Resisting data colonialism requires an ecology-of-life frame, not legal regulation

Evidence

Moving decisively away from individualistic notions of autonomy, freedom, and privacy, we can argue that the datafied social governance and incursions into the self’s minimal integrity discussed in part II of the book together constitute an environment that is toxic for human life. The way forward lies less in the detail of legal regulation and more in defending an ecology of human life that connects with the visions of those who have resisted colonialism and capitalism for centuries. — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection, 567

Categorization

• XREF: The claim that legal regulation is secondary, not primary, to resisting data colonialism sharply departs from both the attention/surveillance school (which advocates platform regulation) and the mainstream privacy-law response. Also invokes post-/decolonial literature connecting digital extraction to centuries-old colonial resistance. — connects to: Addressing data colonialism requires major new legal innovation. — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection: How Data Is…, 551; Data colonialism constitutes an antiecology that disrupts the self’s home space — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection: How Data Is…, 606; Data colonialism erodes the rational subject whose autonomy legitimizes law itself — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection: How Data Is…, 564 (+5 more)
• SEED: Article angle: why the data-colonialism school rejects the regulatory-first response — legal fixes assume the very autonomous legal subject data colonialism is dismantling.

Broader Connections

• Data colonialism constitutes an antiecology that disrupts the self’s home space #expands (0.78) — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection, 606