DIGITAL COLONIALISM: HOW BIG TECHS MARGINALIZE INDIGENOUS RIGHTS

Written by Aakash Varma & Prasi Jain students at Gujarat National Law University, Silvassa Campus

• Introduction

Indigenous knowledge is not only the foundation of modern science; it is also what could be described as the reference and referral centre- by Suman Suhaiu

Indigenous knowledge systems were preserved through narrative, song, Aboriginal Rock Art, Paintings, and sacred spaces in recent times. Now, such knowledge is being digitized and commodified without one’s consent, silently learned by cloud servers ruled by Big Tech terms and conditions rather than Indigenous treaties or tribal law. The Big Tech corporations are not just providing platforms; they are redefining ownership, their identity, and governance in digital spaces at the cost of Indigenous rights.  

This has been termed as digital colonialism, in which Global North Big Techs control the Global South’s data and their virtual space. Unlike traditional colonialism, in which colonizers took control over the land and labour, this new world takes data, including the cultural heritage, knowledge systems, and languages of Indigenous peoples.

This blog attempts to illustrate how Big Techs of the global north practice exclusion and marginalization of Indigenous peoples. We examine how digital infrastructure and data governance systems reiterate colonial hierarchies in the name of progress and inclusion of all. Because in a more networked and coded world, Indigenous sovereignty must extend beyond land, into data, algorithms, and the digital future itself.

• From Papal Bulls to Platform Terms: Colonialism, Then and Now

A single decree rearranged the world in 1493. The Papal Bull “Inter Caetera” by Pope Alexander VI granted Spain the divine right to take over, convert, and colonize the new lands, known as terra nullius (vacant lands), so-called “discovered” by Columbus, which Indigenous Peoples already inhabited and nowadays known as the “Doctrine of Discovery”.

Today, the same pattern is repeated via digital colonialism, as Big Tech corporations of the Global North dominate data, infrastructure, and digital ecosystems. Just as the Papal Bull rendered Indigenous nations invisible to the law, platform governance today disenfranchises Indigenous peoples from the ownership of their data, their representation, and their access to digital means. There is hidden consent in legal “terms and conditions.” Data are pulled out, commodified, and centralised, sometimes even without consultation or benefit to the very same people who create it.

As with imperial monopolies, tech monopolies design algorithms and data silos that solidify control. And where colonialism had its “civilization” excuse, Big Tech is now using “innovation” and “connectivity” as a moral rationale for digital extractivism.
The legal instrument may differ from that time, from papal bulls to policies, but the rationale behind it is similar; some will dominate and define the world, while others are expected to accept it and adapt.

• Digital Platforms as Sites of Resistance and Exploitation: The Indigenous Experience

This blog focuses on Adivasi communities dwelling in the Niyamgiri Hills, such as the Dongria Kondh of Odisha. Each stream, each forest, each animal has deep meaning for them, and the territory is ecological as well as spiritual for them. They went out against mining ventures because they feared that destruction of the habitat, water contamination as well as deforestation would compromise the environment and their way of life.

Māori Tribe of New Zealand, who are considered the original settlers of two large islands known as New Zealand, protested against the government as they misused census data collected for the 2023 census.

How Digital Platforms affect Indigenous community?

For indigenous people, digital platforms are a double-edged sword. They provide voice and visibility, but they also carry the potential of cultural dilution, exploitation, and commodification. Negative impacts of Digital Platforms on Indigenous community:

1. Linguistic Marginalization

With 76.9% of the top 10 most spoken languages in the world, these languages dominate digital content. The lack of support for indigenous scripts restricts participation and the sharing of the information. Native language loss and cultural deterioration are further accelerated by language simplification by digital platforms.

2. Risks to Mental Health and Wellbeing

Digital media interactions have an effect on indigenous people’s mental health especially when these platforms facilitate online harassment and their community is subject to mockery.

3. Loss of Knowledge Sovereignty and Exploitation: Indigenous knowledge digitization without appropriate protocols runs the risk of being misused and decontextualized. Once it’s online, it can be copied or used for anything without permission, as demonstrated by the misuse of data from the 2023 New Zealand Census.

• Key areas of Marginalization

1. In the name of “research” or “public domain,” indigenous knowledge including indigenous language and customs is frequently gathered without consent, while resources like Hoodia cactus and Ayahuasca are digitized and patented.
2. Companies capitalize on indigenous imagery and Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) is often exploited without fair benefit-sharing. For instance, the Dongria Kondh’s biodiverse land is mapped, studied, and even used in training AI or databases like India’s TKDL.
3. Stereotypes, cultural appropriation, and false information flourish online, particularly in regional languages with inadequate moderation. Such false narratives might delegitimize the Dongria Kondh’s anti-mining stance by portraying them as unreasonable or anti-development.
4. Stories of indigenous people are being digitally erased as result of low exposure of content made by them in their local languages as algorithms favour dominant languages and their narratives are filtered through NGOs despite direct participation in rallies like the one against Vedanta’s bauxite extraction and poor digital infrastructure limits their access to national programs like Aadhar.
5. Customary land rights are frequently undermined by digital instruments like blockchain land registers and satellite mapping, which deny legal possession of the sacred Niyamgiri Hills in Dongria Kondh. Under the pretense of monitoring the forest or security, technology like drones being used in Mauna Kea to spy on native Hawaiian demonstrators.

• From UNDRIP to DPDPA: The Inadequacy of Current Digital Protection Model

Indigenous digital sovereignty means the right of the indigenous community to exercise control over their digital assets, data, and infrastructure that supports the community.

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA) 2023 introduced by Indian government sidelines collective data rights needed for indigenous peoples in favour of individual rights of consent, correction, and erasure. It contains no special protections for data from AI, digital mapping, surveillance systems, or health systems. Indigenous digital sovereignty is exposed as processes of consent are at cross purposes and out of reach due to language, culture, and technological barriers.

UNDRIP affirms individual rights over cultural heritage and it supports data sovereignty, but it is nonbinding in nature, and this affects countries like India. The principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) is for indigenous communities, but it is hard to enforce digitally. India’s DPDP Act is not well-suited to the demands of Indigenous peoples because it emphasizes individual consent and lacks community-based methods. The execution of FPIC is further undermined by digital illiteracy, power disparities, and disregard for collective rights, which exposes Indigenous digital data to abuse.

• Case Study: Surveillance and the Erosion of Indigenous Governance

In the tribal areas of Andhra Pradesh, India, a new pattern of colonization is unfolding, yet not through violence, but through data and control of the digital realm. Through the Andhra Pradesh Rural Inclusive Growth Project (APRIGP), digital platforms were created to track and monitor Adivasi (Indigenous) farmers, purportedly facilitating agribusiness inclusion.

Instead of empowerment, these technologies have undercut customary governance and disrespected Free, Prior, and Informed Consent following the colonial trends. Village councils were excluded as the corporate actors adopted top-down digital systems without local involvement. In this case, data governance is a space of dispossession, where technology shapes land, labor, and identity that communities are not able to shape.

Big Tech Platforms and the Mental Health Crisis Among Indigenous Youth

Native American tribes in the U.S. have sued Big Tech for claiming that platform algorithms damage Indigenous youth and exacerbate mental health emergencies. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Native American teenagers have a statistically higher rate of suicide in their communities, which is up to four times the suicidal rate of any other demographic. They argue that these big techs are imposing a huge burden on tribal communities who are already dealing with mental health issues worsened by improper healthcare access and historical traumas, and these big techs are creating a type of harm being done without accountability.

Moreover, The Marubo tribe from the Brazilian Amazon filed a defamation lawsuit against The New York Times seeking damages worth $180 million, arguing that the newspaper’s reporting on the tribe’s first exposure to the internet portrayed the Marubo people as unable to handle the basic exposure to the internet and they are addicted to pornography.
Collectively, these examples demonstrate how digital colonialism crosses borders, questions Indigenous existence and curbs their rights.

• Policy Recommendations for Digital Sovereignty 

FPIC should be incorporated in policies: Free, Prior, and Informed Consent for any data collection that involves data of indigenous community should ensure that consent is free, informed, and not conditional and without any ambiguity. Consent notices should be provided in the local languages with clear information on how the data would be used and what the grievance redressal mechanisms and support creation of indigenous data centres and blockchain based systems for issues like land rights. An Ai ethics framework that was created with other indigenous communities integrating both traditional and communal values. Like environmental approvals, establish Human Rights Impact Assessments (HRIAs) for every significant technological deployments.

Role of Key Stakeholders:

Government can enact and enforce laws that recognize digital rights as fundamental rights and provide funding for capacity building especially in tribal areas. Local communities can empower local councils and tribal governments to create their own frameworks, International bodies like the United Nations can mandate digital rights in sustainable development goals and provide technical support to members, international labour organization Conventions should be updated to provide gig workers and native craftspeople with digital labor safeguards.

• Conclusion: Decoding Sovereignty in the Age of Digital Colonialism

Unlike the traditional form of colonialism, digital colonialism does not arrive by ships and warriors, instead, it uses algorithms, policies, and profit-driven codes to colonize. From Papal bull back then in 1493 to today’s platform terms and conditions, the method may evolve, but the underlying motive is the same: some will dominate and define the world, while others are expected to accept it and adapt.

Indigenous communities across the world, the Dongria Kondh of Odisha to the Maori tribe of New Zealand, and many other Native American tribes are actively resisting and challenging their misrepresentation, asserting their right to data sovereignty, fairness in presenting data, and mental health care. 

There is a need to form a system that values indigenous rights, respects their sovereignty over data, and is governed properly to avoid any exploitation, and most importantly, where consent is the foundation, not an afterthought. The policies introduced by the Indian government must be reformed to recognize the collective rights of the Indigenous community. This fight is not just for their recognition, it’s for self-determination and justice for communities exploited by big tech. Without Indigenous leadership, they will be marginalized and face a new form of invisible but destructive colonization.