MECM90002 · Global Data Policy And Governance
Latin American Perspectives
Latin America is the third guest-lectured region (Dr Silvia Montaña-Niño, Week 10), and the lecture title is the thesis: “Between Populism and Corporate Platforms: The Crisis of Digital Governance in Latin America.” The region is read through a post-colonial legacy — from colonies to unstable democracies and, at times, autocratic regimes — layered with highly concentrated media, government–media alliances and a freedom of expression under continuous pressure. The single most important concept is digital corporate sovereignty: on Becerra & Waisbord’s reading (2021), LATAM has accepted corporate self-regulation as its bedrock, so platforms become the gatekeepers of public discourse — “the curious absence of cybernationalism.” That is the cleanest comparative hook in the whole subject: China asserts cyber-sovereignty (the state controls the network), the EU asserts data sovereignty (rights for the data subject), and LATAM asserts neither — it cedes sovereignty to corporations. The crisis is taught as five problem dimensions (from the digital divide to foreign-cloud dependency), with the real problem being regulatory weakness, not the content of any one law, and lands on four cases — El Salvador, Venezuela, Brazil, Mexico — sovereignty contested four ways.
What this chapter covers
- 01'Between populism and corporate platforms' — the thesis
- 02Digital corporate sovereignty (Becerra & Waisbord)
- 03Why the 'absence of cybernationalism' is the comparative hook
- 04The five problem dimensions (divide → AI / cloud dependency)
- 05Regulatory weakness over codified law (Brazil's LGPD in context)
- 06Four cases — El Salvador, Venezuela, Brazil, Mexico
- 07Two pairs: state vs citizen, and state vs platform
Worked example: build the three-way sovereignty contrast (the cleanest LATAM hook)
- +1Name the bedrock concept. LATAM has accepted digital corporate sovereignty — corporate self-regulation as default, so platforms become the gatekeepers of public discourse (Becerra & Waisbord 2021).
- +1Set the contrast. China asserts cyber-sovereignty (state controls the network); the EU asserts data sovereignty (rights for the data subject); LATAM asserts neither.
- +1State the hook. ‘The curious absence of cybernationalism’ — LATAM cedes sovereignty to corporations rather than claiming it for the state or the citizen. That asymmetry is the cleanest comparative argument in the subject.
- +1Locate the real problem. The crisis is regulatory weakness, not the content of any one law — even Brazil’s LGPD sits within a region defined by weak enforcement.
- +1Dramatise with a case. Brazil’s X/Musk vs Justice de Moraes (2024) — ‘much more than a personal spat’: it is about national sovereignty, free speech and the rule of law colliding with platform power.
Key terms
- Digital corporate sovereignty
- The most important concept for the region (Becerra & Waisbord, 2021): LATAM has accepted corporate self-regulation and network neutrality as defaults, so platforms become the gatekeepers of public discourse. The region asserts neither state cyber-sovereignty (China) nor data sovereignty (the EU) — it cedes sovereignty to corporations.
- The absence of cybernationalism
- Becerra & Waisbord’s striking phrase for LATAM’s stance: unlike states that assert control over their networks, the region is marked by a ‘curious absence’ of such nationalism. It is the comparative hook — the contrast against China and the EU is the cleanest argument a LATAM essay can build.
- Regulatory weakness
- The lecture’s emphasis: LATAM’s real problem is weak enforcement, not the absence of statute. The region’s signature GDPR-style law — Brazil’s LGPD — exists within the post-GDPR legislative wave, but the throughline is that laws are under-enforced, so codified rights do not translate into protection.
- Techno-populist control
- The use of digital tools (spyware, disinformation, digital ID) by populist or authoritarian states to saturate the public sphere with ‘noise, fear and surveillance’ (Peres-Neto et al., 2026). El Salvador’s Pegasus deployment against journalists and Venezuela’s ‘Patria’ digital ID are the chapter’s exemplars — the state weaponising the digital against its own citizens.
- Foreign-cloud dependency
- The fifth problem dimension: LATAM’s reliance on foreign cloud providers (Amazon ~33%, Microsoft ~22%, Google ~10%; Ricaurte et al., 2024) and its role as a ‘laboratory for labour’ (Grohmann). It is the infrastructural face of digital corporate sovereignty — even the compute on which AI governance depends is not locally controlled.
Latin American Perspectives FAQ
What is the single most important concept for the LATAM chapter?
Digital corporate sovereignty. On Becerra & Waisbord’s reading, Latin America has accepted corporate self-regulation as its bedrock principle, so platforms — not the state or the citizen — become the gatekeepers of public discourse. Everything else in the chapter (the five dimensions, the four cases) illustrates this surrender of sovereignty.
Why is the 'absence of cybernationalism' such a strong essay hook?
Because it sets up a clean three-way contrast. China asserts cyber-sovereignty (the state controls the network); the EU asserts data sovereignty (rights for the data subject); LATAM asserts neither, ceding sovereignty to corporations. That asymmetry against two regions you already know is the cleanest comparative argument the subject offers for a Global-South essay.
If Brazil has the LGPD, why call the region's problem 'regulatory weakness'?
Because the lecture stresses weakness over statute. Brazil’s LGPD is a real GDPR-style law within the post-GDPR wave, but the regional throughline is under-enforcement: laws exist on paper while platforms operate in a near-total lack of effective regulation. The problem is the gap between codified law and actual enforcement, not the absence of legislation.
How should I organise the four cases?
Read them as two pairs. State vs citizen: El Salvador (Bukele’s Pegasus spyware on journalists) and Venezuela (the ‘Patria’ digital ID as surveillance in disguise) — the state weaponising digital tools. State vs platform: Brazil (X/Musk vs Justice de Moraes) and Mexico (suing Google over the ‘Gulf of America’ Maps renaming) — the state colliding with platforms over who is sovereign.
Exam move
Make digital corporate sovereignty the spine of any LATAM answer, and build the three-way sovereignty contrast (China cyber-sovereignty / EU data sovereignty / LATAM neither) as your headline comparative move — it is the cleanest argument the subject offers. Learn the five problem dimensions as a sequence from access to AI, with the strongest scholars on the last two (platforms as extractive powers; foreign-cloud dependency). Organise the four cases as two pairs (state-vs-citizen, state-vs-platform) so you can deploy one per argument. Keep the meta-point central: the region’s problem is regulatory weakness, not missing law — that distinction is what turns description into analysis.
