Data colonialism must be theorized by combining, not choosing among, critical frameworks

Evidence

As the first subjects of an emerging data colonialism, we can make sense of this complexity only within the much longer history of colonialism and capitalism. … Rather than positioning our argument exclusively within Marxism, postcolonialism, Foucauldian analyses of biopolitics, or critical-information science, our aim is to put these perspectives into conversation, taking the best from each to forge a new starting point adequate to today’s complex transformations and their hidden violence. — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection, 57

Categorization

• DEFINE: Establishes data colonialism as a synthetic theoretical frame drawing on Marxism, postcolonialism, biopolitics, and critical information science.
• XREF: Directly frames the rival-school comparison the reader seeks: how data colonialism positions itself against Foucauldian surveillance analytics. — connects to: Data colonialism is misread through Autonomist Marxism’s labor framework and needs a colonial-era timescale — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection: How Data Is…, 153; Data colonialism, social quantification, and Cloud Empire form a single framework — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection: How Data Is…, 163; the MOC “The Word Is a Fence: Language as Battleground, Property, and Partition”