Digital platforms are more than just software tools or neutral mediators of online activities and marketplaces. From beginning to end, they actively shape how we communicate, what we consume, and what we think and talk about. Increasingly, the sociotechnical and political-economic logics behind this all-encompassing influence of digital platforms also extend into the military, reshaping private-military relations and, more broadly, modern warfare. Our project, therefore, explores how digital platforms and the companies that develop them shape military decision-making by organizing large amounts of data, standardizing strategic categories, and coordinating actors and commands. From cloud infrastructure to battlefield software, digital platforms transform entire domains through data integration and analysis, directly influencing what is considered a threat, who is targeted, and what is deemed a justified strike.

The global market for military technologies has been rapidly advancing in recent years. In the US, Big Tech and specialized defense firms like Palantir or Anduril are securing military contracts, private investment capital, and political influence at an impressive pace; in Europe, venture capital firms continue to increase their investments in defense tech startups year after year; and in China, under the ‘military-civil fusion’ doctrine, tech markets are increasingly merging with geopolitical and military ambitions. Consequently, the specific market mechanisms, corporate business models, and aggressive product marketing are playing an ever-increasing role in shaping how military technology is developed and deployed worldwide. Our project aims to understand the political-economic dynamics behind this trend and identify continuities and unique features in today’s defense markets and private-military relations.

Data violence, or algorithmic violence, encompasses the nature and consequences of so-called mechanically enabled objective solutions designed to maintain (in)security infrastructure in modern data-driven societies. Conceptually, it highlights how the visions, values, and logics embedded in data, computing systems, and algorithmic frameworks enable, support, justify, and legitimize certain forms of violence, while also making some lives more visible, legible, and expendable than others. Data violence acts as an anticipatory and legitimizing rationale, being co-constitutive of the socio-technical frameworks of a large data economy. Its byproducts, like predictive targeting, as modes of knowledge and governance, prompt critical scholarly investigation to question how data infrastructures reproduce and justify regimes of surveillance, control, and inequality with ethical, epistemological, and political consequences. Our project explores how systems and platforms that enact these practices - often developed by, or in partnership with, private corporations - shape the conditions under which life-and-death decisions are made in modern warfare.

Regulation is often viewed as a legal matter - rules documented and enforced by governments. Current efforts to regulate new technologies and AI in warfare focus on ensuring their deployment aligns with existing international humanitarian law, often highlighting human oversight, transparency, and accountability. In fields like Science and Technology Studies, however, regulation is seen as something that occurs through system design, data management, and routine practices. To ‘regulate’ military technologies in this perspective means intervening in everyday practices and design choices that influence how these systems operate, what assumptions are embedded, and how these silently govern the use of these technologies. Our project explores both forms of regulation and examines how their interaction redefines what is considered lawful or legitimate in war.