(The original Turkish version of this article was published by the Platform: Current Muslim Affairs on September 3, 2025)
Digital colonialism is emerging in the modern era as a data-driven form of classical colonialism. While global corporations expand their influence across the political, economic, and cultural spheres, they erode the digital independence of Muslim societies. Confronting this threat requires cooperation, fair technological alternatives, and a conscious stance.
Aimé Césaire describes colonialism as “the diabolical shadow of a civilization that feels compelled to extend the competition between rival economies on a global scale” (Césaire, 2005). Colonialism, which for centuries manifested as a struggle for domination across the global sphere, defines a relationship of power. This relationship reflects a Eurocentric form of authority, political and economic, established by the “strong and superior” over others (Osterhammel & Jansen, 2023). Such authority possesses the ability to reproduce itself according to shifting conditions and circumstances. Ghana’s founding president, Kwame Nkrumah, interprets the independence processes of African colonies within this framework. According to Nkrumah, the withdrawal of colonial powers from their colonies after World War II represents a “neo-colonial” strategy. Global events and transformations compelled colonial powers to retreat physically from their colonies, yet in order to safeguard their political and economic interests, they devised new strategies aimed at maintaining colonial domination (Nkrumah, 1966).
Although colonialism has been reproduced in line with global changes and transformations, it has classically been practiced through similar methods. What we may call classical colonialism was broadly characterized by the direct control of resources, the exploitation of labor and the workforce, cultural erosion, and the establishment of political, economic, and military hegemony to ensure the continuity of all these (Osterhammel & Jansen, 2023). Highlighting these characteristics of classical colonialism and bringing the discussion to the present, we now encounter a different, updated, new-generation form of colonialism: Digital Colonialism.
Technological advancements and the digitalization of societies and states have paved the way for colonialism to take shape on new ground. Emerging as digital colonialism, this new-generation colonialism represents a stage in which colonial practices are reproduced within the digital realm. Scholars Nick Couldry and Ulises A. Mejias, who have made significant contributions to the development of this concept, define digital colonialism as “a process involving the appropriation of digital processes and products in order to expand capitalist powers’ control over societies and territories” (Couldry & Mejias, 2019). According to Couldry and Mejias, digital colonialism adapts the historical dynamics of colonialism to the digital age, extracting value from digital data and exploiting it in ways that expand the colonial domain (Couldry & Mejias, 2019). In this new form, the British Empire’s pursuit of gold and precious minerals in Africa has been replaced by the pursuit of data collection. At the same time, colonial companies such as the Royal African Company, once among the most significant stakeholders in British colonialism in Africa (Çalışkan, 2022), have been succeeded by massive global corporations such as Google, Meta, Apple, and Amazon. One of the core motivations of digital colonialism is data colonialism. The data collected is processed through specific algorithms, offering wide-ranging applications that can generate political, economic, and cultural impacts (Helms, 2024). At this point, the most excellent form of domination exercised by digital colonialism lies in the fact that states and individuals, as digital users, lack control over their own data, instead relinquishing this control, ostensibly with consent, to digital platforms and mechanisms.
Although digital colonialism differs from classical colonialism in methods and practices, its core motivations are similar. For example, for Britain, the primary means of keeping colonies under control involved dominating political and military structures. To institutionalize this, bodies such as the Colonial Office were formed to keep political life and administrations in the colonies under supervision. Colonial policies were developed to preserve Britain’s global hegemony, and the colonies were kept under influence and pressure (Ferguson, 2015). Similarly, in digital colonialism, states that dominate technology can carry out digital interventions to exert influence and pressure over governments in line with their interests. This situation brings debates on digital sovereignty and independence to the fore. Technology companies, and the states that exert influence over them, have the power to affect individuals’ choices and public opinion by using misinformation and propaganda to politically manipulate, especially around elections. The Cambridge Analytica scandal, in which the data of millions of Facebook users were obtained without consent in 2014 and used to influence voters on behalf of politicians, is a significant example of how digital platforms can be used to manipulate election outcomes and political preferences (Kılınç, 2023).
In addition to its political impact, the economic dimension of digital colonialism must also be examined. Global corporations, through the digital platforms they own, invest in developing policies that drive users toward consumption and sustain it continuously. These investments translate into efforts to generate economic value by processing users’ data for purposes such as advertising, developing artificial intelligence algorithms, and conducting market analysis. In all these processes, companies like Google, Meta, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft, operating on a data-centric model and exploiting such data for economic gain, not only pose a threat to local economies but also weaken the competitiveness of local enterprises in the global market, restructuring local economic dynamics to their own advantage (Kwet, 2019). These corporate activities transform societies and individuals, equipped with and integrated into digital products, into subjects of digital colonialism. Moreover, the content produced and disseminated through digital platforms erodes the cultural norms and values of societies and individuals, alongside its political and economic effects (Srnicek, 2017). Platforms with unlimited content encourage individuals to consume what is produced and, through this content, impose various ideas and behaviors. A widely debated example supporting this argument is the persistent presentation of content promoting homosexuality on global hegemonic platforms such as Netflix (Burç & Mazıcı, 2025).
Digital colonialism emerges as a new-generation form of colonialism whose political, economic, and cultural impacts are intensifying. At this point, the question of how to limit the domination of digital colonialism over states, societies, and individuals, and how to resist its expansionist drive, framed through Lenin’s famous question, “What is to be done?”, becomes especially critical. From the late 19th century onward, this was the central question for Muslim countries and non-Western societies in their struggle against European colonialism. During the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, resisting destructive European colonialism and confronting the “one-fanged monster” was a central issue. The global colonial network established by Western powers posed political, economic, social, and cultural threats to Muslim societies. As emphasized in Surah An-Nisa (4:71): “O you who have believed, take your precautions and [either] go forth in companies or go forth all together for battle,” the need to collaborate against colonial Europe was underscored, with debates centered on creating alternatives to Western colonial dominance, particularly in the fields of industry and commerce (Kara, 1994). Reflecting on the present, one may argue that we face a similar challenge today. Just as classical colonialism restructured itself and evolved, digital colonialism now threatens societies and states alike. Muslim societies, in particular, confront risks such as the loss of digital independence and security, the erosion of social values, the violation of personal privacy, and the reduction of individuals to objects of consumption. In this regard, the struggle against digital colonialism must address not only political and economic concerns but also the spiritual anxieties of Muslim societies.
Various alternative strategies can be developed to counter the material and spiritual threats of digital colonialism. In this regard, priority should be given to encouraging the production of local hardware and software to support digital independence, establishing cloud infrastructures that ensure data security, enacting laws that protect data, and formulating fairer digital trade policies. Additionally, efforts should be made to raise digital literacy and awareness levels within Muslim societies, including the integration of curricula in schools designed to confront digital colonialism (Atayurt, 2018). Equally important is fostering joint initiatives among Muslim countries, which could lead to a more effective struggle against digital colonialism. At a global scale, Muslim nations could develop a shared digital vision and strengthen digital cooperation, acting collectively against this new generation of colonialism. They could share existing or newly developed technologies, collaborate on joint digital infrastructures, artificial intelligence models, and digital investments. Common digital payment systems, social media platforms, and content platforms could be produced, while technology transfer could enhance digital partnerships among Muslim countries. Altogether, these efforts would not only safeguard political and economic independence but also preserve spiritual independence, representing a comprehensive form of cooperation against digital colonialism.
Just as classical colonialism reinvented itself, the new-generation form of digital colonialism now threatens societies and states. Muslim societies in particular face dangers such as the loss of digital independence and security, the erosion of social values, the violation of personal privacy, and the reduction of individuals to mere objects of consumption.
Türkiye holds significant potential to take the lead in fostering digital cooperation, particularly among Muslim countries, in the struggle against digital colonialism. In recent years, efforts in Türkiye aimed at achieving digital independence have intensified, and initiatives to create alternatives in various fields to counter digital domination have steadily increased. While these efforts are important and valuable, it must be emphasized that the alternative platforms to be created should operate at a level capable of generating global impact. Indeed, combating digital colonialism seems unlikely through alternatives that remain purely local. The primary reason for the success of corporations and platforms that embody digital colonialism is their global reach. Therefore, pursuing initiatives that can function and be accepted on a worldwide scale and approaching alternative projects with this vision and perspective will be more effective. In this regard, it is also crucial for wealthier Muslim countries to support these efforts and contribute through joint investments, as this would benefit both Türkiye and the broader region. Encouragingly, many technologies developed in Türkiye in recent years, most notably in the defense industry, have gained global recognition, attracted investments, and received support from Muslim countries. At a time when digitized defense policies are increasingly coming to the forefront worldwide, the international recognition of Türkiye’s UAV and UCAV technologies, along with their success in breaking the monopoly of other countries in this field, stands out as a highly strategic development not only for Türkiye but also for Muslim societies more broadly. Advancing these achievements and striving to produce more digital solutions will be crucial in the ongoing struggle against digital colonialism.
The digital world has brought with it a form of digital hegemony that permeates nearly every aspect of human daily life. While this demonstrates that the struggle against digital colonialism is complex and challenging, it must also be emphasized that producing alternative technologies and developing them on a global scale is indeed possible. Technology itself provides this potential. Barbaros Hayreddin Pasha, the greatest seafarer of the 16th century, seems to have recognized the European efforts to initiate global colonialism through maritime dominance when he declared: “He who rules the seas, rules the world” (Kaymal, 2017). In this context, his famous phrase can be updated as: “He who rules the digital realm, rules the world.” Acknowledging this reality and working with such awareness has become indispensable.
“He who rules the digital realm, rules the world.”
References
Atayurt, U. (2018, Kasım 17). Dijital sömürgecilik çağında ne yapmalı? Birartıbir. https://birartibir.org/dijital-somurgecilik-caginda-ne-yapmali/
Burç, N., & Mazıcı, E. (2025). Kültür emperyalizminin Netflix üzerinden okunmasına yönelik bir araştırma. İletişim ve Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(1), 159–188.
Calışkan, E. (2022). İngiliz sömürge şirketlerinin sömürge siyasetindeki rolü: Doğu Hindistan Şirketi, Kraliyet Afrika Şirketi, Virginia Şirketi örnekleri. Ulisa: Uluslararası Çalışmalar Dergisi, 6(2), 107–120.
Césaire, A. (2005). Sömürgecilik üzerine söylev. İstanbul: Doğu Kütüphanesi.
Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. (2019). The costs of connection: How data is colonizing human life and appropriating it for capitalism. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Ferguson, N. (2015). İmparatorluk: Britanya’nın modern dünyayı biçimlendirişi. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
Helms, N. (2024, Kasım 21). Digital colonialism in the global sphere. Arts Management and Technology Lab. https://amt-lab.org/blog/2024/11/digital-colonialism-in-the-global-sphere
Kara, İ. (1994). İslamcıların Siyasi Görüşleri. İstanbul: İz Yayıncılık.
Kaymal, T. (2017, Mayıs 30). “Denizlere hâkim olan cihana hâkim olur” sözünü kim söylemiştir? Bahriye Enstitüsü. https://bahriyeenstitusu.org/2017/05/30/denizlere-hakim-olan-cihana-hakimolur-sozunu-kim-soylemistir/
Kılınç, Ş. (2023, Mayıs 28). Seçimlerin öyle sadece sandıkta başlayıp bitmediğini gösteren tarihin en büyük manipülasyon skandalı: Cambridge Analytica. WebTekno. https://www.webtekno.com/cambridge-analytica-nedir-h134236.html
Kwet, M. (2019, Mart 13). Digital colonialism is threatening the Global South. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/3/13/digital-colonialism-is-threatening-the-global-south
Nkrumah, K. (1966). Emperyalizmin son aşaması: Yeni sömürgecilik. İstanbul: Gerçek Yayınevi.
Osterhammel, J., & Jansen, J. (2023). Sömürgecilik: Tarihi, biçimleri ve sonuçları. İstanbul: Runik Kitap.
Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
*Opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Platform: Current Muslim Affairs’ editorial policy.
