selection with lived, verifiable collaboration. Immigration becomes a socially and economically secured process – in line with the democratic values of the EU-D-S.

For Europe, this means: access to verified international skilled worker potential that already works remotely within the European ecosystem and knows its norms. For the skilled workers: a transparent, fair path to Europe – through performance and recommendation instead of bureaucracy and chance. For society: integration with sponsors who take on responsibility, instead of parallel societies without connection.

---

3. Development with Broad European Support Since 2027

Through the consistent integration of the category concept into all searches and analyses, decentralisation is strengthened and even becomes an advantage over centralised AI.

The AI in which the query is made identifies the affected categories in order to pass on the query. It checks the results obtained for plausibility. If a result is implausible from a superordinate perspective, the affected AI intelligences are informed. They coordinate with each other, establish plausibility and give corrective feedback to the requesting AI. Even an individual AI could develop tunnel vision, which is checked and eliminated in this way.

If the data is then also of high quality and free of fake news, because it has been verified by several people via getmySense, a reduction of the energy effort by up to half can be achieved.

The permanent feedback system to humans simultaneously ensures that no AI becomes autonomous.

The study concludes that ethical concerns regarding the use of autonomous weapons could be addressed if Trusted WEB 4.0 were implemented.

1. Likely Scenario Without Trusted WEB 4.0 – Forecast

Drones in Military Conflicts by 2030: Technological Dominance and Autocratic Power

By 2030, the global market for military drones is estimated to reach approx. €22.8 billion (converted from USD 22.81 billion), with an annual growth rate of 7.6%. Technological advancements such as autonomous navigation, swarm intelligence, stealth capabilities, and precision armament enable autocratic states like China, Russia, and Iran to strategically deploy drones to strengthen military control and political oppression.

Technological and Strategic Developments

Autonomous Systems: Modern military drones are equipped with AI, machine learning, and autonomous navigation systems that perform tasks such as surveillance, reconnaissance, and target monitoring with minimal human intervention. By 2030, drones will be even harder to detect due to advanced materials and design features (e.g., radar, thermal, and acoustic stealth).

Swarm Drones: The ability to deploy drones in swarms increases tactical flexibility and striking power. Autocratic actors use drones for surveillance, targeted attacks, and logistical support, particularly in asymmetric wars, civil wars, and counterterrorism.

Ethical and Humanitarian Risks

Autonomous Weapons: Increasing autonomy raises ethical questions, particularly regarding drones that make lethal decisions without human control. This could lead to a new era of warfare where algorithms decide over life and death.

Humanitarian Consequences: Without democratic countermeasures (e.g., international regulations, defense systems, sanctions), the unchecked use of drones could lead to global security destabilization. Risks include:

• Increase in civilian casualties due to drone strikes in populated areas.
• Psychological strain from constant surveillance (e.g., in China, Russia, Iran).
• Power Shifts: Autocratic states could expand their military superiority and dominate global conflict zones.

Autocratic Strategies and Case Studies

China: A leader in developing swarm-capable drones, autonomous targeting systems, and long-range maritime aircraft. Drones are used for military operations, surveillance of its own population, and support for allied regimes.

Russia and Iran: Use drones for monitoring political opposition (e.g., biometric facial recognition, AI-based motion analysis) and controlling the population. Iran deploys drones in geopolitical conflicts beyond its borders.

Case Studies:

• Operation Spiderweb (Ukraine): Successful use of drones to destroy Russian long-range bombers.
• Operation Rising Lion (Israel): Combination of electronic warfare and precise drone strikes against Iranian command centers.

Geopolitical and Ethical Consequences

Shift in Power Dynamics: The unchecked proliferation of drone technology could shift the global power balance in favor of autocratic states with advanced drones. This could lead to a new world order where autocratic regimes expand their influence and undermine democratic principles.

Role of Gatekeepers: AI-driven systems in social media and news platforms manipulate public opinion and undermine democratic discourse. Control of information flow is increasingly taken over by algorithms that promote certain agendas or suppress information.

Autocracies and Gatekeepers in the Digital Age

By 2030, the share of autocratically governed states has increased to over 56% of the global number of states, with 38% classified as highly repressive dictatorships or failing states (Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2026). This development was accelerated by geopolitical tensions (e.g., the Ukraine War) and the strategic use of digital technologies. Autocracies now control over 26% of global economic output (IW, 2022), providing them with additional resources to expand their power.

AI as a Central Tool of Control

Surveillance and Censorship: Autocratic regimes use AI on a large scale to monitor social media, spread disinformation, and automate censorship. „Sovereign AI“ is embedded directly into the digital infrastructure in countries like China and Russia, enabling seamless control of public discourse (Journal of Democracy, Democratization, 2026).

Algorithmic Gatekeepers: Social media and news platforms are dominated by AI-driven algorithms that curate content based on engagement metrics. This leads to polarization, misinformation, and an undermining of journalistic autonomy (bpb, 2025, DGAP, 2025).

Economic Power: Autocracies like China, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey use their economic strength to invest in AI surveillance technologies (e.g., facial recognition, predictive policing) and build regional AI ecosystems (FSI Stanford, 2024).

Technological Developments by 2030

Generative AI is implemented by 71% of organizations, revolutionizing content creation, software, and product design (Forbes, 2024).

Autonomous AI Agents independently handle complex tasks, increasing productivity by 15–30%.

Artificial Intelligence of Things (AIoT) enables preventive, adaptive systems with a global market volume of approx. €155 billion (converted from USD 168.69 billion).

Invisible AI makes decisions without direct user interaction (market volume: approx. €91 billion by 2029, converted from USD 99.52 billion).

---

2. Development with Broad European Support for Trusted WEB 4.0

I see that Trusted WEB 4.0 could have prevented the annexation of Crimea as early as 2014 by networking exiled Russians as patrons and Russians in resistance.
Finland demonstrates how collective defense works: Every citizen is involved, and this awareness protects the country. This is exactly what a citizen-centered EU-D-S with digital participation could have achieved.

The Ukraine War has shown that modern wars are no longer fought solely through military strength but also through attacks on critical infrastructures and political symbols. Cyberattacks and drones are inexpensive and effective, while intelligence operations are risky and limited.

The WAN-anonymous exiled patrons and resistance citizens concept of Trusted WEB 4.0 would have the advantage of having many „eyes and ears“ in autocracies. Communication takes place encrypted via patrons, with the key not transmitted over the internet.
Since all purely internet-based encryptions can be cracked with advanced AI, this system would be resistant to infiltration.

Since 2002, citizens could have networked in 2,500 languages via getmySense. Such a resilient community would have made every autocracy fear it. Over the past 28 years, many autocratic attacks would have been repelled, and the decentralized digital defense infrastructure would have deterred autocracies from launching attacks—for fear that repelled attacks would be perceived as the superiority of the democratic system.

---

The study „Outsourcing of Social Costs to the EU-D-S“ analyzes in detail how EU member states can relieve their social systems.

1. Likely Scenario Without Trusted WEB for the Future

Forecast for 2029: General costs will rise by 15–25% due to:

• Destruction of fossil reserves: Due to the Iran and Ukraine wars, 30–40% of Europe’s oil and gas imports are no longer available. The EIA forecasts a rise in Brent crude oil prices to over 80 USD/barrel by the end of 2024 (EIA, 2024). Import costs will increase by €200–300 billion/year.
• Limited transport options: Due to low water levels on rivers (e.g., Rhine: –60% freight capacity in summer 2028, Tagesschau, 2023) and blocked trade routes, logistics costs will rise by 20–30%.
• Climate costs: The EU already spends €300–400 billion/year (2–3% of GDP) on climate protection measures. By 2029, these costs will rise to €500–600 billion/year as extreme weather events (heatwaves, floods) strain infrastructure (DIW Berlin, 2025).
• Demographic strain: Despite rising life expectancy (+2.5 years since 2020), there is no additional budget for pensions. The pension gap amounts to €300–500 billion/year (Euronews, 2026).
• Decline in tax revenue: The traditional industry (e.g., automotive) loses 10–15% revenue per year. Tax revenue will fall by €150–200 billion/year (Tagesschau, 2024).

Conclusion: Without Trusted WEB 4.0, the EU faces a cumulative cost explosion of €1,000–1,500 billion/year by 2029—amid declining revenue and growing social inequality.

---

2. Development with Broad European Support for Trusted WEB 4.0

Following the first successful Primus companies in the EU-D-S (2027–2028), it is clear: Trusted WEB 4.0 enables sustainable value creation and digital participation. If a spirit of optimism spreads among citizens and businesses, states can outsource participation issues to the EU-D-S—while simultaneously relieving their budgets.

Transferring pre-digital principles into digitization means:

• Individual and flexible design: Digitization and AI enable personalized solutions—without the rigid structures of analog systems.
• Participation payments instead of social costs: The state can replace 20–30% of social costs (approx. €500–700 billion/year) through digital participation in the EU-D-S. This relieves budgets and strengthens personal responsibility.
• Win-win for high achievers: Companies pay less tax but receive high-quality data and more efficient processes through getmySense.

A purely AI-driven economy that views people solely as data providers and consumers benefits most people little. Trusted WEB 4.0 focuses on genuine participation and fair value creation.

Performance principle as a foundation:

• getmySense for students: Even in school, young people can test in various categories whether they can achieve performance levels 10-1—without negative evaluations. The risk: An AI classifies them into a different level.
• Flexible participation: Everyone can decide for themselves how many hours per month they want to contribute or create evaluations. Billing is done automatically via micropayments, depending on the value of the contribution.
• No age limits: Everyone can participate in any age-appropriate category. Behind the WAN-anonymous keys, a year of birth can be stored for age controls regarding content harmful to minors.
• AI-supported quality control: Example: A non-medical professional explains simple medical contexts in performance level 10 for other non-medical professionals. The AI checks whether this aligns with performance level 1 (medical expertise) and, if necessary, requests adjustments.

New financing models:

• Unit price-based contract awarding: Instead of complicated funding rules, the state awards contracts at fixed unit prices for defined services. No dependence on changing government majorities.
• Involvement of educational institutions: Schools and universities can be integrated into the data economy.
• „Digital Year“: A 3–24-month interdisciplinary scholarship (modeled after GraTeach), refinanced by companies: approx. €1,000 per month per participant. The state gets the money back if graduates remain with the company for 24 months.
• Self-sustaining teachers: After an initial phase, teachers finance themselves through project output—as would have been possible with GraTeach if the public sector had paid market-based prices for contracts.

The study compares initiatives for digital participation with the concept of „Trusted WEB 4.0“. Digital participation is only possible within a holistic concept.

1. Likely Scenario Without Trusted WEB 4.0 for the Future

Forecast for 2028: (based on EESC, European Parliament)

Without Trusted WEB 4.0 and EU-D-S, the one-click society will continue to consolidate:

• Complete dependence on gatekeepers: Users will become entirely dependent on platforms like Google, Meta, or Amazon. Every interaction will take place through centralized services that collect and monetize data.
• Loss of linguistic competence: AI-driven search functions and social media will further reduce the ability to formulate precise queries. Users will grow accustomed to not thinking for themselves but merely clicking.
• Artificially inflated digital market: Companies will have to spend increasing amounts of money to remain visible. Platforms will profit, while a genuine data economy fails to emerge.
• Loss of concentration and passive consumption: The flood of information snippets will lead to a decline in concentration. Genuine societal participation will be replaced by passive consumption.
• Dystopian AI dominance: AI systems will increasingly determine what information users receive—based on probability calculations, not relevance or truth.

Conclusion: The one-click society leads to a passive, manipulable population that completely surrenders its digital sovereignty to gatekeepers—with severe consequences for democracy, the economy, and individual freedom.

---

2. Development with Broad European Support for Trusted WEB 4.0

The greatest challenge in the EU-D-S lies in the acceptance of getmySense as a participation component. Social media programs have made users dependent on them and corrupted social behavior patterns. Particularly those who are less integrated hope to gain participation through social media—yet often, it only creates addiction.

Solution: Active participation through structured thinking

Unlike Google Search, Finder Technology considers the entire worldview. For a search query like „What kind of mouse is this?“, Google does not offer a category for a computer mouse.

Finder Technology (available since 2001), however, provides categories such as „small animals, computer accessories, comics, proper nouns/street names, veterinarians, pest control.“ Behind each category, a founder can establish themselves and receive the specific search query for further processing.

Advantages:

• Energy efficiency: An AI specialized in a specific field requires less energy and delivers more precise answers.
• Community and knowledge pool: An unmatched knowledge database in all languages is created.
• Active participation: Users must mentally structure what they want and then communicate it precisely.
• Cannot be copied by autocracies: A society based on active participation cannot be replicated by autocracies.
• New business models: Within each category, services can develop as micro-businesses.

Even the AI-powered Google Search from July 2026 assumes small animals:

The AI is aware of the ambiguity—but instead of encouraging users to think, it requests a photo. This advances the dumbing-down process: Users no longer need to express themselves linguistically.

For getmySense to succeed, it is crucial to involve as many societal actors as possible in the EU-D-S.

---

Introduction: The Threat to Digital Democracy

The current digital reality does not allow for a true digital democracy. The study „A True Digital Democracy Cannot Be Copied by Autocracies“ proves that autocratic actors and organized networks systematically undermine democratic processes—through remote-controlled manipulation, gang-like behavior, and legal gray areas. The judiciary cannot effectively counter this because it can only act when there are identifiable perpetrators and evidence. The pinprick tactic remains unpunished; the control of many individual perpetrators who are unaware of the overall goal overwhelm the judiciary, and technical infrastructures enable the control of entire regions—as in the case of GraTeach in NRW.

The legal dilemma exacerbates the problem: Article 20(4) of the Basic Law (right to resistance) is not practical for individuals when they have to defend themselves against systemic attacks without a lawyer and only in writing. The EU delegates cases like GraTeach to national judiciaries—which, however, fail due to structural limitations. The principle that „all state authority emanates from the people“ (Article 20(2) of the Basic Law) is being undermined when those who advocate for the constitutional order can be neutralized through digital knowledge about the motives and desires of each individual in their environment.

Trusted WEB 4.0 + EU-D-S is the only solution I know of. Only in this way can I secure Europe’s digital sovereignty and build a true digital democracy.

This is how a true digital democracy emerges—one that autocracies fear because it cannot be copied!

1. Real Situation: The Digital Threat Landscape

Europe is caught in a digital vise:

• Hybrid warfare: Russia deliberately deploys „disposable agents“—young, socially marginalized, often petty criminal individuals who perform seemingly harmless tasks for small sums (sometimes just a few hundred euros). This method corresponds to the gang-like appearance in relation to the strategy of a thousand pinpricks. Investigative research by RTL, stern, and n-tv, as well as the ARTE documentary „Russia’s Shadow Army in Europe“, prove that such actors sow social unrest, engage in espionage, and even prepare attacks in Europe.
• Increasing digital surveillance: States are expanding surveillance infrastructures, leading to the erosion of privacy and censorship. Social media platforms facilitate the recruitment and control of such agents. Without social control and AI-supported verifiability, disinformation servers cannot be effectively combated.
• Dependence on gatekeepers: Without EU-D-S, dependence on US/China tech giants (Google, Meta, Amazon, Alibaba) increases—leading to the loss of Europe’s digital sovereignty. The revenues for 2026 amount to: Google approx. €290 billion, Amazon approx. €600 billion, Meta approx. €150 billion. These funds flow into further strengthening their market power, while Europe loses value creation.
• Economic disadvantages: The dominance of gatekeepers accelerates the outflow of value creation from Europe. The stock market is being discredited by the current speculative behavior of US politics, which can influence events so that a few benefit from stock market prices.
• Societal polarization: The lack of democratic digital infrastructure leads to manipulation through disinformation and deepens division. Permanent remote control creates subjects—not empowered citizens.
• Cybersecurity risks: Dependence on central platforms increases vulnerability to cyberattacks on critical infrastructures. Without evidence, even new laws against the gatekeepers are useless.

2. Unimpeded Development: Trusted WEB 4.0 as the Solution

Trusted WEB 4.0 + EU-D-S is the only solution to secure Europe’s digital sovereignty. The study shows that five systemic effects would occur:

• End of digital anonymity for companies: Algorithm development and security vulnerabilities within the EU-D-S are publicly visible. Early warning systems for democracy-endangering technologies emerge.
• The judiciary gains tools against digital manipulation: Preventive lawsuits, automated WAN-anonymous evidence collection, and EU-wide enforcement become possible.
• Civil society becomes the most powerful actor: NGOs, media, science, and citizens gain co-determination rights and access to documentation.
• Autocracies lose their greatest lever: Transparency obligations, real-time defense, and international cooperation make digital attacks impossible.
• The economy becomes an ally of democracy: Compliance bonuses, democracy bonuses, and reputation gains promote democracy-friendly technologies.

Trusted WEB 4.0 is not a technical standard—it is the salvation of democracy in the digital age.

1. Likely Future Scenario: CO₂ Emissions from Unchecked AI Development by Gatekeepers

I have calculated the annual CO₂ emissions from unchecked AI development by gatekeepers (Google, Meta, Amazon, etc.) based on current data and trends:

Current Data (2026):

• Global electricity consumption of all data centers: 650 TWh/year (Source: IEA, 2024).
  • Approximately 50% is attributed to AI and cloud services (325 TWh/year).
  • Forecast: Annual growth of 20-40% (due to AI, Big Data, IoT).
• CO₂ emissions per kWh:
  • Global mix: 0.5 kg CO₂/kWh.
  • EU mix: 0.3 kg CO₂/kWh (thanks to renewable energies).
  • US mix: 0.4 kg CO₂/kWh (heavily dependent on coal/gas).

Calculation for 2030 (unchecked):

Year	Electricity Consumption (TWh)	CO₂ Emissions (Megatons)	Compensation Costs (Billion €)
2026	650	325	16–33
2028	1,000–1,300	500–650	25–65
2030	1,500–3,000	750–1,500	38–150
2040	5,000–10,000	2,500–5,000	125–500

Conclusion: Without countermeasures, the CO₂ emissions from digital infrastructure will rise to 750-1,500 megatons/year by 2030 – equivalent to the emissions of 150-300 million cars per year. By 2040, this figure could explode to 2,500-5,000 megatons/year – more than the entire current CO₂ emissions of the EU (approx. 3,000 megatons/year).

---

2. Development Without Obstruction Using Trusted WEB 4.0

Without past obstruction, Trusted WEB 4.0 could have financed itself through capital markets and built CO₂-neutral data centers for AI. The question is: How much would it cost to operate Trusted WEB 4.0 CO₂-neutrally from 2026 onwards?

Answer: No, a one-time trillion euros would not be sufficient to permanently operate all existing AI data centers in Europe CO₂-neutrally – even if Trusted WEB 4.0 enables a 50% energy saving.

1. Ongoing Costs for CO₂ Compensation

• Current global electricity consumption of all data centers: 650 TWh/year.
• With Trusted WEB 4.0 (50% savings): 325 TWh/year.
• CO₂ emissions (0.5 kg CO₂/kWh): 162.5 megatons CO₂/year.
• Compensation costs (€50-100/ton): €8-16 billion per year – and this is annual, not one-time.

2. Investments in Renewable Energies

• Required capacity: To cover 325 TWh/year with renewable energies, 500 GW of new capacity would be needed (at 2,000 full-load hours/year).
• Costs for solar/wind (€1.5 million/MW): €750 billion – just for the facilities.
• Grid expansion, storage, redundancies: an additional €250-500 billion.
• Total investment: €1-1.25 trillion.

3. Operating Costs and Maintenance

• Annual maintenance (2-5% of investment): €20-60 billion per year.
• Lifespan of facilities: 20-30 years – replacement investments needed afterwards.

4. Growth in Electricity Demand

• The demand continues to rise: By 2030, electricity consumption could double to tenfold.
• A one-time investment does not cover future growth.

Conclusion: A one-time trillion euros would be an important step, but not sufficient for:

• The complete expansion of renewable energies (€1-1.25 trillion needed).
• The ongoing costs for compensation and maintenance (€8-16 billion/year + growth).
• Scaling for future demand.

---

---