However, as the infrastructure needed to support the growing artificial intelligence sector is built, the extractivist dimension of the digital is reaching new levels of complexity. On the one hand, there are the environmental implications of this infrastructure, which is creating water stress in places like Mexico, Chile, and Spain thanks to massive data centres, many of which emit enormous quantities of greenhouse gases. 

On the other hand, there is the economic impact. Most of these data centres are established without contributing in any meaningful way to local development. For instance, just this past week Open AI announced the construction of a US$25 billion mega data centre in the Patagonian region of Argentina. The announcement made no mention of whether the data centre “would create local employment, boost local industrial production, be based on environmental impact assessments, or include any Argentinian national oversight of strategic infrastructure,” says Natalia Zuazo in an article published last Friday in El Pais.

But what exactly do we mean by “extractivism”? Generally speaking, the concept of extractivism refers to an economic model that extracts value from regions thought of as “empty,” “barbaric,” or “primitive” and that are perceived to contain resources that are available for outsiders to exploit. Usually, this type of extraction generates next-to-no economic benefit for local communities, even if local elites enrich themselves quite significantly. Extractivism also tends to destroy natural ecosystems in its quest for revenue, create “serious social and health threats on the local populace,” and fuel local conflict between and among communities and private actors. This model is also highly dependent on international prices, leading to frequent boom and bust cycles that undermine long-term economic development. It is usually perpetuated by weak and corrupt institutions at the local, subnation, and national level and predatory, rent-seeking behaviour by local and national elites.

This definition seems to apply to the situation Argentina quite clearly, where a foreign multinational is seeking to benefit from the vast natural resources of the country without leaving much economic development behind and with few checks and balances. And the country’s government appears more interested in attracting foreign investment for its benefit and of the elites it represents than in establishing clear oversight mechanisms or in fostering sustainable local development.

In this context, WACC believes we need to take urgent action to address this issue. We believe states should work diligently to establish clear guidelines that protect natural ecosystems, set out clear national oversight mechanisms with real tools to enforce regulations, and mandate data centres to contribute to local and national development in the form of knowledge, technology, and financial benefits transfers. We also call on states to respect Indigenous rights, mainly obligations to ensure free, prior, and informed consent, when approving the constructions of data centre infrastructure.

Furthermore, and in line with “Water and energy nexus,” the July 2025 report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation, WACC supports the notion that “[s]tates and international institutions should promote a moratorium on the development of data centres and provide clear information on their water and energy consumption and the risks that they pose to climate change, the sustainability of aquatic ecosystems, the human rights of impoverished populations and the survival of vulnerable productive sectors.” This moratorium should remain in place until these risks have been effectively mitigated.

WACC looks forward to being part of continued civil society pressure to ensure that the calls for a more equitable digital world eventually turn into reality. We encourage people, communities, and civil society organizations everywhere to join us in these efforts.

Image: © cnv-studio via Canva.com

Anxieties about a takeover of humanity by automation, machines, and technology are not new. In the Western world, the fears date back to the 1800s when textile automation fueled protests against job loss. Disquiet about AI first emerged three quarters of a century ago when pioneers warned of its potential to mimic and replace human labour.  Fears of imminent job loss bubbled to the surface, particularly in sectors characterized by repetitive tasks.

With the digital revolution, the fears have gone mainstream and global. Today, it is not only manual jobs that are replaceable but also those requiring empathy and cognitive capacities – such as mental health therapy and scientific research. The informal sector employing the majority of global south populations is at risk as some jobs become formalized, earnings are eroded, and power is concentrated in platforms and governments.

Global big tech founders have weighed in on AI’s impact on jobs, society, and the future of innovation. Humans will no longer be needed for most things because AI will readily perform tasks requiring specialized human skills (Bill Gates). Probably none of us will have a job (Elon Musk). Software engineers will do much more for a while and then at some point, fewer will be needed (OpenAI’s Sam Altman).

AI displacement of human labour brings a risk of deepening power and economic inequalities across and within nations. Research on the platform economy or “gig work” finds an algorithmic allocation of jobs that exacerbates gender inequalities.

Such risks are not immediately evident to those at the forefront of AI regulation, whose attention is often focused on ethics. To this point, a spokesperson from the EU at a side event at the recent UN Commission on the Status of Women admits that the gender dimensions were overlooked in the protracted process to regulate online work.

History suggests that societal adaptation naturally follows technological advancement. Present-day AI however seems to be more threatening due the sheer rapidity of change. Will there come a time when AI will follow its own distinctive logic unconstrained by human and societal values? On this point, the jury is still out.

Image: Shutterstock AI

A tech mogul and an asylum seeker trying to enter the US have the same right to freedom of expression. But in practice their voices have very different levels of public influence, which ultimately undermines the asylum seeker’s ability to have their concerns shape public policy.

This is why we need a separate right to communicate – or a set of communication rights – that would tackle communication injustice to protect democracy and human rights. And we need it now more than ever before

Nowhere was this more evident than at U.S. President Donald Trump’s inauguration last week.

That day, the leaders of the world’s major tech companies, from Amazon to Meta to X to Alphabet, sat in the U.S. Capitol next to Trump family members and in front of his cabinet nominees. They have direct control over much of our personal data, can manipulate the information we consume, and influence how we communicate through their obscure algorithms. Their alignment with the political project of the U.S. far-right was crystal clear.

Any illusion of Big Tech as a force for democratization and genuine citizen participation died that day. It is now evident that these companies not only support an agenda that denies climate change, is rooted in white supremacy, and seeks to undermine women’s rights, but that their only true motivation is money. Profits over the public good, even if the – our – world burns to the ground.

How can we respond?

• First, now that the interests of Big Tech are clear for everyone to see, we must invite more people and movements to join the fight for democratic tech and rights-based communication.

• Second, we must continue to articulate an alternative vision, as WACC and its civil society allies have been doing in 2024 and 2025 in relation to the Global Digital Compact and the 20-year review of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS+20). This vision must be rooted in the notion of communication and information as human rights – not as merchandise – and must work to integrate the voices and knowledge of the millions of people who are still being silenced today.

• And third, we need new allies. As civil society and social movements, we simply do not have the tools and power to turn the alternative vision we are developing into reality. We need the backing and support of states, or blocks of states like the EU or African Union, to establish viable alternative technology and media ecosystems that truly uphold our rights and are not motivated by profit.

Photo: Shutterstock AI

Apple has been fined €1.8bn by the European Commission for breaking competition laws over music streaming. The EU Competition Commissioner said that Apple had restricted “developers from informing consumers about alternative, cheaper music services available outside of the Apple ecosystem.”

Although Apple says it will appeal, the judgment seems part of the budding effort by some governments to address the huge power of the tech giants such as the parent companies of Google and Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, and – rising rapidly due to its involvement in AI – Nvidia.

The EU’s Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act are perhaps the most comprehensive to date in providing a legal framework to protect users, protect fundamental rights, and ensure fair use. The US has strengthened antitrust enforcement in the digital technology arena, which has rare bipartisan support.

Timothy Wu, in The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires published in 2012, charted a cycle of invention, growth, concentration, regulation, and competition over communication technologies such as telephone, radio, and the internet.

“History shows a typical progression of information technologies,” he writes, “from somebody’s hobby to somebody’s industry; from jury-rigged contraption to slick production marvel; from a freely accessible channel to one strictly controlled by a single corporation or cartel — from open to closed system.”

An experimental and open technology will inevitably become more concentrated, he argues, because all forms of communication require a network of users. And when more people join one network, the people they are connected to want to join as well. And the larger the network, the more opportunity for profit.

Communication companies then try to grow larger and larger, buying up smaller entities, until they become monopolies that set the financial terms and control the message.

With the internet and digital communication technology, the potential of the profit – and control – is even more obvious as it brings all print, radio, television, photograph, and telephone into one essential platform.

History, though, has also shown that while sometimes governments allow companies to grow bigger, they are also the one entity that decides when big is too big and can wield the power to break up a corporation. The speed of the digital transformation has meant the financial size of Big Tech companies is greater than most countries, so the US and EU regulatory actions are important first steps in starting to draw the line on the concentration of wealth and control. 

Consumers and rights advocates are essential actors in holding both companies and governments to account. From the products we buy and use to the votes we cast and the campaigns we engage in, we all have to speak and act for equality, equity, transparency, participation, and accountability.

It is far too early to tell for sure, but between the recent regulations and consumer advocacy, we may be at the beginning of a turning point for Big Tech.

Illustration: Shutterstock