#techjustice

Creating solutions geared towards addressing implicit biases in technology does not have to be complicated. A plethora of organizations and institutions are actively contributing to dismantling the issues faced by consumers of color concerning software.

For example, researchers at IBM have created new algorithms that process bias ai training datasets to make the process fair for more people. The algorithm ensures to account for t. Kosh Varshney, who worked on the project, explains the project stating, “The objective is to minimize the difference in a statistical sense between the input training data and the output clean training data set that we’re creating”(IBM Research 0:56-1:02). By “minimizing the difference,” researchers are effectively removing and correcting the implicit bias in the original datasets in the software we use. 

In addition, Joy Buolawmi founded the Algorithmic Justice League, an organization working towards addressing the concerns of technological racism. The website for the organization includes different mediums such as bias checks for activists, consumers, and interested individuals to fight the problem and remain informed. Buolawmi speaks on her organization claiming, “We now have the opportunity to unlock even greater equality if we make social change a priority and not an afterthought” (Buolawmi 7:04-7:10). The more access people have to this information, will enable for a more considerable amount of people to get involved and dismantle all biases in technology.

Actionable steps consumers can take is to actively report all occurrences whereby Artificial intelligence is working improperly based on bias to the developers created the user interfaces.

WORK CITED 

YouTube, YouTube, 27 Mar. 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UG_X_7g63rY&t=449s.

Why We Should All Be Talking About Digital Colonialism

In today's hyper-connected world, we’re seeing the rise of something many people don’t even know exists: digital colonialism. Just like old-school colonialism, it’s about control — but now it’s about who owns our data, who designs our online spaces, and who benefits economically from our digital lives. Tech giants like Meta (Facebook), Google, Amazon, and others are shaping how billions of people experience the internet, especially in developing nations. This isn’t just a tech issue — it’s a sovereignty issue.

What Is Digital Colonialism?

As smartphones and internet access spread across the world, developing nations (especially in the Global South) are rapidly adapting. But behind the scenes, powerful tech companies based in the Global North control much of the digital infrastructure — from app stores to cloud storage, online advertising to e-commerce.

These corporations extract massive amounts of user data, often with little regulation, and profit from it while offering "free" services. This data allows them to influence markets, politics, and even elections, concentrating both wealth and political influence back home.

Real-World Examples: The Global South Under Tech Control

In South Africa, Uber has taken over much of the taxi industry, even leading to violent clashes between traditional drivers and rideshare operators.

In India, Facebook’s Free Basics program was shut down after mass protests, as activists argued it limited internet freedom while growing Facebook’s market dominance.

In Africa, companies like Facebook, Google, Uber, and Netflix dominate digital spaces, outcompeting local businesses and steering cultural and economic norms toward Western standards.

History Repeats Itself — Only Digitally

Digital colonialism mirrors the exploitative dynamics of old colonialism. The Oxford Dictionary defines colonialism as “acquiring control over another country, occupying it, and exploiting it economically.” Today’s digital version swaps land for data, labor for user engagement, and gold for ad revenue.

Even programs pitched as charitable, like Facebook’s Free Basics, often funnel users into walled gardens controlled by Big Tech. They claim to be "helping the unbanked" or "connecting the disconnected," but critics say this is just digital exploitation wrapped in feel-good branding.

Why This Matters

When multinational tech giants dominate a nation’s digital economy, they:

Undermine local innovation and entrepreneurship.

Export profits instead of reinvesting locally.

Control narratives by owning the platforms where news, culture, and political discourse happen.

Threaten user privacy and exploit personal data.

In some cases, these companies even wield political power. As seen during recent U.S. presidential inaugurations, tech billionaires like Elon Musk have openly aligned with political leaders, further blurring lines between corporate and political control.

How Can We Fight Back?

Fortunately, resistance is growing:

Activists in India successfully fought against Free Basics.

In Europe, strict privacy regulations like the GDPR have set global standards.

NGOs and digital rights advocates continue to raise awareness.

Long-term solutions will require:

Stronger global regulations on data privacy and antitrust.

Investment in local digital infrastructure and open-source technology.

Public education on data rights and digital sovereignty.

Conclusion: The Digital Frontier Needs Ethical Rules

Digital colonialism is one of the most urgent global issues of our time. As we enter deeper into the digital age, we must ask tough questions about who controls our online lives — and fight for more equitable, democratic control over the digital world. This isn’t just about technology — it’s about freedom, sovereignty, and justice in the 21st century.

Written by MysticalOfTheNile Author of The United States of Rome Series Independent researcher exposing the hidden threads of imperial power, global finance, and ancient continuity.

Sources:

Kwet, M. (2019). Digital colonialism: US empire and the new imperialism in the Global South. Race & Class.

Nyabola, N. (2016). Facebook's Free Basics is an African dictator's dream. Foreign Policy.

Sherman, N., & Halpert, M. (2025). Tech billionaires Bezos and Zuckerberg attend Trump inauguration. BBC News.

A landmark legal battle unfolding in Kenya could set a global precedent, holding Meta – the world’s largest social media company – accountable for workers’ rights violations not only in Africa, but around the world.

In 2025, Meta has adopted an increasingly defiant tone on whether it should be held responsible for the real-world harm its platforms contribute to. This shift, widely seen as an effort to align with the returning Trump administration, was underscored by CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s announcement in January that Meta would end third-party fact-checking.

“We are going to work with President Trump to push back on governments around the world going after American companies and pushing to censor more,” Zuckerberg said in a video message, giving Meta’s product decisions a distinctly geopolitical twist.

To justify its rollback of content moderation, Meta invokes the U.S. Constitution and its protection of free speech. But in countries like Kenya, where I represent a group of former Meta content moderators in a class-action lawsuit, constitutional frameworks tell a different story. Many post-colonial nations, including Kenya, have constitutions that place a clear emphasis on protecting fundamental human rights—precisely because of past experiences with exploitation and abuse under colonial rule.

These constitutions are now being used to confront the global tech industry’s long-standing impunity.

In a groundbreaking ruling in September 2024, the Kenyan Court of Appeal affirmed that content moderators could sue Meta in the country’s labour courts. Though underreported in the West, this ruling marked a significant turning point. Meta clearly recognized its implications, fighting the decision in court and mobilizing diplomatic pressure in its aftermath. The company has since signaled its intention to appeal to Kenya’s Supreme Court.

Like many U.S. tech giants, Meta relies on a tangled web of subsidiaries and outsourcing arrangements to shield itself from local regulations, taxes, and accountability—despite operating at scale in countries around the world. In Kenya, for example, Meta claims it never directly employed the workers who moderated content on Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Messenger from 2019 to 2023. Instead, it points to Sama, a business process outsourcing (BPO) company based in Nairobi, as the sole employer.

The case now before Kenyan courts argues otherwise. Former content moderators were hired by Sama but worked exclusively on Meta platforms. They describe being misled about the nature of the work, expecting call centre or translation jobs. Instead, they were immersed in a brutal content moderation hub, forced to view violent and traumatic content daily—often from their own regions and communities.

These workers acted as the first and last line of defense against harmful content on Meta’s platforms. Many viewed their work as meaningful, even noble. But the psychological toll was devastating. Over 140 former moderators have since been diagnosed with PTSD, depression, or anxiety linked to their experiences. When some tried to unionize and demand better mental health support, they were met with mass layoffs. Meta quietly shifted its moderation operations elsewhere, leaving behind hundreds of traumatised workers and a trail of unresolved human rights abuses.

Throughout the ongoing litigation, Meta has repeatedly insisted it holds no responsibility for these workers. Meanwhile, it continues efforts to influence policy behind the scenes. In March 2024, Meta’s then-president of global affairs, Nick Clegg, led a delegation to meet Kenyan President William Ruto, reportedly to discuss future tech partnerships—including the promise of an AI-powered future for Africa.

Just months earlier, at a December townhall, Ruto told Sama representatives: “Now we have changed the law, so no one can ever take you to court again on any matter.” He was referring to a bill passed by parliament that effectively shields Big Tech companies from lawsuits like the one brought by the moderators.

These moves reflect a broader attempt to dodge accountability for the consequences of Meta’s products and labour practices. But despite these obstacles, the Kenyan court’s decision to allow the case to go to trial is a major victory—and a beacon of hope for tech workers globally.

This legal breakthrough is thanks in large part to the progressive nature of post-independence constitutions, especially in post-colonial countries where human dignity and protections from exploitation are enshrined as paramount values.