When people talk about artificial intelligence (AI), the focus is often on new language models, processing speed and potential uses. Far less attention is paid to the costs of the ecosystem: resource extraction, institutional opacity, underpaid labor, massive infrastructure, and widespread impacts on ecosystems and communities where these projects take root.
In Brazil, coverage of technology has expanded in the past five years beyond the sector itself, increasingly intersecting with investigations into human rights, the environment, politics and gender. One reporter helping to drive that shift is 29-year-old Laís Martins. A graduate of Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo with a Master’s degree in political communication from the University of Amsterdam, Martins focuses on these intersections, particularly in developing countries like Brazil.
She has worked as a journalist for a decade, with stints at iG, Reuters, Núcleo, Rest of World and The Intercept Brasil, and has contributed to outlets including The New York Times and The Guardian.
For Martins, it is increasingly clear that technology developed in Silicon Valley would not exist without the Global South, relying as it does on natural resources and labor from these regions.
“That’s true for platform content moderation, and it’s also true for AI,” she told LatAm Journalism Review (LJR). “Consider, for example, the data training for large language models and their derivative tools, such as ChatGPT. The cheap, precarious labor that trains these systems is not located in California, but rather—predominantly—in the Global South.”
These often-overlooked impacts are central to her reporting, including her coverage of the expansion of data centers in Brazil. The lack of transparency surrounding these large-scale projects is such that, according to what Martins told LJR, some nearby communities only learned about them through news reports.
Another underexplored area is the impact of AI inside newsrooms. Drawing on her experience, Martins will moderate a roundtable titled “Inside the Newsroom: How AI is transforming journalism,” where journalists and digital innovators from across Latin America will discuss how AI is reshaping their work and how news organizations are adopting these tools.
The discussion is part of a new free virtual series by the Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas focused on innovation and opportunities in Latin American journalism. Alongside Martins, who is an AI Accountability Network fellow at the Pulitzer Center, panelists include Dani Braga, AI editor at Folha de S.Paulo; investigative journalist Tatiana Dias; Jade Drummond, executive director of Núcleo Jornalismo; and Marcela Duarte, director of innovation at Aos Fatos.
As part of its “5 Questions” series, LJR spoke with Martins about covering technology in the Global South, the challenges involved, how to connect these topics with human rights and environmental concerns, the physical footprints of opaque infrastructures and diversity in tech coverage. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
1. People don’t usually associate Big Tech with the Global South. How can journalism expose the fact that, although it originates in “wealthy countries,” this system occupies both physical and virtual spaces across the rest of the world? What kind of coverage have you been pursuing in this context?
You’re right—people don’t make that connection, but they really should. It’s becoming more and more obvious that tech built in Silicon Valley wouldn’t exist without the Global South. It depends on natural resources and on people’s labor in these places.
That’s true for platform content moderation, and it’s also true for AI. Consider, for example, the data training for large language models and their derivative tools, such as ChatGPT. The cheap, precarious labor that trains these systems is not located in California, but rather—predominantly—in the Global South.
What I try to do in my reporting is help readers connect those dots that seem far apart. Once you see the connection, you can start to act on it. Everything developed in Silicon Valley has ripple effects here—not just because we use these products, but because we’re part of how they’re built.
We also try to show that Brazil is a key market for Big Tech. That means users here actually have a lot of power—power to demand better, safer platforms and also to imagine a different kind of technological future that doesn’t depend on Silicon Valley companies.
2. You’ve done an extensive series on data centers for The Intercept Brasil. It’s essential work, especially in making visible the physical infrastructure behind something we usually only interact with on our phones. What has been the biggest reporting challenge, and what findings have stood out most?
The greatest difficulty has undoubtedly been the lack of transparency regarding the development of these infrastructures. And that’s not just a Brazil issue—it’s part of how this infrastructure gets rolled out globally.
It is also important to note that this lack of transparency stems not only from companies but also from governments—municipal, state and federal—which have hindered the disclosure of information relevant to the public, citing trade secrets, for instance.
On the other hand, one of the most interesting outcomes has been seeing communities organize based on what our reporting reveals. It’s honestly shocking that people living next to data centers often only find out about these projects after a story is published.
But that’s what’s happening in several parts of Brazil, and it really shows why investigative journalism matters. Community mobilization—like what we’re seeing with the Anacé people and civil society groups opposing a TikTok data center in Ceará—doesn’t happen overnight. These are massive, relatively new projects in Brazil, so people are still learning about their impacts. It’s been really interesting to follow that process.
3. While some outlets cover technology, few offer deeply substantive reporting. In your case, tech coverage clearly intersects with human rights and politics. How difficult is it to pitch and sustain that approach within limited editorial space?
Honestly, I don’t see it as difficult. For me, it’s a clear line: if a tech story doesn’t clearly intersect with human rights or politics, then it’s not a story we should be doing.
And to be fair, I think all tech stories have those intersections—it’s just that a lot of outlets don’t approach them that way.
Take facial recognition, for example. A lot of coverage focuses only on the supposed benefits, like making places safer. But it often leaves out the risks—errors, bias, discrimination. That’s the human rights angle, and it’s inherent to the story.
I believe that journalism capable of centering this intersection stands out and holds greater potential for impact—as well as reach—since it can appeal to a broader public than, for instance, an audience interested strictly in technology.
4. Technology coverage in Brazil is still limited to a handful of outlets and reporters. From your experience, what obstacles prevent this beat from attracting more attention—especially from women, trans journalists and others from underrepresented groups?
That’s a great question. I increasingly think tech coverage shouldn’t be limited to “tech reporters.”
Take data centers—they’re such a cross-cutting issue. If you’ve covered energy, you can cover this. If you cover business, you can cover this. If you’re on the environment beat, same thing.
Good tech reporting needs those different perspectives, but it also needs people from different backgrounds and places. Having coverage led by people from communities affected by these technologies is key—that’s what improves both the quality and the impact of the work.
There’s definitely a structural issue: not many outlets are open to covering tech through these intersections or bringing in reporters from outside the niche. But there’s also a kind of self-selection—some reporters think this beat isn’t for them, when in fact they could bring a lot to it.
5. You’ve had fellowships with several outlets and institutions. How do you stay organized and keep track of unique opportunities like these?
There are a lot of great opportunities out there. I’d say keep an eye on LinkedIn, Instagram and the websites of these organizations.
Another really good way is to follow journalists who’ve taken part in these programs. People are usually very open to sharing tips and recommendations, so it’s a good way to figure out what might be a good fit for you.
But my main advice is: just apply and take the risk. You won’t get most of them—that’s just how it goes. But the process helps you get better at writing proposals and applications, and that’s valuable in itself. Eventually, something works out.
This article was translated with the assistance of AI and was reviewed by Teresa Mioli.
