When Tatenda Chatikobo began his PhD at Rhodes University’s School of Journalism and Media Studies, he didn’t set out to indict the digital revolution. Like many, he had witnessed the optimism that surrounded bringing technology to underserved areas. But as his research deepened, he uncovered a more complicated reality – one that challenged the dominant narrative of digital empowerment and raised uncomfortable questions about who truly benefits from technology in the Global South.
His thesis, Digital Colonialism in the Global South: Experiences from a Marginalised Community in South Africa, examines experiences of digital technology in Dwesa, a rural community in the Eastern Cape that became the site of a long-term ICT-for-development initiative. For over a decade, it had connected the community to the internet and digital tools, aiming to stimulate local development and bridge digital inequalities.
But what happens when such projects end? What remains when the Wi-Fi signal fades?
Chatikobo’s work picks up where the hopeful stories of ‘digital inclusion’ often stop. “In simple terms, digital colonialism is when powerful countries and corporations (mainly big tech companies) exploit, own, and control digital infrastructure in ways that benefit them while creating power relations that harm people, society, and the environment,” he explains.
Through interviews, observation, and a deep review of existing studies, Chatikobo traced Dwesa’s evolving relationship with technology from 2006 to 2021. His findings show that digital interventions in marginalised communities can both empower and exclude – sometimes at the same time.
“With the potential of digital technologies to either facilitate transformation or reinforce marginalisation, I was really interested in looking at this dual dynamic in the context of a rural area in South Africa,” he says.
Dwesa’s story is emblematic of the broader tensions that define technological “progress” across the Global South. While digital tools have enabled easier access to information, education and government services, they have also introduced new dependencies and inequities. The end of local, community-driven initiatives, for example, has left many residents more reliant on commercial data providers and global digital platforms.
Chatikobo’s interviews revealed a shift from a communitarian model – whose residents could shape technology to meet their local needs – to a top-down digitalisation that often excludes them. “Current approaches to digital inclusion at the community level are increasingly taking on a top-down approach rather than supporting local/grassroots initiatives, and this has, in some ways, reinforced marginalisation for communities,” he says.
This is not just a South African story. Across the Global South, similar patterns emerge: technology offered as liberation, only to re-entrench old hierarchies in new digital forms. Chatikobo’s concept of “horizontal marginalisation” adds another layer – showing how technology can replicate inequalities even within communities. Smartphones, for instance, have become tools of connection and control, deepening gendered power dynamics and social pressures.
“Apart from being tools of empowerment, personal digital technologies showed potential to reinforce gendered power relationships within the community,” he notes. “For instance, the findings reveal how smartphones facilitated anxieties about being always available or maintaining ties, pressure to become more ‘urban’ and a fear of being ‘left behind’.”
His reflections on method were equally revealing. The COVID-19 pandemic, which halted travel and fieldwork, forced him to confront the ironies of researching digital inequality from a distance. “It was really a paradox and also a real existential dilemma for me,” he says. “But this was also an opportunity for me to reflect on what it means to decolonise empirical research.”
Through this lens, Chatikobo’s study is as much about rethinking research itself as it is about technology. It highlights the importance of letting communities lead – not just participate in – the conversations about their digital futures.
In a world increasingly shaped by algorithms, data, and digital dependence, his work offers both critique and hope. “To tackle digital colonialism, we must collectively support grassroots models for digital technology infrastructure development, as these would be better suited to address contextual needs,” he says.
Rhodes University’s research, exemplified by Chatikobo’s work, underscores a broader mission: to question, to serve, and to imagine more just and inclusive futures. His findings remind us that progress is not measured by how connected we are, but by who controls the connection – and whether it empowers or erases the people at its edges.