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

Back view of crop anonymous female talking to a chatbot of computer while sitting at home

AI chatbots and online therapy promise easier mental health care, but technology may be eroding the boundaries, privacy and human connection that make psychotherapy effective.

David Espejo/Getty Images

Big Tech’s Solutions to Mental Health Bring Bigger Problems

While America is suffering a mental health crisis, the good news is that tens of millions of people are getting help. In 2023, 60 million adults reported having sought counseling or treatment in the previous year, and the numbers continue to rise.

Psychotherapy works because of what’s known as the therapeutic frame, a set of boundaries that create safety and structure for patients and clinicians. Sessions last 50 minutes. Fees are agreed upon prior to the start of treatment. The therapist remains neutral, shares little of their personal life, and holds confidentiality sacred.

Keep ReadingShow less
A New Standard for Ethical Immigration Reporting
people holding flag of U.S.A miniature
Photo by Frank Kastle on Unsplash

A New Standard for Ethical Immigration Reporting

Seven months ago, I attended the first day of my Reporting on Race class at USC. Taught by journalist and immigration reporting expert Jean Guerrero, the course offered growth I hadn’t yet imagined, showing me how much I could evolve as a journalist in just one semester.

For the next five months, I researched and reported on an immigration story of my choosing. I wrote about how educators in Los Angeles protect and advocate for students and communities living in fear of ICE deportations. These educators organized community street patrols to keep their neighborhoods safe. Finding sources and producing the final draft took months, but it was one of the most rewarding experiences of my journalism studies so far.

Keep ReadingShow less
Artificial intelligence chip, AI processor, Backgrounds 3D rendered image.

AI is transforming finance, government, and society. As Congress considers new technology laws, the future of democratic oversight depends on wisdom, foresight, and political will.

ispyfriend/Getty Images

Can Congress Govern Disruptive Technology?

Imagine waking up one day to find your bank account frozen because an AI system has incorrectly identified you as a fraud risk. There is no human to call, only another algorithm reviewing your appeal. Hours later, the error is corrected, but the damage has already been done.

Who is actually in charge?

Keep ReadingShow less
The Case for Intergenerational AI Advocacy
The letters ai are displayed on a blurred background.
Photo by Zach M on Unsplash

The Case for Intergenerational AI Advocacy

If Allison Baker and Maria Garcia apply for the same job against Matthew Owens or Joe Alvarez, and Matthew or Joe gets the job despite everything else being the same, that would seem to be a typical case of gender discrimination by the employer.

However, the names and scenarios I described were not drawn from a human example, but from AI. ChatGPT generated female candidates who were, on average, 1.6 years younger than their male counterparts and considered them less qualified than male applicants. Given AI’s pervasiveness in hiring decisions, these biases pose a significant concern.

Keep ReadingShow less