There is a dedicated term used to describe “occupying your living and working environment by forcing oneself intimately, emotionally, and physically onto you, whether you like it or not” – it’s called colonialism.
That’s exactly how big corps like Microsoft has been pushing their AI agenda through forced AI adoption. Like an exhibitionist, their AI tools are exposing themselves to you all over the digital environment purchased by your organization from those very tech corps – whether you like it or not.
You don’t get to say no. Your environment is being colonized by AI products and you are being technologically colonized.
Is it still colonialism if you’re enjoying it? After all, AI can be really helpful and enjoyable, right?
I’m afraid it definitively still is because it’s not about whether you like it, but about whether you consent to it.
Just because someone says it’s good for you, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s actually good for you – in the same sense that just because you think it’s bad for you, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s not good for you. How you decide on those things depends on who you trust. Who you trust is a matter of consent.
Adopting AI doesn’t have to be so forceful and violating.
If the decision makers at the top of the organizations allow big corps to force it onto us, then we’ve got a political – not technical – problem to solve.
AI is extremely useful and it will change our society and ourselves in ways we couldn’t even imagine, both positively and negatively. But getting there is a journey with worthy obstacles.
Instead of complicitly allowing the big corps perpetuate forced AI adoption, maybe we should take decolonization seriously and demand AI adoption based on individual consent and collective consensus.
Instead of blindly singing the AI praises, maybe we should take science seriously and advocate for positive use cases based on data, evidence, and empathy.
Instead of quietly avoiding the difficult conversations about change and transformation, maybe we should take human values seriously and advocate for building transformable and incorruptible organizations.
Originally I used the term “rape” instead of “colonialism” to describe this phenomenon: the “rape culture” of forced AI adoption. Fortuantely a helpful genAI convinced me to not use the former. What’s more, the genAI even provided a few intersting angles I might take on writing this post:
Corporate Paternalism Angle:
- Focus on how companies make decisions “for your own good” without consulting you
- Compare to other forms of paternalistic control in society
- Emphasize the erosion of user agency and choice
Digital Colonialism Framework:
- Explore how tech companies impose their tools and worldviews
- Discuss the extraction of data and attention without meaningful consent
- Address power imbalances between corporations and individuals
Informed Consent in Technology:
- Draw parallels to medical informed consent – you should understand what’s being done to you and why
- Discuss how current “consent” mechanisms (like terms of service) are inadequate
- Explore what genuine digital consent would look like
Economic Coercion Perspective:
- Address how workplace AI adoption removes individual choice
- Discuss the “adapt or get left behind” pressure
- Examine how corporate decisions affect individual autonomy
Key themes to develop:
- The illusion of choice when alternatives don’t really exist
- How convenience can mask loss of agency
- The difference between beneficial outcomes and consensual processes
- Power dynamics in the digital workplace
You get the point and I don’t have to delve deep into all those for you to know that–
Forced AI adoption is technological colonialism. It’s bad for people being technologically colonized and it’s bad for real, meaningful AI adoption.
Noah Fang 