Transcending the boundaries of media: Appropriation of collective knowledge, transformation of labor and alternative futures

Today’s digital world has become the main stage for a fundamental conflict. On one side of this conflict are new control architectures that combine state and corporate power to manage public discourse and appropriate collective knowledge, while on the other side are new formations that aim to repurpose digital tools and spaces for democratic goals. This context also makes it imperative to redefine the importance of digital media literacy. Digital literacy is no longer merely the ability to identify misinformation, but also the capacity to understand how information is produced, who controls it, and for what purposes it is instrumentalized.

While the power of information is shaped by the structures that produce and disseminate it, the role of media users is also undergoing a fundamental transformation. In this new dynamic, enthusiastically referred to as “participatory culture” by figures such as Henry Jenkins, users are no longer passive recipients but active content producers and distributors. However, this participation itself often transforms into raw material for economic exploitation and political manipulation rather than democratic potential.

The concept of the “Censorship-Industrial Complex,” which has gained popularity in recent years, is used to describe this control architecture, i.e., the collaboration between state institutions and technology companies (Shellenberger, 2023; ADF International, 2024). However, this concept risks obscuring the structural dynamics at the root of the problem by framing censorship as a deviation from democratic functioning. On the other hand, when we view it not as an anomaly but as a necessary mechanism that (digital) capitalism resorts to in order to manage its own contradictions and maintain the conditions for capital accumulation, the state emerges as an actor that protects the interests of the ruling class and regulates the digital sphere in favor of capital. Therefore, the movements that are emerging against this multi-layered domination and are based on solidarity are opening the door to a more just future by defending not only freedom of expression but also labor and the commons.

Control architecture: the censorship-industrial complex and the appropriation of collective intelligence

The “Censorship-Industrial Complex” refers to a structural partnership between state power and private platform infrastructure aimed at regulating public discourse. This complex operates through a mechanism whereby the state uses technology companies as de facto agents, transcending constitutional limits on state control. This dynamic materializes in situations where government agencies exert direct or indirect pressure on platforms to align their content moderation policies with political objectives (U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, & Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, 2024).

One of the most prominent examples of this structure is observed in Turkey. Law No. 5651 and amendments to this law have made social media companies appoint representatives in Turkey, directly subjecting platforms to the state’s judicial mechanisms and forcing companies to comply with content removal requests (ARTICLE 19, 2021; Human Rights Watch, 2022). This mechanism has become even more institutionalized with the addition of vague terms such as the article added in 2022 defining the crime of “publicly disseminating misleading information.” Institutions such as the Venice Commission have noted that such laws have a profound chilling effect on freedom of expression and pave the way for arbitrary enforcement (Venice Commission, 2022). This legal architecture is supported by a central strategic institution such as the Presidency of Communications and operational units such as the Disinformation Combat Center (DMM) affiliated with it.

This political act of censorship is also directly linked to a deeper economic process, namely the appropriation of collective knowledge. To understand this connection, we need to look at the nature of the technology referred to as “artificial intelligence.” As Matteo Pasquinelli points out, artificial intelligence can be seen not as an imitation of biological intelligence, but as a system based on the automation of collective labor and social knowledge through coding. This process is a continuation of the historical practice of capital observing workers’ knowledge and skills and transferring them to machines to control the production process. Today’s artificial intelligence systems also appropriate this collective social knowledge, which Marx called the “general intellect” (Pasquinelli, 2023).

At this point, the Censorship-Industrial Complex ceases to be merely a tool of political repression and becomes an economic regulatory mechanism. By filtering, regulating, and removing unwanted elements from data circulating in the public sphere, it ensures that collective knowledge, the raw material of automation, is shaped in a way that aligns with the interests of the state and corporations.

Thus, censorship acts as a kind of curation function for the artificial intelligence economy, deciding which information is valuable and which is worthless, and transforming “general intelligence” into a “clean” source for capital accumulation. This situation creates a symbiotic relationship between authoritarian political control and exclusionary artificial intelligence capitalism. The state’s need for political control produces the regulated and “cleansed” data sets that companies require for their artificial intelligence models. Thus, political pressure creates ideal conditions for economic exploitation.

The material reality and human cost of these automation systems are often overlooked. Tasks such as content moderation, data labeling, and quality control are carried out by an army of workers operating under precarious conditions, enabling the internet to appear “smart” (Jarrett, 2022). This exploitation creates a geographical division of labor that deepens global inequalities. For example, some of the most traumatic data labeling and content moderation work done for companies like OpenAI and Meta is carried out by workers in countries like Kenya, where hourly wages can drop below 2 dollars (Perrigo, 2023; Perrigo, 2022). These workers immediately lose control over the data they produce, which can then be used as a tool to manipulate them. The work process becomes fragmented, devoid of autonomy, and mechanical under algorithmic management (Capitani, 2025). These conditions reproduce the forms of alienation described by Marx by separating the worker from their creative potential (the product of their labor), the work process, and other people due to the competitive, isolated work environment (Marx, 1959; Capitani, 2025). This situation is not a random byproduct of the system but a structural prerequisite. The appropriation of collective intelligence is only possible through the separation of workers from their labor products and processes.

The quest for collective autonomy: labor, data, and infrastructure

In opposition to this dominant paradigm based on control, appropriation, and exploitation, counter-movements aimed at reclaiming control over labor, data, and infrastructure are emerging. Though these resistances often take the form of isolated and independent efforts, they collectively form the interconnected pillars of building holistic autonomy in the digital realm. True digital autonomy is only possible through the simultaneous and collective reclaiming of all three areas: labor, data, and infrastructure.

One concrete example of this resistance is the Alphabet Workers Union (AWU), a strategic organizational innovation developed in response to the labor model of the technology industry. The union adopts a “wall-to-wall” organizational model that directly challenges the two-tiered system (full-time employees and temporary/contract workers) used by technology companies to divide their workforce. This model aims to eliminate artificial class divisions and build collective power by uniting a programmer with a janitor or an engineer with a content moderator under the same roof. The union also pursues a “pre-majority” strategy, organizing publicly and building power through direct action rather than waiting for legal recognition (McCreery, 2024). The AWU represents the first step in the struggle for autonomy by rebuilding collective power against the fragmentation of labor.

Parallel to the struggle for control over labor, there is also a struggle for control over data, the raw material of digitalization. One of the most transformative frameworks in this area is the CARE Principles developed by the Global Indigenous Data Alliance (GIDA) (Global Indigenous Data Alliance, 2019). CARE offers a radical alternative to colonial and exclusionary data governance models, reimagining data as a tool for liberation. These principles are based on four pillars: Collective Benefit, Control Authority, Accountability, and Ethics. This framework advocates that data should be used not only for external actors but primarily for the well-being of the relevant community, that communities should have sovereignty over their own data, and that those working with data should be accountable to the communities (Carroll et al., 2020).

A concrete example of this approach can be seen in the work carried out by the Māori community in New Zealand under the leadership of Te Hiku Media. Te Hiku Media was established as an iwi (tribe) radio station to revive the Te Reo Māori language, which had been suppressed by colonialism. Over time, they realized that using corporate platforms like YouTube amounted to a form of “digital colonialism,” as it meant handing over their cultural data—and thus their sovereignty—to these companies. In response, they decided to build their own autonomous infrastructure, starting by creating their own content platform, Whare Kōrero, to host the archives they had accumulated over more than 30 years. They then launched the Papa Reo project to develop their own artificial intelligence language models (speech-to-text, pronunciation tools, etc.) using their own data.

This project does not merely utilize technology, but also reshapes it in accordance with its own cultural values. The most critical part of the process is the “Kaitiakitanga License,” which they developed as an alternative to Western concepts of ownership. This license is based on the principle of ‘kaitiakitanga’ (stewardship, guardianship) rather than “ownership.” It ensures that data is a shared asset of the community, that any benefits derived from it must be returned to the community, and that data cannot be used for harmful purposes such as surveillance.  Te Hiku Media offers a comprehensive model that successfully combines the three pillars of digital autonomy by controlling its own labor (technology team), data (Kaitiakitanga License), and infrastructure (Papa Reo platform).

Meanwhile, efforts to rebuild the media are also taking shape in concrete institutional structures. Founded in 2014, The Bristol Cable is a media cooperative owned by thousands of local members and democratically controlled by them under the principle of “one member, one vote.” This structure holds The Cable accountable not to shareholders or advertisers, but directly to the community it serves. The cooperative, which achieves financial independence through a hybrid model consisting of membership fees and grants from foundations that adhere to ethical principles, engages in investigative journalism in the public interest while avoiding both state pressure and market censorship. This model demonstrates that transcending the boundaries of the media is possible not only through content but also by fundamentally changing ownership and management structures. The Bristol Cable’s quest for autonomy also extends to its technological infrastructure. Instead of relying on expensive, data-exploitative software available on the market for membership management, the cooperative built its own in-house system called “beabee.” By developing its own technology, it both protects member data from third-party platform oversight and reduces its dependence on large technology companies, thereby building infrastructural autonomy. This effort enables other community-focused media organizations to build similar autonomy.

Models such as platform cooperativism also offer more equitable structures by democratizing ownership and management (Scholz, 2016). However, such structures often remain dependent on the infrastructure of large technology companies, such as cloud computing. As an alternative to this dependency, federated social networks such as Mastodon have emerged in recent years. These networks consist of thousands of independent servers that can communicate with each other, rather than being under the control of a single company (Zignani et al., 2023). This structure theoretically offers a more resistant model against censorship and one based on community control, but it also faces challenges such as financial sustainability.

Toward a common future

The resistance movements emerging against the integrated system formed by the Censorship-Industrial Complex and its economic foundations must not be isolated reactions but rather complementary parts of a counter-strategy. These movements challenge the system’s three pillars simultaneously: the exploitation of labor, the appropriation of knowledge, and infrastructural dependency. The Alphabet Workers Union directly intervenes against exploitation by challenging the artificial divisions that fragment and devalue labor at the heart of tech giants. The CARE Principles and the practices of the Māori community fundamentally undermine the logic of appropriation by returning ownership of collective knowledge (data) produced by labor back to the communities that produce it. Models such as media cooperatives like The Bristol Cable and federated networks hold the potential to concretize infrastructural autonomy.

The reclamation of labor, data, and tools lays the groundwork for establishing holistic autonomy in the digital realm. These approaches not only resist the current system but also offer a concrete vision for the democratic infrastructures of the future. The models presented are not merely “more ethical” alternatives to profit- and manipulation-oriented platforms, but structures that fundamentally transform ownership, management, and the logic of “value.” Their primary goal is not to commodify user data, but to preserve and develop community knowledge as a shared asset.

In this context, the concept of digital media literacy also undergoes a transformation. It is no longer a passive defense mechanism where individuals protect themselves from disinformation; instead, it becomes a constructive skill that involves active participation in the construction and management of newly established, collectively based, and democratically managed infrastructures. The real transformation depends not so much on a technological solution as on the spread of the aforementioned social and organizational innovations. The potential to reclaim collective knowledge and labor not for the benefit of a handful of actors but for the empowerment of everyone lies in these new and autonomous infrastructures, where the seeds of resistance are sprouting.

References

• ADF International. (2024, 9 Aralık). What is the Censorship Industrial Complex?
• AIT Staff Writer. (2024, 13 Şubat). Reviving Te Reo Māori: Unleashing the power of AI for language preservation and promotion. AiThority.
• ARTICLE 19. (2021, 19 Mayıs). Turkey: Blog: Regulating disinformation and social media platforms ‘alla Turca’.
• Capitani, E. (2025). Perspectives of alienation in the digital labour market: A debate and empirical proposals between philosophy, sociology and human rights. IUS ET SCIENTIA, 11(1), 220–249.
• Carroll, S. R., Garba, I., Figueroa-Rodríguez, O. L., Holbrook, J., Lovett, R., Materechera, S., Parsons, M., Raseroka, K., Rowe, R. K., Sara, R., Walker, J. D., Anderson, J., & Hudson, M. (2020). The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance. Data Science Journal, 19(1), 43.
• Global Indigenous Data Alliance. (2019). CARE principles for indigenous data governance.
• Human Rights Watch. (2022, 14 Ekim). Turkey: Dangerous, dystopian new legal amendments.
• İfade Özgürlüğü Derneği. (2024). EngelliWeb 2023.
• Jarrett, K. (2022). Digital labor. Polity Press.
• Marx, K. (1959). Economic and philosophic manuscripts of 1844. Progress Publishers.
• McCreery, I. (2024, 6 Mart). The Alphabet Workers Union. Worker-Organizing.org.
• Pasquinelli, M. (2023). The Eye of The Master: A Social History of Artificial Intelligence. Verso Books.
• Perrigo, B. (2022, 14 Şubat). Inside Facebook’s African sweatshop. Time.
• Perrigo, B. (2023, 18 Ocak). OpenAI used Kenyan workers on less than $2 per hour to make ChatGPT less toxic. Time.
• Raj, A. (2024, 23 Ocak). Preserving indigenous languages with AI. Tech Wire Asia.
• Scholz, T. (2016). Platform cooperativism: Challenging the corporate sharing economy. Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung.
• Shellenberger, M. (2023, 9 Mart). The Censorship Industrial Complex: U.S. government support for domestic censorship and disinformation campaigns, 2016 – 2022. Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, U.S. House of Representatives.
• U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, & Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. (2024, 1 Mayıs). The censorship industrial complex: How top Biden White House officials coerced big tech to censor Americans, true information, and critics of the Biden administration.
• Venice Commission. (2022). Turkey – Urgent joint opinion of the Venice Commission and the Directorate General of Human Rights and Rule of Law (DGI) of the Council of Europe on the draft amendments to the Penal Code regarding the provision on “false or misleading information” (Opinion No. 1102/2022, CDL-AD(2022)034).
• Zignani, M., Giglietto, F., & Cointet, J.-P. (2023). The moderation dilemma on Mastodon. arXiv.

(NG/SA/VK)