Send message to Author

Long abstract

I argue that the concept of “digital colonialism” is analytically imprecise and normatively counterproductive in the context of AI governance. I distinguish between two strands in the literature: (1) “data colonialism,” associated with Nick Couldry and Ulises Mejias, which conceptualizes datafication itself as a colonial logic; and (2) “digital colonialism,” which frames Western technological dominance in the Global South as a structural continuation of territorial colonial rule. My critique targets the latter. Situating the debate within the broader geopolitical discourse of an emerging AI Cold War, I argue that the present moment is better understood through the lens of AI nationalism and sovereignty politics, where states actively negotiate digital partnerships to advance domestic modernization projects. The rhetoric of digital colonialism, I contend, risks collapsing complex political economies into a moral binary that forecloses nuanced governance analysis. I argue that if AI governance debates in Africa are subsumed under a decolonial narrative without sufficient conceptual rigor, they risk provoking reactionary nationalism or technological disengagement. A more productive approach lies in analyzing AI governance as a contested field of geopolitical negotiation rather than a replay of nineteenth-century imperialism.