AI Platform Colonialism
Who’s Really in Control of Creation?
The potential rise of AI-powered social media platforms marks a troubling evolution in the ongoing dynamics of digital colonialism. Just last week, I raised a question in one of my notes about reports that OpenAI may be developing an X-like platform this time, built around ChatGPT’s image generation capabilities and a social feed driven by AI-generated content.
Let’s think about the implications together. A social network where users don’t share their own photos or original thoughts, but simply input prompts for AI to generate visual content. On the surface, it might seem like a win for creativity, no need for expensive tools or polished skills, just a few words and voilà!
But beneath that promise lies a deeper issue.
What happens when the images you generate are filtered through models trained predominantly on Western datasets? When your prompt, rooted in your cultural reality, returns visuals that feel alien, inaccurate, or subtly erased? Suddenly, your "creativity" is no longer your own.
This is where digital colonialism evolves. AI becomes not just a tool, but a gatekeeper. It replicates existing biases, re-centers dominant narratives, and marginalizes those already excluded. Platforms like these don’t just risk misrepresentation, they risk reprogramming our sense of identity and aesthetics to align with someone else’s lens.
This would represent a significant power consolidation as AI companies expand from providing tools and infrastructure into controlling content platforms directly. A platform using proprietary AI models to generate visual content would create new dependencies as users worldwide would rely on algorithms trained primarily on Western visual traditions and internet imagery. This could homogenize visual expression across cultures by subtly privileging certain aesthetic traditions over others: a form of algorithmic cultural imperialism where Western visual languages become normalized as the default.
For regions like Africa, often treated as "emerging markets" rather than equal participants in the digital ecosystem, such platforms arrive with business models and content policies developed elsewhere. Local cultural contexts, artistic traditions, and social norms become afterthoughts in platform design rather than foundational considerations. The result is digital spaces that subtly encode foreign values while extracting unprecedented amounts of creative expression data that further trains proprietary AI systems, creating a cycle where users worldwide contribute to platform value while economic benefits remain concentrated with the platform owner.
This pattern of digital platform development, where global products are designed in Silicon Valley or other tech hubs with minimal input from diverse global communities, exemplifies how technological innovation without distributed governance perpetuates colonial relationships. The risk isn't just about access but about who shapes the fundamental architecture of our shared digital future.
In this light, AI-powered platforms don't democratize creativity. They can repackage it in ways that dilute, distort, or overwrite local contexts. And that, more than ever, is why we need to interrogate who builds these systems, whose data fuels them, and whose voices get left out.
Understanding Digital Colonialism
Digital Colonialism: A Critical and Nuanced Examination
The global technology landscape has witnessed the emergence of what many scholars and activists term "digital colonialism" – a phenomenon where powerful technology corporations, predominantly from wealthy Western nations, establish dominance over digital ecosystems in regions with less technological infrastructure. This reality is particularly evident in the growing tendency to view Africa as an "industry" to be developed rather than a diverse set of societies with their own technological traditions. With the rapid rise of AI and plans for AI-powered social media platforms, these dynamics are intensifying in ways that demand urgent attention. This concept deserves careful examination beyond simple narratives of villains and victims, requiring us to consider specific mechanisms, regional differences, and existing resistance movements.
Digital colonialism manifests through concrete practices: Meta's Free Basics program offering limited internet access in developing nations; Google's dominant search algorithms that privilege Western content; Amazon Web Services hosting data generated in Africa on servers located primarily in North America and Europe; and Apple's repair policies that limit local repair ecosystems. In the AI era, this extends to OpenAI and Anthropic deploying large language models trained predominantly on Western data and in Western languages, while Microsoft and Google integrate AI systems into critical infrastructure globally without meaningful local oversight. These aren't abstract concerns but specific business models that extract value from users globally while concentrating profits elsewhere.
This dynamic is especially pronounced in how Western investors approach African markets as "frontier" opportunities. Venture capital firms frequently fund African startups that mirror Silicon Valley business models rather than addressing local needs most effectively. The pressure to generate returns for foreign shareholders often pushes African entrepreneurs toward extractive data practices or user monetization strategies ill-suited to local economic contexts. Digital infrastructure investments similarly follow colonial patterns, with submarine cables and data centers designed primarily to serve foreign business interests rather than strengthening intra-African digital connectivity and sovereignty.
These practices create several concerning dynamics:
Companies collect vast user data from countries like Nigeria, Kenya, or India, processing and monetizing it primarily in Western economies.
Nations become dependent on foreign digital infrastructure they cannot meaningfully influence.
Platforms impose design standards that subtly prefer Western cultural norms.
And economic benefits flow disproportionately to shareholders and executives far removed from the communities generating this value.
AI systems intensify these dynamics by requiring enormous datasets often harvested globally without meaningful consent, creating models whose economic benefits flow primarily to their developers. When deployed across diverse contexts, AI trained predominantly on Western data can systematically disadvantage people whose lives, languages, and needs differ from those reflected in the training data, potentially automating and scaling biases in unprecedented ways.
Unlike traditional colonialism's need for physical occupation, digital colonialism operates through control of digital infrastructure, intellectual property rights, and algorithmic decision-making systems. This makes it simultaneously more subtle and potentially more pervasive.
Regional Complexities
The impacts of these dynamics vary dramatically across regions. Kenya's M-Pesa demonstrated how locally developed mobile payment systems can transform financial inclusion, while simultaneously creating new dependencies on specific telecommunications providers. Rwanda's centralized approach to digital governance contrasts sharply with South Africa's more market-oriented policies. Ethiopia's state-controlled telecommunications sector faces different challenges than Ghana's more liberalized environment.
In the AI landscape, regional approaches show similar diversity. India's national AI strategy emphasizes "AI for All" with applications relevant to local development challenges. Kenya has established AI research centers focusing on African languages and use cases, while South Africa has developed an AI ethics framework reflecting its constitutional values. These varied responses illustrate how regions negotiate AI adoption based on their particular contexts and priorities.
These differences extend beyond Africa. India's approach to digital sovereignty through initiatives like Aadhaar and the Unified Payments Interface represents a distinct model from Brazil's Marco Civil da Internet legislation or the European Union's GDPR framework. Each region negotiates the tension between digital opportunity and dependence based on its particular historical context, economic position, and political priorities.
Economic Foundations
Digital colonialism cannot be understood in isolation from broader economic structures. The current global intellectual property regime, trade agreements favoring established technology powers, and venture capital models that demand rapid scaling and high returns all create conditions where exploitative digital relationships flourish. When a Kenyan developer must use proprietary software tools licensed from Western companies to compete in global markets, the technological relationship is shaped by pre-existing economic arrangements.
The framing of "Africa as an industry" by Western investors exemplifies these problematic economic foundations. This perspective fundamentally misunderstands the continent as a homogeneous market rather than 54 diverse nations with their own technological traditions and innovation potentials. Digital identification initiatives illustrate this dynamic. Western investors fund biometric programs that collect sensitive data from millions of Africans, often with inadequate data protection mechanisms, creating surveillance capabilities with limited local control. Similarly, financial technology investments frequently prioritize capturing transaction data from the "unbanked" over developing truly appropriate financial services for local contexts.
AI development further exacerbates these economic inequalities through its unprecedented concentration of power. The computational resources required to train advanced AI systems – massive data centers, specialized hardware, and enormous amounts of energy – are accessible primarily to wealthy corporations and nations. This creates a new technological elite who control what may become the most transformative technology of our era. When countries across the Global South must pay licensing fees to use AI models developed elsewhere, this represents a new form of technological rent-seeking.
Global tax systems that allow technology giants to minimize their contributions to public infrastructure in countries where they operate further exacerbate inequalities. When Facebook (now Meta) generates billions in revenue from Indian users while paying minimal taxes in India, the economic extraction mirrors colonial patterns, regardless of whether this was the company's intention.
Agency and Resistance
Despite these structural challenges, communities across the Global South actively resist digital colonialism while developing alternatives. The iHub in Nairobi has incubated hundreds of local startups creating contextually relevant technologies. Community networks in Brazil's favelas provide internet access on local terms. Platform cooperatives like South Africa's Fairwork rate digital platforms based on labor conditions. Open-source movements in India develop alternatives to proprietary software. These aren't merely theoretical responses but practical implementations of different visions for technology's role in society.
In the AI realm, Masakhane brings together researchers across Africa to build natural language processing models for African languages historically been ignored by major AI systems. Tunisia's Instadeep develops AI solutions specifically for African contexts. Brazil's Omdena chapter applies AI to local social challenges. These initiatives represent efforts to ensure AI development doesn't simply reproduce existing power dynamics but creates genuinely useful tools for diverse communities.
Organizations like Digital Africa promote tech sovereignty across the continent, while initiatives like Data4BlackLives connect digital rights to broader racial justice movements. Mozilla's Common Voice project collects voice data in multiple African languages to prevent algorithmic discrimination. These efforts demonstrate that resistance to digital colonialism is already happening, led by those most affected.
Beyond Digital Determinism
We must question whether following Western technological trajectories represents the only valid path forward. Some communities may choose to engage with digital technologies in limited ways that preserve cultural practices or environmental sustainability. Others might prioritize community ownership of technology infrastructure over rapid deployment of the latest innovations. These aren't rejections of technology but thoughtful reconsiderations of how technology should serve human wellbeing.
The Masai community in Kenya, for instance, has selectively incorporated mobile technology while maintaining traditional livestock management practices that have proven sustainable over centuries. Indigenous groups in various regions use digital tools to document traditional knowledge while establishing protocols for appropriate sharing. These approaches represent sophisticated navigation of technology's benefits and harms rather than simple technophobia or uncritical adoption.
Toward Structural Solutions
Addressing digital colonialism requires structural changes rather than merely raising awareness. Concrete steps might include:
Reforming global tax systems to ensure technology companies contribute appropriately to public infrastructure in all markets where they operate. This would reduce the extractive nature of current business models.
Developing alternative ownership models for digital platforms, including cooperatives, public utilities, and community-controlled technologies that distribute decision-making power and economic benefits more equitably.
Establishing binding regulations requiring algorithmic transparency and accountability, particularly for systems deployed in regions where affected communities have limited political power to demand redress.
Investing in digital infrastructure as public goods rather than private assets, including community-controlled networks, open-source software, and educational resources that build local capacity.
Reforming intellectual property regimes to allow greater knowledge sharing and adaptation of technologies to local contexts without prohibitive licensing fees.
For AI specifically, developing global governance frameworks that ensure diverse participation in setting standards and limitations, investing in local AI research capacity across regions, creating data commons that allow communities to benefit from their collective data, and establishing mechanisms to share the computational resources needed for AI development more equitably.
These approaches move beyond individual good intentions to address the underlying power dynamics that enable digital colonialism. They recognize that meaningful change requires redistributing power and resources rather than merely modifying how existing power is exercised.
Moving Forward
The conversation about digital colonialism must evolve beyond simplified narratives. It requires acknowledging specific corporate practices, understanding regional differences, connecting to broader economic structures, recognizing existing resistance, and questioning fundamental assumptions about technological progress.
Addressing the "Africa as industry" mindset means shifting from extractive investment models toward genuine partnerships that center African agency and ownership. This includes investment approaches that prioritize local control, contextual relevance, and equitable distribution of benefits rather than maximizing returns to foreign shareholders. It means developing regulatory frameworks that protect African data and digital rights while creating conditions for locally appropriate innovation. Most importantly, it requires recognizing that African technological development should be shaped primarily by African priorities rather than external visions of what constitutes "progress."
For emerging AI platforms like the OpenAI social media service, avoiding colonial dynamics would require fundamentally different development approaches. Rather than creating products in isolation and then deploying them globally, companies would need to incorporate diverse stakeholders in governance from inception, ensuring representation from regions where the platform will operate in decision-making about content policies, data practices, and algorithmic design. This would mean treating affected communities as co-creators rather than merely users or markets.
Technology itself is neither inherently liberating nor oppressive – its effects depend on who controls it, how it's designed, and what values it embodies. By examining these factors critically and embracing pluralistic visions of technology's role in society, we can work toward digital ecosystems that distribute both benefits and decision-making power more equitably.
This is particularly urgent for AI, which may become the most transformative technology of our era. The question isn't simply whether AI develops it, but who gets to determine its trajectory, what values it embodies, whose languages and contexts it serves, and how its benefits are distributed. As with earlier digital technologies, the default path risks entrenching existing power dynamics unless we actively create alternatives.
This doesn't mean rejecting technological innovation but rather expanding who participates in determining which innovations are pursued and how they're implemented. By centering the experiences and knowledge of those historically marginalized in technological development, we might discover more sustainable, just, and contextually appropriate digital futures – ones that truly serve global human flourishing rather than replicating historical patterns of extraction and control.
What about you?
Yes, you!
As you reflect on these dynamics of digital colonialism and AI power consolidation, consider your own position within this global technological ecosystem. Whether you're a developer, investor, policymaker, or everyday technology user, your choices matter in determining whether AI reinforces extractive patterns or helps create more equitable digital futures. You can demand transparency from the platforms you use, support local technology initiatives, advocate for regulatory frameworks that protect digital sovereignty, or contribute to open-source alternatives that distribute power more widely. By questioning who benefits from the AI systems you interact with daily and seeking out perspectives from communities most affected by technological inequality, you become part of reshaping these power dynamics. The future of AI doesn't belong solely to large corporations or wealthy nations; it belongs to all of us, and your engagement in this conversation is not just welcome but essential.
What specific action will you take today to help build a more just technological landscape?
