Digital Refugees: Why Citizens and Organizations Are Fleeing Big Tech

Article Overview 

In Quebec and Canada, more and more citizens and organizations consider themselves “digital refugees,”fleeing dominant Web platforms to seek refuge in safer, more ethical, and local solutions. This still-emerging phenomenon affects both individuals—activists, journalists, ordinary citizens—determined to leave centralized social networks to protect their privacy or for ethical reasons, and small organizations (SMBs, non-profits) that are trying to break free from their dependence on Web giants (Google, Apple, Facebook/Meta, Amazon, Microsoft—often referred to by the acronym GAFAM).

This article offers an educational overview of the concept of “digital refugees” in the Quebec and Canadian context. We will first explore why users are leaving the major digital platforms, then why local organizations are seeking to reduce their dependence on them. We will analyze the concrete risks associated with GAFAM dominance over our digital ecosystems, before presenting concrete solutions (free software, sovereign hosting, ethical platforms, digital cooperatives) to strengthen our digital autonomy. Finally, we will address the legal and geopolitical issues at play—from Canadian legislation such as Bill C-27 to jurisdiction conflicts like the American Cloud Act—illustrating it all with Quebec and Canadian examples. The goal is to inform SMB and non-profit decision-makers about these issues so they can develop strategies to take back control of their data and digital tools.

Leaving Centralized Platforms: The Digital Exodus of Citizens /

Many Internet users and online service users are now becoming aware of the shortcomings of large centralized platforms (social networks, messaging, online services) and are choosing to leave these dominant ecosystems.

Several reasons drive this digital exodus of individuals, including: the protection of privacy, the weariness of omnipresent surveillance, the rejection of practices deemed unethical (personal data exploitation, targeted advertising, disinformation), or a toxic climate on certain platforms.

Privacy and surveillance: the flight of whistleblowers, journalists, and activists

The rights activists, investigative journalists, and other engaged citizens are among the first to take the path of the digital exodus. Often targets of surveillance or censorship, they seek safer and more privacy-respecting online spaces. For example, after Edward Snowden’s revelations in 2013 about the extent of global digital surveillance, many users became aware of the risks associated with American services and began migrating to encrypted and open solutions. Likewise, repeated scandals—such as the Cambridge Analytica affair where the Facebook data of millions of users was misused for political purposes—eroded trust and pushed many users to delete their Facebook accounts or drastically limit their usage.

Journalists and activists, in particular, know that mainstream platforms can become traps: spyware, surveillance of communications by authoritarian regimes, or exploitation of metadata by Web giants. They therefore migrate to encrypted alternative tools (secure messaging like Signal, encrypted email services like ProtonMail, anonymous decentralized networks, etc.) to protect their sources and communications. Even WhatsApp, despite being end-to-end encrypted, saw some of its users—including activists—desert it after the clumsy announcement in 2021 of a privacy policy change. Faced with the panic and anger of users, many of whom announced their switch to Signal or Telegram, WhatsApp had to backtrack and postpone its new terms of service by three months. This distrust was so strong thatElon Musk himself publicly encouraged his tens of millions of followers to “use Signal,”helping to amplify the exodus of WhatsApp users toward more privacy-respecting alternatives.

Fed up with toxic and intrusive platforms: the ethical argument

Beyond privacy, an ethical reflex drives ordinary citizens to leave the major platforms. They criticize the business model of these giants based on attention capture, targeted advertising, and large-scale exploitation of personal data (what Professor Shoshana Zuboff has called surveillance capitalism). Some users refuse to endorse this model deemed harmful to the common good and prefer to organize themselves to “desert” these services. Collective movements such as #DeleteFacebook (launched after Cambridge Analytica) or campaigns urging people to abandon Google (“De-Googlize the Internet” in France) have reflected this growing frustration with GAFAM.

The climate of discourse on dominant networks also plays a role: deficient moderation on one side, arbitrary censorship on the other, spread of fake news, online harassment... Many Internet users no longer identify with platforms that have become hostile or anxiety-inducing. The chaotic acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk in 2022, for example, triggered a wave of departures by users tired of the rise in toxic content and the unpredictability of moderation. In Quebec, the daily newspaper Journal de Montréal reported in 2025 the case of Julie, a content creator who deleted her Twitter account despite having 10,000 followers, disgusted by the “aggressive” atmosphere that prevailed there after the changes imposed by Musk. She chose to migrate to a more user-friendly local platform with no advertising, symbolizing the choice of many citizens to opt for healthier digital spaces.

Decentralized and local alternatives for a more human Internet

Fortunately, leaving the giants does not mean giving up on technology —a multitude of alternatives are emerging to welcome these digital refugees in search of a more human Internet. Among these solutions is the movement of the decentralized Web, embodied by the fediverse (a contraction of federated universe). It is a set of free, interconnected social networks and services without a central authority, where each user can choose an independent server managed by a trusted community. For example, Mastodon is a decentralized alternative to Twitter: instead of a single Twitter Inc. controlling the platform, Mastodon federates thousands of servers (instances) autonomously managed by associations, universities, citizen collectives, etc. Users can thus join an instance whose values they share, while retaining the ability to interact with the entire federated network. Other similar projects exist: Pixelfed (an alternative to Instagram for image sharing), PeerTube (an alternative to YouTube for video), or Diaspora (a pioneering decentralized social network born in 2010).

In Quebec, this trend is taking shape. In early 2025, a new social platform called Qlub was launched and quickly attracted thousands of followers disappointed with Facebook and Twitter. Qlub, co-founded by local entrepreneurs, presents itself as a “Quebec social network” with no advertising, no opaque algorithm, based on Mastodon and hosted locally. In barely two months, more than 11,000 people signed up, reflecting an enthusiasm for this return to a human-scale network. Users like Julie appreciate finding a chronological feed “like Facebook in its early days,”without algorithms to manipulate what they see. Another interviewed user notes that she finds kindness and quality local news there, in contrast to Facebook where “we are blocked from media” (alluding to the blocking of news content in Canada by Meta in 2023) and Twitter where “there is a lot of bullying.”.

Beyond Qlub, a few other Quebec initiatives are trying to offer alternatives. For example, the collaborative platform Passerelles offers an environment similar to Facebook groups, allowing users to create or join communities of interest independently. Admittedly, experts acknowledge, these local projects sometimes struggle to reach a critical mass of users sufficient to rival the giants. But they demonstrate that another model is possible, especially if users collectively decide to invest in them. Moreover, many digital refugees Quebecers also turn to the international scene: Europe in particular is perceived as an interesting digital refuge due to stricter privacy regulations. With the European Union having adopted robust legislation (the GDPR) to protect personal data, several “de-Googled” Quebecers are choosing European services that escape the intrusion of American laws. We thus see people adopting encrypted email ProtonMail (based in Switzerland), the search engine Qwant or DuckDuckGo (based in France and the United States respectively, but committed to not tracking users), or using Signal whose infrastructure is outside the GAFAM sphere. What matters for these Internet users is to regain trust in their digital tools, knowing that their data will neither be exploited without their knowledge nor subjected to foreign political interference.

Organizations in Search of Autonomy: Escaping GAFAM Dependence

The phenomenon of digital refugees does not only concern individuals. More and moreQuebec and Canadian organizations—small businesses, non-profits, local institutions— are becoming aware that they are structurally dependent on the platforms and services of digital giants, and are seeking to partially or fully break free. We then speak of steps toward digital sovereignty or thedigital autonomy of these organizations.

Indeed, in today’s digital environment, it is common for an SMB or organization to rely heavily on the solutions of one or two major providers: for example, using Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace for emails, documents, and meetings; promoting its activities solely through a Facebook page or YouTube channel; hosting its data and applications on Amazon Web Services (AWS) or Google Cloud servers; or depending on Apple and Google to distribute a mobile application. This situation of mono-dependence is comfortable in the short term (these services are high-performing, easy to access, and often seemingly free or affordable), but it carries real risks that are often underestimated.

The Concrete Risks of Digital Dependence on the Giants

“Our data, businesses, and administrations are massively dependent on GAFAM [...]. This dependence, far from being harmless, exposes us to major risks: loss of strategic control, foreign interference, censorship, economic fragility.”. This observation, made by a digital transformation expert, summarizes the issues well. Here are some of the concrete risks risks incurred by local organizations when they are too dependent on dominant digital platforms:

• Loss of control and strategic vulnerability : Entrusting vital functions (communications, client data, business processes) to an external platform means losing control over these strategic assets. In the event of a massive outage, sudden change in terms of service, or unilateral decision by the provider, the client organization can find itself paralyzed. Imagine a geopolitical crisis erupting and abruptly cutting off access to a cloud giant’s services: this scenario, far from being improbable, would represent a concrete and imminent threat to the economy. This is not fiction: with 90% of Western data passing through American corporate servers, an access disruption or a targeted blockage could bring countless dependent businesses and institutions to their knees.
• Risk of vendor lock-in and rising costs : Web giants offer enticing integrated ecosystems, often with a low entry cost, but this ease of use can evolve into a trap. As an organization sinks deeper into the proprietary ecosystem (storing ever more data, using exclusive formats or modules), it becomes difficult and costly to leave. Furthermore, subscription rates that seem modest at first can climb over time or as add-on modules accumulate, leading to a heavy bill and a costly dependence over the long term. In other words, the organization can find itself captive to a single provider, without leverage to negotiate, forced to pay ever more to maintain its operations.
• Breaches of confidentiality and legal compliance : Storing sensitive data (for example, personal information of clients or members) on servers outside one’s control raises confidentiality issues. First, in the event of a security breach at the provider, the organization’s data can be compromised without it being able to respond. Next, one must deal with extraterritorial laws. If data is hosted by an American company, it potentially falls under laws such as the Cloud Act of the United States. Adopted in 2018, this law allows American authorities to require a US-based company to provide all the data it controls, regardless of where that data is stored in the world. In other words, even if the servers are physically in Canada, a subsidiary of an American giant could be forced to hand over a Quebec SMB’s data to American federal agencies, without a Canadian warrant and without the affected individuals being notified. This legal risk is major: it calls into question data sovereignty and can place a local organization in a situation ofinvoluntary violation of Canadian personal information protection laws. (We will return to these jurisdiction conflicts later).
• Political and geopolitical interference : In a tense international context, depending on foreign services can expose an organization to external pressures. A striking case is that of the Dutch bank Amsterdam Trade Bank (ATB): in 2022, following political sanctions, Microsoft cut off email access for this bank (which used its cloud services), causing the bank’s inability to function and its bankruptcy. If such a scenario occurred in Canada, the economic impact would be disastrous. Closer to home, we can cite the standoff in 2023 between the Canadian government and Web giants over Bill C-18 (the Online News Act). In reaction to this law, Meta (Facebook) and Google outright blocked the sharing of Canadian news media content on their platforms. The result: for weeks, press publishers and Canadian citizens endured a de facto censorship of news on Facebook and Instagram, demonstrating that these companies do not hesitate to use their dominant position as political leverage. For a non-profit or SMB that relied primarily on Facebook to reach its audience, this sudden blockage was a warning signal about its digital fragility. As the co-founder of Qlub pointed out, the way political decisions in the United States (under the Trump administration in particular) can influence the flow of information in Canada represents a real danger.
• Censorship and dependence on platform policies : Organizations are also subject to the governance whims of the giants. If a platform decides to suspend an account, modify its visibility algorithm, or change its terms of use, the consequences can be severe. Many small businesses, for example, have suffered from Facebook algorithm changes that drastically reduced the organic reach of their posts, or from the unexplained suspension of their advertising account by automated systems—sometimes with no human recourse possible. This underscores that by delegating part of their activity to these platforms, organizations accept a factor of unpredictability and precariousness.

In sum, dependence on GAFAM creates a systemic point of weakness for local actors. As a European report indicates, 80% of (European) companies use at least one GAFAM service without fully understanding the risks. This technological dominance (5 companies holding more than 60% of the global cloud market) places users in a position of structural disadvantage. Without action, failing to act means accepting the progressive loss of control over your data, the risk of a brutal cutoff, and the cultural homogenization imposed by foreign giants.

Awakening in Quebec: Digital Autonomy as a Strategic Objective

In Quebec and Canada, decision-makers are beginning to become aware of these digital sovereignty issues. For small organizations, it is no longer just a technical question, but a strategic and ethical decision in the choice of everyday digital tools. The Quebec community benefits from a dynamic network of free software advocates and responsible digital experts who raise awareness about these risks and offer solutions. For example, the Association québécoise du logiciel libre (AQLL) has been promoting the “strategic adoption of free software” to governments and businesses since 2023, and local cooperatives are being created to provide alternatives. We can cite the Montreal cooperative Koumbit, a self-managed collective founded in 2004, which offers web hosting and development services, positioning itself as “an ethical and human alternative to major technology corporations”. Similarly, the cooperative WebTV or the recent coop LabMIS are exploring models where digital tools are developed and managed locally, according to community needs, rather than passively importing solutions from Web giants.

Faced with the risks mentioned, more and more local non-profits and SMBs are expressing the desire to “take back control” of their digital infrastructure. But where to start? In the next section, we will present concrete solution pathways for those who are considering strengthening their digital autonomy and “quitter les GAFAM” (even gradually).

Concrete Solutions for Greater Digital Autonomy

Fortunately, there are now many solutions that allow organizations to reduce their dependence on digital giants, without sacrificing performance or blowing their budget.

It is often a matter of combining free software, sovereign hosting services, ethical platforms and cooperative governance. Here are some avenues to consider for Quebec SMBs and non-profits looking to gain autonomy:

• Adopting Free/Open-Source Software (FOSS) : The free software are programs whose code is open, modifiable, and auditable by the community. Opting for free solutions offers several advantages: no license cost (often free or cheaper), independence from a single vendor, sustainability (the community can maintain the software if the developing company fails), and often better privacy protection (no data collection without consent). For example, an SMB can replace Microsoft Office with LibreOffice or OnlyOffice, use Nextcloud/OwnCloud for file sharing and collaboration instead of Google Drive, or deploy a free CMS (WordPress, Drupal) to manage its website rather than a proprietary solution. Likewise, replacing Windows with Linux on certain servers or workstations avoids licensing costs and telemetry data sent to the publisher. Of course, free software sometimes requires technical support (staff training, professional support), but there are local businesses ready to provide these services. At the Quebec government level, a reference framework has in fact been encouraging the systematic evaluation of free solutions during technology purchases for several years, a sign of institutional recognition of their benefits.
• Opting for sovereign and local hosting : Rather than storing your data and services in the cloud of multinationals, an organization can choose to host it as close as possible, under local jurisdiction. Concretely, this can mean renting servers or storage from independent Canadian providers, or even self-hosting certain critical applications on its own servers. In Canada, players like Canadian Cloud Hosting, WHC (Web Hosting Canada), or regional data centers offer cloud services in compliance with Canadian laws. There are also so-called sovereign cloud offerings from Quebec and French companies with data centers in Quebec—for example, OVHcloud has a large center in Beauharnois. The advantage: data stays on Canadian soil, protected by our laws, and is not accessible via the American Cloud Act without a local procedure. Zoho (an office suite of Indian origin) has even recently opened data centers in Canada to reassure its clients about local data residency, even though this is not enough to guarantee absolute sovereignty (Zoho remains subject to American law if the company has significant activities there). The ideal, ultimately, is to favor providers exclusively under Canadian jurisdiction to eliminate any extraterritorial risk. For a small organization, a pragmatic solution is to start by repatriating its backups or client data to a local repository. For example, rather than using Google Drive or Dropbox, one can opt for Sync.com, a cloud storage service based in Canada that encrypts data end-to-end and complies with Canadian laws. Similarly, a non-profit can host its email and website with a Quebec hosting provider (there are several at costs comparable to major players). Sovereign hosting is, in a way, a return to a “digital proximity” : your data lives at home or at a trusted neighbor’s, not on the other side of the world with an uncontrollable entity.
• Turning to ethical and respectful platforms : In many cases, one can find turnkey alternatives to GAFAM services, offered by companies or organizations on a more human scale, with business models aligned with ethics. They are sometimes called ethical platforms or responsible, because they prioritize privacy protection, operational transparency, and often more democratic governance. For example, an SMB looking to replace Google Workspace or Microsoft 365 without self-managing a stack of free software could choose suites like Infomaniak (a Swiss company offering a complete collaborative suite—email, calendar, drive—powered 100% by renewable energy, with data hosted in Switzerland and thus outside the Cloud Act), or Tutanota (a German encrypted email service, funded by subscription). For team instant messaging, instead of Slack (owned by Salesforce, based in the USA), one can use Mattermost or Rocket.Chat (open source, locally hostable) or the Canadian service TalkSpirit. For search engines, options like Mojeek (based in the UK, with no user tracking) or StartPage (based in the Netherlands) help reduce Google’s footprint. The important thing is to verify the privacy policy and server locations of these alternatives: several are designed to guarantee that no personal data is resold or shared without consent. By choosing these providers, organizations also support a more diversified and often local or regional ecosystem (e.g. in Europe, a whole network of “ethical tech” startups supported by public authorities is emerging).
• Participating in digital cooperatives and communities : Another promising path to strengthening one’s autonomy is pooling among peers. Joining or creating a digital cooperative allows multiple organizations to share the costs and governance of common digital services. For example, a cooperative could set up a shared private cloud, where each member has its own space, with infrastructure costs distributed. Similarly, software development cooperatives allow members to collectively fund specific features in free software used by all members. The cooperative model ensures that users are also decision-makers, thus avoiding dependence on an external provider whose interests could diverge. In Quebec, the concept is gaining ground: solidarity IT cooperatives are forming, involving non-profits and small businesses around shared resources. Let us again cite Koumbit, which has operated on a non-profit collective model for nearly 20 years to provide hosting and web services to many non-profits (even with a free solidarity hosting program for those working for social justice). Other examples include the Coopérative LINUQ in Quebec City or the Coopérative des Communs Numériques in France, which show that by joining forces, local actors can create their own infrastructure. Finally, it is worth mentioning informal communities: participating in local forums, groups like FACiL (Pour l’appropriation collective de l’informatique libre) or digital sovereignty events allows one to break the isolation and benefit from the experience of other organizations that have begun this transition.

Adopting these solutions does not mean quitting overnight. For most SMBs/non-profits, a gradual and hybrid approach is recommended: start by diversifying your providers (avoid putting all your eggs in one digital basket), test a free alternative in parallel, repatriate one category of data at a time, train staff on new tools, etc. The important thing is to regain awareness of your digital architecture and to stop considering it as immutable. Every small step toward autonomy—for example, self-hosting your next website on WordPress rather than depending on a third-party platform—strengthens the organization’s resilience and its ability to weather the unexpected.

Legal and Geopolitical Issues: The Changing Canadian Framework

The digital refugee movement takes place within a rapidly evolving legal and geopolitical context. On the legal side, Canada and Quebec have in recent years undertaken to modernize the laws governing personal information protection and digital activities, in order to better protect citizens and organizations—even if not everything is yet in place.

At the federal level, Bill C-27 (the Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022) aimed to overhaul the private sector personal information protection law (PIPEDA) by creating the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, as well as a new Personal Data Tribunal and an AI regulatory framework. C-27 aimed in particular to strengthen the obligations of businesses regarding user consent, transparency on data use, and to provide for strong penalties in case of violations—in the spirit of the European GDPR. However, this bill faced delays and political setbacks: it died on the Order Paper in late 2023 during a prorogation of Parliament, and no new federal law on the matter seemed likely to be adopted quickly by early 2025. In short, at the Canadian level, the legislative framework has not yet caught up with the practices of digital giants, leaving a partial gap in terms of enhanced protection.

In Quebec, however, a major advancement occurred with the adoption of Law 25 (stemming from the former Bill 64). This provincial law, whose final provisions came into force in September 2024, imposes much stricter requirements on businesses operating in Quebec regarding the confidentiality and governance of personal information. It provides, for example, for the obligation of explicit consent to collect or disclose sensitive data, the right to data portability for individuals, and it most notably introduces deterrent financial penalties : up to $10 million CAD or 4% of global revenue in case of violation, making these the highest penalties in Canada. Moreover, Law 25 has an extraterritorial scope: a company outside Quebec that processes Quebecers’ data can be subject to it. As a result, many Canadian organizations, even those located outside Quebec, choose to align with Quebec standards to benefit from the highest level of compliance and because it has become a competitive advantage in business relations. For Quebec SMBs and non-profits, this law also forces a reconsideration of certain practices: for example, before hosting client data in the United States or using a foreign cloud service, it is now necessary to inform the affected individuals of potential risks (such as access by foreign authorities) and often obtain their consent. This indirectly pushes toward favoring local solutions where these risks do not arise, or to strongly encrypt data before outsourcing it.

On the geopolitical level, the question of data jurisdiction has become crucial. We mentioned the Cloud Act of the United States, which rightly worries people on this side of the border. On the other hand, Canada has its own legislation (the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act—PIPEDA, in force since 2000 and still applicable pending reform) that governs data transfers abroad. Currently, Canada does not prohibit entrusting data to a foreign provider, but requires ensuring an equivalent level of protection and informing individuals of the country where their data will be processed. As the context evolves, it is not excluded that Canada may eventually consider a convergence with the GDPR or the introduction of data localization rules for certain sensitive sectors, in order to better protect against extraterritorial laws like the Cloud Act or the Patriot Act. Moreover, the federal government published a White Paper on data sovereignty in public cloud as early as 2018, acknowledging that dependence on foreign providers poses challenges in terms of data control, residency, and security.

Europe, through landmark judicial decisions (invalidation of the EU-US “Privacy Shield” in 2020 due to American NSA interference), has led the way by refusing to consider the United States as an adequate environment for its citizens’ personal data as long as laws like the Cloud Act exist. Canada, although a partner of the United States, must also deal with this reality: Canadian companies can find themselves caught between the obligation to comply with American access demands and the need to respect privacy under Canadian law. Voices are calling for solutions: a collective of technology companies and legal experts is advocating for a “Buy Canadian Cloud Act”i.e. a public policy favoring Canadian cloud solutions for sensitive data and limiting reliance on foreign giants until a robust local ecosystem is in place. The idea would be to integrate digital sovereignty into the national security strategy, following the example of Europe which is investing in projects like Gaia-X (European cloud).

Finally, let us emphasize that geopolitics of digital matters is not limited to the Canada–United States duo. The rise of other major players (China, etc.) raises other questions. For example, the social network TikTok, of Chinese origin, raised the opposite concerns—several Western governments fearing that data collected via TikTok might be accessible to Chinese authorities, they banned the app on official devices. This created in 2023–2024 a form of TikTok digital refugees : in the United States, under the threat of a general TikTok ban, millions of users migrated to other platforms, defining themselves as “TikTok refugees.” This example illustrates that dependence on any platform can become problematic as soon as the political context changes.

For Quebec organizations, all these developments mean that it is imprudent to bet everything on a handful of foreign platforms. On the contrary, diversifying providers, keeping control of your data, and closely following legal developments become elements of good governance. Pierre Trudel, Professor Emeritus of Law at UdeM, summarizes the urgency of action well: “We can no longer take the risk of leaving our data and processing systems in the hands of companies subject to liberty-restricting measures. Reclaiming our digital sovereignty must be an urgent and priority undertaking. [...] Our individual and collective security depends on it.”.

Conclusion: Taking Your Digital Destiny Into Your Own Hands

The concept of “digital refugee” vividly illustrates the situation of those who, out of necessity or conviction, flee a digital environment they consider hostile (due to lack of privacy respect, dangerous dependence, or ethical disagreement) in order to migrate to a safer and freer framework.

In Quebec and Canada, this phenomenon is taking root among citizens concerned about protecting their fundamental rights online, as well as local organizations wishing to ensure their sustainability and autonomy in the face of Web giants.

For SMBs and non-profits, embracing this transition toward greater digital autonomy is no longer a tech enthusiast’s whim, but rather a prudent and visionary approach. At stake is the control of their data, the continuity of their activities in times of crisis, the trust of their stakeholders, and even the development of a more resilient local digital economy. The risks of dependence have been highlighted: technological, legal, strategic, and ethical risks. On the other hand, we have shown that many solutions already exist—and are simply waiting to be adopted and supported. Free software, local hosting providers, cooperative platforms, protective regulations: all the ingredients are there to build a more sovereign, ethical, and sustainable.

Of course, the path to digital independence is gradual and involves challenges (changing tools, convincing your colleagues or board of directors, possibly investing differently). But the benefits are worth it: taking your digital destiny into your own handsmeans giving yourself the means for your ambitions without externally imposed constraints. Each organization can proceed at its own pace, starting with quick wins (e.g. hosting locally what can be hosted, strengthening encryption, diversifying communication channels with your audience instead of depending on a single platform, etc.), then developing a true long-term digital strategy aligned with your values and interests.

In conclusion, being a digital refugee is not being anti-technology: on the contrary, it means loving technology enough to want to build it on our own terms, for the common good. At the scale of a small business or Quebec non-profit, this translates into more precautions, more informed choices, and often increased collaboration with your local ecosystem (partners, providers, peers) in order to pool efforts. Digital autonomy does not mean being alone: it is an autonomy collective to be invented, where actors help each other so that digital wealth benefits everyone, with respect for each person’s rights.

Quebec has a unique opportunity to be a pioneer in this area, thanks to its culture of cooperation and social innovation. Understanding and supporting the digital refugee movement is part of this approach. We hope that this article has helped demystify these issues and inspire our SMB/non-profit decision-makers to consider, starting today, concrete actions to strengthen their digital autonomy and resilience.

Sources and Bibliography

• Journal de Montréal: “Quebecers are abandoning Facebook and X for a Quebec platform” (March 28, 2025): Journal de Montréal (society news).
• Rémy Bigot: “Digital Sovereignty: Why Leaving GAFAM Is Becoming an Absolute Urgency (and What to Replace Them With)” (April 25, 2025): Blog Montersonbusiness.com.
• Thomas Garriss: “The Great Digital Journey: Our Quest for Ethical Alternatives to Google Workspace and Microsoft 365” (2023): Hub numérique 0/1 (blog).
• Pierre Trudel (quote): Le Devoir, March 18, 2025, cited in Micrologic: Digital Sovereignty: A National Security Issue to Prioritize.
• Micrologic: “Digital Sovereignty: A National Security Issue to Prioritize” (April 28, 2025): Opinion piece on micrologic.ca.
• Torys LLP: “Abandonment of Bill C-27 and Other Developments...” (January 16, 2025): Legal analysis (Torys law firm).
• Le Monde: “WhatsApp: Why Such an Exodus of Users” (Pixels, January 18, 2021): Article by Martin Untersinger.
• Law 25 (Quebec): An Act to modernize legislative provisions as regards the protection of personal information, enacted in September 2021 (phased implementation through September 2024).
• Cloud Act (USA): Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act, adopted in March 2018 in the United States, amendment to U.S. Code §2713.
• Koumbit: technology collective: Official website presenting Koumbit’s mission (“ethical and human alternative to big tech corporations”).