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

Substack is the latest digital communication platform to set off a freedom of expression debate after the co-founder Hamish McKenzie stated that the platform would not demonetize those posting extremist content on the newsletter platform — namely Nazi and white supremacists.

The comments sparked both condemnation and defence. Some newsletters left the platform, other writers published protests of the policy, and some defended the stance under freedom of expression.

The response made Substack change tack. As Alex Hern commented in his TechScape column for The Guardian on 9 January:

Substack is speedrunning a process that every social network — every internet platform — has gone through at some point or another. First, we don’t need moderation (unless you’re a sex worker); then, we care about free speech so we won’t do moderation; then, we’re going to moderate only the most egregious and uncontroversial examples.

Among the complicating factors of freedom of expression on social media and social networks is ownership and scale — in short, economics.

Extremist views have always found a “publisher” or platform, even if that publisher is the holder of the view and the platform a small circle of like-minded friends.

However, social networking sites have the capacity to, at minimum, heighten the visibility of people and views, and, at most, transform such individual or isolated rants into viral posts and make minority opinions seem like the majority trends.

With views, engagement, and subscribers key to any platform’s financial success, anything that catches interest and engagement and subscribers adds to profit. Whereas any move to limit content not only adds costs for moderation and programming but potentially reduces participation and thus income.

So, it is predictable from an economics standpoint — even without an owner avowing to be a free speech advocate — that for social networking sites, from Facebook or X to Substack, freedom of expression is the default argument to little or no moderation of individual content. And then, that the main driver to change that policy is, basically, economics — either people unsubscribe or the government threatens fines.

At a recent workshop on digital gender justice organized by WACC and the World Council of Churches, Lucina Di Meco, co-founder of #ShePersisted, highlighted the global prevalence of disinformation against women in politics — including how the economics of social media companies are central to the problem.

“Social media platforms are curators of content,” she said — and their digital platform algorithms reward and amplify hate for profit.

While highlighting the need for a global framework to regulate social media platforms and prevent disinformation, she also pointed out the potential of applying consumer protection law to hold social media platforms accountable for the harms that their products cause to their own customers.

“They are private companies that have consumers, but who is protecting their consumers from the negative effects of what they experience online, and its impacts on democracy and social cohesion?” she asked.
Such an application would require government action, both in regulation and in enforcement. And there are signs that governments are taking steps, if not yet bold ones. As Hern remarked:

One of the more satisfying things to have happened over the long decade I’ve been covering technology is watching governments slowly realise that they actually have power and can use it to do things. It’s a stunning insight, I know. And yet it is increasingly common for an industry to be overturned by, effectively, a state waking up one day and realising that it doesn’t really like the status quo.

While freedom of expression is a fundamental right, accountability — from the individual to the company monetizing the content — is also essential.

We have to work for an ecosystem that enables one and protects all.

Photo: Fizkes

The 2023 meeting that concluded on 20 January was marked, according to The Guardian, by a mood of cautious optimism after three disastrous years that saw a global pandemic, disruptions in supply chains, armed conflict in Europe, and the highest inflation rates in decades. The Guardian Economics Editor Larry Elliot noted that “inflation rates in the US, the eurozone, and the UK appear to have peaked. Central banks may, therefore, be able to limit the extent of future increases in interest rates. China has rebounded more quickly than expected after abandoning its zero-tolerance approach to COVID.” These developments are being seen as good news for markets.

This created the opportunity to discuss a topic that, at least in the eyes of the global corporate elite, just might steer the world towards a brighter future: the possibility that global capitalism might be able to transform itself into an economic system able to deal with the existential challenge posed by climate change.

A report prepared for the WEF by researchers at the London School of Economics and Political Science and the London Grantham Research Institute and Systemiq found that transition to green technologies and artificial intelligence (AI) will drive growth in the next five years. “More than half the tipping points for key green technologies will have been met,” the report states, with costs for solar and wind power falling below those for coal and gas in the US and other countries, cost parity of electric vehicles with gas-driven vehicles and green fertilizer with conventional methods, and the use of AI to address climate change impacts and step up the decarbonization of entire economic sectors.

Meanwhile, in neighboring Germany, protests raged as thousands of local residents and activists demonstrated against the demolition of a village in North Rhine-Westphalia to expand a coal mine, a move that would result in significant new emissions at a time of climate crisis. Greta Thunberg, the Swedish environmental activist, who took part in and was detained at the demonstrations, called the situation a “betrayal of present and future generations.”

The disconnect between these two spaces is stark. On the one hand, the global capitalist elite is enthusiastically promoting investment in green technologies as a way out of the climate mess, which in a sense is a continuation of the same logic behind existing market-based mechanisms to tackle environmental degradation (such as the carbon credit system that has faced much criticism from researchers and non-profits like Greenpeace), and is introducing new market-based dynamics into already highly complex social, political, and economic contexts in the global South. On the other, people are fighting to protect their town from destruction by a commercial mining company and calling for a radical system change.

This contrast raises questions not only about whether our current economic system can truly transform itself to tackle the environmental issues it created in the first place, but also about the voices that are shaping this vital debate for the future of humanity.

Is it the voices of global corporations at Davos that promise a sustainable future by following a business-as-usual economic model? Or is it the voices of vulnerable communities around the world that for generations have borne the brunt of an economic model based on the relentless extraction of natural resources and displacement from their territories? Whose voices are we choosing to listen to? And, more importantly, what are the power dynamics that result in greater visibility through traditional and social media for one side of the debate over the other?

In this context, communication rights can provide a way forward. The push for climate justice necessarily includes the struggle for communication rights and communication justice. The voices of those protesting environmental destruction and calling for a different relationship between humans and nature — from villagers in North Rhine-Westphalia to Indigenous communities in the Amazon to the people living in Pacific Island states — must be heard in media agenda-setting spaces like Davos. Until then, we might as well be living in an alternate reality.

Photo: (l) A panel at the WEF 2023 in Davos. World Economic Forum/Michael Calabro (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0), (r) Police clash with environmental activists in Lützerath, Germany. Lützi Lebt/unwisemonkeys (CC BY-NC)