Cited by 0Indigenous Cultures and HistoryICT Impact and PoliciesCybersecurity and Cyber Warfare Studies

Review of Network Sovereignty: Building the Internet Across Indian Country, Marisa Elena Duarte

Open access
Montoya, Sarah Alyssa·2019·Catalyst: Feminism, Theory, Technoscience

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Sarah Alyssa Montoya reviews Marisa Elena Duarte's *Network Sovereignty: Building the Internet Across Indian Country*, arguing that the book offers a necessary intervention linking internet infrastructure to colonialism and settler colonialism but is weakened by a descriptive approach and thin theoretical engagement. Montoya concludes the text's "uneven development makes it difficult to appreciate Duarte's intervention."

Key findings

Montoya reports that Duarte argues there is "no totalizing discourse that can adequately address the needs of all Native communities," and that framing internet politics as "mere access" allows the settler state to "paternalistically deploy itself as a benevolent savior"; instead each community must self-govern and build ICT infrastructure reflecting its own "geopolitical ecologies and histories" (p. 43). Duarte's stated intention is threefold: integrate Native and Indigenous approaches into information studies, introduce information studies language to Native peoples and scholars, and consider how Native communities and tribal governments negotiate online representation and infrastructure creation (pp. 6–7). The book closes with a two-pronged approach: policies around Native ICTs reflecting the right to self-governance, and the decolonial potentials of information flows, with Duarte claiming a decolonial reframing "reorients the technique of applied science toward meeting the goals of tribal communities" (p. 136). Montoya's critique is that the text favors description, resulting in "sparse engagement with theory or feminist theory," selective citational practices, organizational issues, and oversimplified theorizations of sovereignty, while the interviews "provide little clarity or momentum."

Methods

This is a book review essay; no primary empirical data are collected or analyzed. Montoya situates colonialism and settler colonialism as central to the creation and maintenance of computer and internet technologies and their material infrastructures, drawing on Abbate (1999, pp. 36–38) and Wolfe (2006, p. 388). The review describes Duarte's fieldwork sites: Pascua Yaqui's KPYT-LPFM radio station and manager Hector Youtsey (pp. 38–39), KUYI Hopi Radio and station manager Richard Alum Davis (p. 46), Tohono O'odham Police Chief Joseph Delgado on a telecommunications network spanning two settler states (p. 41), plus TVDNet, the Southern California Tribal Technologies (SCTT), the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and the Navajo Nation.

Limitations

The review states that Duarte's text favors a descriptive approach, engages sparsely with theory and feminist theory, cites selectively in Native studies and information studies, reiterates or oversimplifies core concepts such as sovereignty, and that its interviews provide little clarity or momentum. Evident from the text: as a book review, this piece presents no original data or systematic analysis, and its assessments rest on Montoya's reading of Duarte rather than on independent evidence.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.28968/cftt.v5i2.31966

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

1 of 2 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Interpretationcitation

    Dominant representations of the internet as a singular, democratic, disembodied space work towards concealing the logics of colonialism and settler colonialism, specifically those related to territory and land.

    “Dominant representations of”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Wolfe, 2006 source

      The passage labeled Abstract (page unavailable) says territoriality is settler colonialism’s irreducible element, supporting the claim’s link between settler colonialism and land. The passages found do not address representations of the internet or whether they conceal colonial logics, so that part of the attributed claim is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 1
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    There is recognition of the role of ARPA (now DARPA) in developing the functionality of ARPAnet, the foundations of which form the technical backbone of the internet.

    “There is recognition of the role of Advanced Research Projects Agency or ARPA (now known as the United States Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) in developing the functionality of ARPAnet-the foundations of which form the technical backbone of the internet (Abbate, 1999, pp. 36-38).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Abbate, 1999
1 of 1
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Countless computer science and information studies texts describe the World Wide Web and the internet as a new, electronic frontier.

    “Countless computer science and information studies texts describe the World Wide Web and the internet as a new, electronic frontier.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The invocation of 'frontier' and terra nullius is often coupled with histories of computational development that de-emphasize the role of the nation-state in the creation of internet infrastructures and instead rhapsodize on the intent of its architects and their visions.

    “The invocation of”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There is little work that explicitly links technical projects with colonialism and settler colonialism.

    “However, there is little work that explicitly links these technical projects with colonialism and settler colonialism.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Critiques on the corporatization of the internet and representations of race online abound.

    “Critiques on the corporatization of the internet and representations of race online abound”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Both areas of critical information studies (critiques of corporatization and representations of race online) fail to consider how the dispossession of Native peoples animates settler ontologies embedded within information structures and facilitates the creation of internet infrastructures.

    “yet both of these areas within critical information studies fail to consider how the dispossession of Native peoples animates settler ontologies embedded within information structures and facilitates the creation of internet infrastructures.”
5 of 5

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Still being checked.

Authors
Montoya, S. A.
Affiliations
University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Montoya, Sarah Alyssa
Venue
Catalyst: Feminism, Theory, Technoscience
Published
2019-12-10
Volume
5
Issue
2
ISSN
2380-3312 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2996758119
Cited by
0
References
2
Type
book review
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Catalyst Feminism Theory Technoscience (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Indigenous Cultures and History
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Media Technology › ICT Impact and Policies
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Cybersecurity and Cyber Warfare Studies
Keywords
network sovereignty, Indigenous sovereignty, Indigenous nations, Indigenous feminism, digital infrastructure, Indigenous self-determination

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-30.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-30.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review