Does governing artificial intelligence mean governing data? When looking at data (governance), what do we not see?

This commentary responds to Taylor et al.'s proposal for global data and artificial intelligence (AI) justice principles. While the proposed data governance framework is timely and important, I offer two provocations to invite critical reflection on the limits of the data-centric approaches to governing AI and digital societies more broadly. Drawing on the findings from the ERC INFO-LEG project, first, I argue that framing digital problems primarily in terms of data risks oversimplification of such problems, which are often complex socio-technical and political affairs. Second, I caution that data governance and the ensuing uncertainties of the boundaries of included data and groups can distract from the essence of the problems at hand, facilitating evasion strategies for powerful actors, for example, by navigating technical and legal complexity to their advantage. I advocate for more context-specific approaches to governing digital societies, where data governance may be part of the solution but not the starting point.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Dialogues on Digital Society
Published
2025-05-06
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/29768640251339077
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.37

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Does governing artificial intelligence mean governing data? When looking at data (governance), what do we not see?

Nadezhda Purtova
1 citations
Dialogues on Digital Society
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
2.37
article

Does governing artificial intelligence mean governing data? When looking at data (governance), what do we not see?

Nadezhda Purtova
article en
1 citations

Abstract

This commentary responds to Taylor et al.'s proposal for global data and artificial intelligence (AI) justice principles. While the proposed data governance framework is timely and important, I offer two provocations to invite critical reflection on the limits of the data-centric approaches to governing AI and digital societies more broadly. Drawing on the findings from the ERC INFO-LEG project, first, I argue that framing digital problems primarily in terms of data risks oversimplification of such problems, which are often complex socio-technical and political affairs. Second, I caution that data governance and the ensuing uncertainties of the boundaries of included data and groups can distract from the essence of the problems at hand, facilitating evasion strategies for powerful actors, for example, by navigating technical and legal complexity to their advantage. I advocate for more context-specific approaches to governing digital societies, where data governance may be part of the solution but not the starting point.

Dialogues on Digital Society
Utrecht University (NL)
H2020 European Research Council
Openalex Percentile: Top 12%
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
2.37
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Does governing artificial intelligence mean governing data? When looking at data (governance), what do we not see? — Nadezhda Purtova · Dialogues on Digital Society (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS