This is a semi-automated translation from original text published in spanish.

To me, technology, especially information technology, belongs to a world between the rigid sciences and art: no design can be identical to the previous one, both because of the context and the vision in which it is created, as it depends on the understanding of the problem, the existing tools, as well as the influence of the political, social, environmental, and economic context in which it develops.

This juncture, in my opinion, is what allows us to intervene in the conceptualization, development, and implementation of decolonial technologies. That is to say, if we truly want to change technology, we must alter the systems that give it life and how it is used.

In my view, for technology to be decolonial, it must either:

a) support a decolonial project that dismantles hegemonic visions of being, knowledge, and power, or

b) confront (one or more of) the oppressive systems: colonialism, capitalism, and patriarchy, or

c) support communities in strengthening or seeking their autonomy, or their life projects outside the colonialist model.

Additionally, I believe there are certain characteristics that would allow us to truly establish the course we seek from its design:

• convivial and solidary: creating it in such a way that the people who use it become truly more autonomous, capable, free, and creative, and so that the environment in which they operate is understood, defended, and maintained. Eradicating technology that only seeks to exploit human qualities for its own benefit or that operates destructively toward the environment.
• centered on care and dignity: developing it with empathy for the people using the tools, with the understanding that the goal is not the technology itself but to support or solve a problem. Not making people believe that because they are incapable of understanding or using a tool, they are lacking something. On the contrary, taking the time to make it clear and ensuring that people feel dignified when using the tool. Developing it using the appropriate amount of time, avoiding medium- or long-term damage by not having taken enough time to study and mitigate risks or side effects.
• free from the idea of perpetual growth: recognizing that to be useful, it does not need to grow exponentially or infinitely, and in some cases, it may be better for it to disappear once it becomes unnecessary after achieving its goal. If it disappears, it leaves no negative trace of its existence, meaning everything can be reused for new tools or reintegrated differently into the life cycle of the environment.
• communal or free from private economic interests: there is no need for it to be a capitalist business project, it can also be achieved through economic solidarity: collective funds, mutual support between users and creators, or cooperatives. In this way, the community created around it always has the power to choose its direction. Public funds from local or national institutions can also play a significant role. It is important to remember that many private projects began thanks to such resources.
• local in its conception: removing barriers that exclude people who do not speak a certain language in a locality, implementing it with an understanding of how a community transmits its information, using the means through which this is carried out. Abandoning the idea that success is only achieved by having a global presence or millions of active users.
• respectful of local knowledge: centuries of knowledge can be preserved if we discard the fallacy that one worldview is superior to another. Our ancestors also created a lot of technology that has allowed them to survive for centuries. Using that knowledge to create new technologies is also necessary to avoid breaking with our own existence.
• fully appropriable: completely accessible (both logically and physically) and auditable by interested entities. Therefore, it can also be used as a basis for building new derivative technologies, avoiding the waste of resources by reinventing something that already exists.
• without dismissing solutions that do not align with the center: letting go of the idea that it must be done in the same way that colonial centers create their technology. We do not have the same problems, history, context, or, in many cases, the same vision of the future.
• in constant flow between knowledge and experiences: creating it by combining the adaptation of new knowledge acquired by experts with the experiences of people who use the technology. Understanding that the expert’s perspective is focused and narrow and that their rationality is only a part of the design, implementation, and maintenance. Constant learning with communities, expressing their feelings, desires, and visions is what allows technology to evolve appropriately.

Infrastructure is also of utmost importance in achieving decolonial information technologies. In this regard, it would be appropriate to:

• build and manage it with public institutions that include local authorities: currently, much of the infrastructure, from fiber cables to the computers in data centers, is owned by private companies. This practice is based on and reinforces inequalities created by colonial processes [11]. Moreover, international institutions that govern access to infrastructure are often under the control of these companies (placing their representatives on governing boards), which is why timely questioning of these practices is rarely raised. Therefore, new institutions where effective representation of the nations hosting the infrastructure must be created. These representations appropriately raise questions about the relevance and benefits for their respective communities. The communities where the infrastructure resides or will reside exercise the questioning, consultation, debate, and decision-making, which they transmit to their national representations.
• build it with the same objectives as other types of civil infrastructure: currently, mega tech companies build infrastructure in places that allow them fiscal and legal advantages. When these no longer benefit them, they move their infrastructure elsewhere. Such practices must disappear. If the plan is not long-term and with a clear benefit for the place where it resides, it should be subjected to public scrutiny.
• build it without extracting more resources from the earth: current extractivist techniques destroy the environment where they are carried out [12]. They are often accompanied by social conflicts that sometimes lead to the deaths of territory defenders [13]. Even worse, the effects are multiplied solely by the existing pattern of artificial demand from colonialist countries: currently, only 6% of the population consumes more than 25% of the metals extracted to build electronic devices [14], mostly to satisfy compulsive and unnecessary purchases. Tech companies do not do enough to address this [15] because it is not economically convenient for them. Given all the above, decolonial technology must abandon these extractivist models, making use of previously extracted materials or generating new techniques with materials that do not cause environmental harm or social conflict.
• keep it under local institutional control so that the extraction model from the peripheries to the center can no longer be reproduced. This includes not only the physical elements of the infrastructure but also the intangible elements, for example: the information stored in data centers. This exercise also rests on the use and creation of appropriate protocols for the exchange of these elements.

The vision presented here is not exhaustive, as creating decolonial technologies represents an enormous challenge given current conditions and the dynamics of the field. In various points and with varying scopes, there are already people and organizations working on these issues, generating knowledge and practices that question the dominant model. It is important to remember that this is a systemic problem, and as such, it requires advancing step by step until reaching tipping points that trigger radical changes.

The exercise of creating decolonial technologies is fundamental for dismantling the structures that perpetuate inequality and exploitation. By working collectively, with respect, dignity, and mutual support, we can not only develop tools that address current problems but also chart a path toward a more just future, where technology serves humanity and not private and hegemonic interests.

It is often said that “it’s easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism,” and every time I hear this phrase, it deeply unsettles me. Behind this exercise is the conviction that we must imagine another future to make it possible. A future where we inhabit the world we deserve and need: free from colonialism, capitalism, and patriarchy.