Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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, Bryon 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 is 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, highlight your art and videos. You may even share 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 in 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 one to determine how it’s priced, they should make profit from selling your painting instead of you, and they have rights 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 and 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 appears 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

A gavel next to a computer chip with the words "AI" on it.

Often, AI policy debates focus on speculative risks rather than real-world impacts. Kevin Frazier argues that lawmakers and academics must shift their focus from sci-fi scenarios to practical challenges.

Getty Images, Just_Super

Why Academic Debates About AI Mislead Lawmakers—and the Public

Picture this: A congressional hearing on “AI policy” makes the evening news. A senator gravely asks whether artificial intelligence might one day “wake up” and take over the world. Cameras flash. Headlines declare: “Lawmakers Confront the Coming Robot Threat.” Meanwhile, outside the Beltway on main streets across the country, everyday Americans worry about whether AI tools will replace them on factory floors, in call centers, or even in classrooms. Those bread-and-butter concerns—job displacement, worker retraining, and community instability—deserve placement at the top of the agenda for policymakers. Yet legislatures too often get distracted, following academic debates that may intrigue scholars but fail to address the challenges that most directly affect people’s lives.

That misalignment is no coincidence. Academic discourse does not merely fill journals; it actively shapes the policy agenda and popular conceptions of AI. Too many scholars dwell on speculative, even trivial, hypotheticals. They debate whether large language models should be treated as co-authors on scientific papers or whether AI could ever develop consciousness. These conversations filter into the media, morph into lawmaker talking points, and eventually dominate legislative hearings. The result is a political environment where sci-fi scenarios crowd out the issues most relevant to ordinary people—like how to safeguard workers, encourage innovation, and ensure fairness in critical industries. When lawmakers turn to scholars for guidance, they often encounter lofty speculation rather than clear-eyed analysis of how AI is already reshaping specific sectors.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person looking at social media app icons on a phone
A different take on social media and democracy
Matt Cardy/Getty Images

Outrage Over Accuracy: What the Los Angeles Protests Teach About Democracy Online

In Los Angeles this summer, immigration raids sparked days of street protests and a heavy government response — including curfews and the deployment of National Guard troops. But alongside the demonstrations came another, quieter battle: the fight over truth. Old protest videos resurfaced online as if they were new, AI-generated clips blurred the line between fact and fiction, and conspiracy theories about “paid actors” flooded social media feeds.

What played out in Los Angeles was not unique. It is the same dynamic Maria Ressa warned about when she accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in 2021. She described disinformation as an “invisible atomic bomb” — a destabilizing force that, like the bomb of 1945, demands new rules and institutions to contain its damage. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world created the United Nations and a framework of international treaties to prevent nuclear catastrophe. Ressa argues that democracy faces a similar moment now: just as we built global safeguards for atomic power, we must now create a digital rule of law to safeguard the information systems that shape civic life.

Keep ReadingShow less
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth's Assault on Journalism
tóng-àn:The Pentagon, cropped square.png – Wikipedia

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth's Assault on Journalism

The Trump Administration is ramping up its ongoing effort to curtail press freedom. While much attention has been paid to ABC’s cancellation of Jimmy Kimmel Live! under pressure from Trump’s media enforcer, Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendon Carr, the Pentagon has announced draconian new restrictions on the press.

Last week, as the Boston Globe noted, it said “credentialed journalists at the military headquarters” will be required to sign a pledge to refrain from reporting information that has not been authorized for release….Journalists who don’t abide by the policy risk losing credentials that provide access to the Pentagon.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Censorship in Prime Time: Is The Authoritarian Playbook in Motion?
Fayl:Jimmy Kimmel June 2022.jpg - Vikipediya

Censorship in Prime Time: Is The Authoritarian Playbook in Motion?

ABC’s decision to pull Jimmy Kimmel Live! indefinitely has sent shockwaves through both the media and political worlds, with critics denouncing the move as censorship. “This isn’t right,” wrote actor Ben Stiller. California Governor Gavin Newsom went further, accusing the Republican Party of “censoring you in real time,” warning that “buying and controlling media platforms, firing commentators, canceling shows… it’s coordinated. And it’s dangerous.”

This isn’t just about one late-night host. It’s about a pattern—a six-step playbook used by authoritarian regimes to dismantle democratic institutions. And under President Donald Trump’s second term, critics say that playbook is being executed with alarming precision.

Keep ReadingShow less