Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Your Data Isn’t Yours: How Social Media Platforms Profit From Your Digital Identity

Discover how tech giants monetize your behavior, content, and identity—without your consent.

Opinion

Your Data Isn’t Yours: How Social Media Platforms Profit From Your Digital Identity

Discover how your personal data is tracked, sold, and used to control your online experience—and how to reclaim your digital rights.

Getty Images, Sorapop

Social media users and digital consumers willingly present a detailed trail of personal data in the pursuit of searching, watching, and engaging on as many platforms as possible. Signing up and signing on is made to be as easy as possible. Most people know on some level that they are giving up more data than they should , but with hopes that it won’t be used surreptitiously by scammers, and certainly not for surveillance of any sort.

However, in his book, "Means of Control," Byron Tau shockingly reveals how much of our digital data is tracked, packaged, and sold—not by scammers but by the brands and organizations we know and trust. As technology has deeply permeated our lives, we have willingly handed over our entire digital identity. Every app we download, every document we create, every social media site we join, there are terms and conditions that none of us ever bother to read.

That means our behaviors, content, and assets are given up to corporations that profit from them in more ways than the average person realizes. The very data and the reuse of it are controlling our lives, our freedom, and our well-being.

Let’s think about all this in the context of a social media site. It is a place where you interact with friends, post family photos, and highlight your art and videos. You may even share a perspective on current events. These very social media platforms don’t just own your content. They can use your behavior and your content to target you. They also sell your data to others, and profit massively off of YOU, their customer.


If, for example, you were a talented painter and wanted to paint a picture. You go to a store to purchase paint, brushes, and a canvas. When you create your painting of a beautiful landscape, you could post it online to sell without any middleman dipping a finger into your profit. Now, pretend that the paint brush company, as well as the paint company, the canvas company, and even the store where you purchased supplies, all declare that they will lay claim to your painting. They declare that they deserve to be the ones to determine how it’s priced, they should make a profit from selling your painting instead of you, and they have the right to hand it to another art firm for free without your consent.

Would you accept that? I think the answer would be "absolutely not.”

In another example, imagine you hire a broker to provide you with a personal assistant to help you with your busy life. This assistant is with you 24/7, and she records your behavior and what you do all day long—including your most intimate conversations with your partner in the bedroom. The personal assistant then sends everything she recorded back to the broker who sent her to you. The broker can then sell your information and use it as they please.

Would you allow this assistant and their broker into your life? Again, your answer would be, "Absolutely not.”

In the real world, we actually say "absolutely, yes” in both of these hypothetical examples when it comes to using technology. Worse still, we actively enable it without thinking twice, because it’s easier for us. With this blind trust, we become lucrative commodities for these platforms without a say or without fair rights. We are decrying the loss of civil liberties around the world—and still, we are gladly handing over keys to our data all day long every day.

This is not a technology problem. It’s not even a legal issue. It’s simply a choice we make as part of a capitalist society. These corporations consolidated power, profit, and even propaganda by manipulating our attention and wallets. We shouldn’t let them get away with it. We should own the one thing we each should surely own—our identities.

If we want true liberty, we must reclaim our digital rights and sovereignty. We have the right to own our data, and we have the right not to be sold for profit.

It’s time to hold all internet organizations and social media platforms accountable to strict boundaries around the use of personal data. They simply must honor consumer digital self-sovereignty, where we are not a commodity to be sold, and we should own every shred of our data. Users should have more control over what ads and content appear in our feed. What is seen, and certainly what is created, is ours and should match the experience online we all work so hard to curate.

Akshay Gupta is the chief executive officer of Sez.us, a reputation-based social media platform designed to foster civil, authentic conversation by rewarding respectful engagement and suppressing inflammatory content.

Read More

Someone wrapping a gift.

As screens replace toys, childhood is being gamified. What this shift means for parents, play, development, and holiday gift-giving.

Getty Images, Oscar Wong

The Christmas When Toys Died: The Playtime Paradigm Shift Retailers Failed to See Coming

Something is changing this Christmas, and parents everywhere are feeling it. Bedrooms overflow with toys no one touches, while tablets steal the spotlight, pulling children as young as five into digital worlds that retailers are slow to recognize. The shift is quiet but unmistakable, and many parents are left wondering what toy purchases even make sense anymore.

Research shows that higher screen time correlates with significantly lower engagement in other play activities, mainly traditional, physical, unstructured play. It suggests screen-based play is displacing classic play with traditional toys. Families are experiencing in real time what experts increasingly describe as the rise of “gamified childhoods.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Affordability Crisis and AI: Kelso’s Universal Capitalism

Rising costs, AI disruption, and inequality revive interest in Louis Kelso’s “universal capitalism” as a market-based answer to the affordability crisis.

Getty Images, J Studios

Affordability Crisis and AI: Kelso’s Universal Capitalism

“Affordability” over the cost of living has been in the news a lot lately. It’s popping up in political campaigns, from the governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia to the mayor’s races in New York City and Seattle. President Donald Trump calls the term a “hoax” and a “con job” by Democrats, and it’s true that the inflation rate hasn’t increased much since Trump began his second term in January.

But a number of reports show Americans are struggling with high costs for essentials like food, housing, and utilities, leaving many families feeling financially pinched. Total consumer spending over the Black Friday-Thanksgiving weekend buying binge actually increased this year, but a Salesforce study found that’s because prices were about 7% higher than last year’s blitz. Consumers actually bought 2% fewer items at checkout.

Keep ReadingShow less
Censorship Should Be Obsolete by Now. Why Isn’t It?

US Capital with tech background

Greggory DiSalvo/Getty Images

Censorship Should Be Obsolete by Now. Why Isn’t It?

Techies, activists, and academics were in Paris this month to confront the doom scenario of internet shutdowns, developing creative technology and policy solutions to break out of heavily censored environments. The event– SplinterCon– has previously been held globally, from Brussels to Taiwan. I am on the programme committee and delivered a keynote at the inaugural SplinterCon in Montreal on how internet standards must be better designed for censorship circumvention.

Censorship and digital authoritarianism were exposed in dozens of countries in the recently published Freedom on the Net report. For exampl,e Russia has pledged to provide “sovereign AI,” a strategy that will surely extend its network blocks on “a wide array of social media platforms and messaging applications, urging users to adopt government-approved alternatives.” The UK joined Vietnam, China, and a growing number of states requiring “age verification,” the use of government-issued identification cards, to access internet services, which the report calls “a crisis for online anonymity.”

Keep ReadingShow less
The concept of AI hovering among the public.

Panic-driven legislation—from airline safety to AI bans—often backfires, and evidence must guide policy.

Getty Images, J Studios

Beware of Panic Policies

"As far as human nature is concerned, with panic comes irrationality." This simple statement by Professor Steve Calandrillo and Nolan Anderson has profound implications for public policy. When panic is highest, and demand for reactive policy is greatest, that's exactly when we need our lawmakers to resist the temptation to move fast and ban things. Yet, many state legislators are ignoring this advice amid public outcries about the allegedly widespread and destructive uses of AI. Thankfully, Calandrillo and Anderson have identified a few examples of what I'll call "panic policies" that make clear that proposals forged by frenzy tend not to reflect good public policy.

Let's turn first to a proposal in November of 2001 from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). For obvious reasons, airline safety was subject to immense public scrutiny at this time. AAP responded with what may sound like a good idea: require all infants to have their own seat and, by extension, their own seat belt on planes. The existing policy permitted parents to simply put their kid--so long as they were under two--on their lap. Essentially, babies flew for free.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) permitted this based on a pretty simple analysis: the risks to young kids without seatbelts on planes were far less than the risks they would face if they were instead traveling by car. Put differently, if parents faced higher prices to travel by air, then they'd turn to the road as the best way to get from A to B. As we all know (perhaps with the exception of the AAP at the time), airline travel is tremendously safer than travel by car. Nevertheless, the AAP forged ahead with its proposal. In fact, it did so despite admitting that they were unsure of whether the higher risks of mortality of children under two in plane crashes were due to the lack of a seat belt or the fact that they're simply fragile.

Keep ReadingShow less