Earlier data-colonialism critiques treated the term only literally

Evidence

For rare anticipations of this colonial reading, see Cohen, “Biopolitical Public Domain”; Thatcher, O’Sullivan, and Mahmoudi, “Data Colonialism”; Shepherd, “Measured and Mined”; and Shepherd, “Neocolonial Intimacies.” Although the analysis done by Thatcher, O’Sullivan, and Mahmoudi is consistent with ours, their usage of the term data colonialism is explicitly metaphorical; rather than colonial, Cohen uses the term “postcolonial” and Shepherd the term “neocolonial.” There are also growing debates about neocolonial influence in the technology sector and in the use of data by development and humanitarian agencies; see https://globalstudies.trinity.duke.edu/volume-31-decolonizing-thedigitaldigital-decolonization. Particularly interesting is the work of Joanne Radin (“Digital Natives”) on the unreflexive use of health data from First Nation peoples in the United States in the “training” of artificial intelligence. For an analysis of AI practices that opens up a neocolonial perspective and was published as we completed this book, see Crawford and Joler, “Anatomy,” especially pp. 17–18. But none of these writers or approaches argue, as we do, that data practices literally represent a new stage of colonialism. — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection, 687

Categorization

• QUESTION: What evidence would establish the metaphor-vs-literal distinction, and is the literal claim really the stronger one?
• XREF: Maps the rival school’s internal taxonomy: metaphor (Thatcher), postcolonial (Cohen), neocolonial (Shepherd), literal (Couldry and Mejias). Key reference map for the attention vs. colonialism debate.
• SEED: Essay angle: ‘metaphor vs. literal’ in data-colonialism discourse — when does a contested frame harden into fact, and what rides on that move?