Data colonialism is one of the important yet under-discussed topics in 2026. The issue should be taken seriously, especially in this era of AI, which is increasingly being used to monitor people and their activities through surveillance and to collect their personal information from social media without their meaningful consent.
Data colonialism refers to the ways in which organisations, governments and other actors collect and exploit people’s digital information without explicit and meaningful consent, often asserting control or ownership over users’ digital activities. The term was coined by Nick Couldry of the London School of Economics and Ulises A. Mejias of SUNY Oswego in their 2019 work, which was later expanded into the book The Costs of Connection.
Data is often described as the “new oil” of the modern era. In the 19th century, imperial powers such as Britain colonised territories in pursuit of valuable natural resources and used those resources to strengthen their economic and political power and exert control over particular regions.
Today, oil has increasingly been replaced by data as a strategic resource, as billions of people around the world use smartphones and maintain accounts on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, X (formerly Twitter), Snapchat and TikTok.
These platforms are created, owned and controlled by major technology companies such as Google and Meta. They collect vast amounts of users’ personal and behavioural data. Although these companies say they are committed to protecting users’ data from unauthorised access and misuse, concerns have grown in recent years about the use of user-generated data in the development and training of AI models.
Following the rise of ChatGPT, developed by OpenAI, major technology companies have developed numerous AI models that use artificial intelligence and machine learning to generate responses to users’ questions and requests.
At the surface level, this may appear beneficial. However, concerns have also emerged about the collection and use of personal data for surveillance and profiling. Critics argue that such practices could enable governments or other powerful institutions to monitor citizens and assess whether they are complying with laws, regulations or political expectations. In the United States, concerns about data privacy and the power of technology companies have become increasingly prominent. Data obtained through breaches can also end up in illegal online marketplaces operated by cybercriminals and may be used to blackmail victims or demand ransom.
As of 2026, concerns are also growing over the use of people’s own data to train AI systems and analyse their behaviour and preferences. Although AI has not necessarily reached the level of behavioural control feared by some critics, the increasing use of personal data without meaningful consent raises legitimate questions about privacy, autonomy and individual freedom.
Many countries are also integrating AI into government decision-making and public administration. This has raised concerns about the possibility of a form of technocracy in which decisions affecting citizens are increasingly shaped by algorithms and data-driven systems. If private technology companies gain extensive control over digital infrastructure and personal data, they could acquire significant indirect influence over people’s digital lives.
Another concern involves governments themselves. Democratically elected governments are increasingly participating in the global AI race, with the United States, China and European countries among the major technological powers. The central concern is not necessarily that AI itself is harmful to humanity, but rather how governments and private companies choose to use the technology.
Since the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns about government surveillance, civil liberties and the use of technology to monitor citizens have intensified in several countries. In the United States, the administration of President Donald Trump has promoted major investments in AI infrastructure and data centres as part of efforts to strengthen the country’s position in the global AI competition with China.
Supporters of these investments argue that maintaining technological leadership is necessary for economic competitiveness, national security and technological innovation. Critics, however, are concerned about the concentration of data and technological power in the hands of a small number of corporations and government institutions.
Technology companies such as OpenAI, Anthropic and xAI, as well as major cloud-service providers such as Oracle, are playing an increasingly important role in building the infrastructure required for AI development. These companies have significant commercial incentives to collect, process and use data. This raises an important question: who controls the digital infrastructure, what legal restrictions apply to that control, and for what purposes can the data be used?
The concern is not necessarily that governments will exercise direct control over every aspect of people’s lives. Rather, control over data and digital infrastructure could create powerful forms of indirect influence. The enormous amount of information collected from social media, smartphones and other digital services can be used to create datasets about citizens, consumers and entire populations. Much of this information remains inaccessible to ordinary people and, in some cases, even to public institutions.
Such datasets could also contribute to what is known as “algorithmic governance”, in which governments increasingly rely on data-driven systems to make political, economic and administrative decisions. If technology companies have extensive control over the data underlying these systems, questions may arise about transparency, accountability and potential conflicts of interest.
The issue of data surveillance, however, did not begin with COVID-19 or the rise of AI. The collection and use of personal data for surveillance and law-enforcement purposes have been debated for decades. Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the administration of President George W. Bush introduced and expanded a number of counterterrorism measures, including the USA PATRIOT Act, which significantly expanded the government’s surveillance and data-collection powers. The expansion of digital technologies also created opportunities for technology companies to provide the infrastructure needed to process and analyse large quantities of information.
Therefore, data colonialism can be viewed as a modern form of surveillance and resource extraction. It is often presented as a means of developing innovative technologies and improving people’s lives, but critics argue that the large-scale collection and processing of personal data can also create opportunities to influence people’s behaviour, preferences and lifestyles.
The deeper concern is the possibility of a technological system in which a small number of powerful technology companies and government institutions exercise disproportionate influence over individuals and societies. If appropriate legal safeguards, transparency and accountability are absent, excessive concentration of digital power could pose risks to privacy, civil liberties and democratic institutions.
China is frequently cited in debates over state surveillance and the use of AI-enabled technologies. The Chinese government has deployed extensive networks of cameras and other digital surveillance systems in public spaces, while AI technologies have increasingly been incorporated into surveillance and security infrastructure. Critics argue that such systems enable authorities to collect information about people’s movements and behaviour on an unprecedented scale.
The debate over data colonialism therefore goes beyond the question of whether AI is good or bad. The more important questions are who owns the data, who has access to it, how it is collected, how it is used, and what legal and democratic safeguards exist to protect individuals.
In the digital age, data has become one of the world’s most valuable resources. Ensuring that it does not become a tool for unchecked surveillance or concentrated power will require strong privacy protections, transparent regulations, public accountability and greater awareness among citizens.
……………………….
The writer is a second-year student of the Department of English at the University of Asia Pacific
