Desperately wanting the online media to accept my terms and conditions
Privacy is hard to define, harder to defend, and the hardest to obtain.
Photo by George Pagan III on Unsplash
Is it just me who is losing her critical thinking ability due to algorithmic recommendations? I’m sure not. The algorithm recommends us content that we want to see or that the mainstream media wants us to see. We are boxed in a comfort zone of popular opinions where we do not research or question whether the information is unbiased or has an agenda to influence our thinking. This has undoubtedly stunted our personal growth.
Personal data should be viewed as a personal asset; it is often called the oil of the digital era due to its lucrative and fast-growing nature. It is time tech giants pay the suppliers of personal data and ask for their consent. The Big Five, namely Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and Alphabet are worth billions of dollars, exceeding the value of economies of countries as big as Saudi Arabia. In 2019, their market cap increased by $2.7 trillion since 2015. Companies must reveal the data they hold and how much money they make because of it. They must disclose the manner in which our data is being used. Governments should manage crucial parts of the data economy the way India manages its digital identity system called Aadhar card. It is high time antitrust regulators step in to restrain the easy flow of our personal data.
The popular argument is that by collecting more data, a company has more scope to improve its products, which attracts more users, generating even more data, and so on. The point is valid as long as the media takes greater social responsibility towards the portrayal of fake news and immoral advertisements. Advertisers can target users who are interested in anti-Semitic topics, using phrases like “how to burn Jews.” There are rape pages and groups. The political ad system is being used to polarise. Social media has given birth to cancel culture. Celebrities face constant murder threats and baseless hate. Sexist, ageist, disablist, fatphobic, transphobic, homophobic, racist and casteist (the list goes on) content is easily available for anybody to consume.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, passed in the U.S., 1996, states that “interactive computer service” cannot be treated as the publisher or speaker of third-party content. This protects websites from lawsuits if a user posts something illegal, although there are exceptions for copyright violations, sex work-related material, and violations of federal criminal law. This law is clearly outdated and does not take into account the growth of online media over the years.
The data trails left by our online activities affect the power relationships between people and institutions by making people lopsided (making social media platforms and certain governments extremely powerful). Cyber attacks, data leaks, fraud and unanimity are more common than ever. Did you know that cyberspace is emerging as the fifth dimension for war after land, air, water and space? There are no clear international laws and treaties addressing this issue. It takes days to track the source of a cyber attack and there is no way to prove the involvement of a government.
There is an ongoing discussion on the determination of fatality of cyber attacks, justification of military response and the scope of casualties. Cyber attacks are cheaper and easier to carry out than military attacks. Countries must lead by Estonia’s response to the 2007 cyber attack led by Russia, and develop their cybersecurity capacity and digital infrastructure. We all must educate ourselves on the kind of attachments and links we should not click and the need of an updated antivirus.
Since the online world is governed by monopolies, it is difficult to boycott these essential services. A free market does not exist in this situation. We must use the power of a democracy and dissent.
Pi Opinion content does not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial team, Pi Media society, Students’ Union UCL or University College London. We aim to publish opinions from across the student body — if you read anything you would like to respond to, get in touch via email.