If you have heard the phrase “Data drives all we do”, you’re likely familiar with the 2016 Cambridge Analytica scandal which unmasked how personal data were collected and used to psychologically profile citizens for political consultancy. In 2013, data scientist Aleksandr Kogan developed a Facebook app that took advantage of Facebook’s Open Graph platform to harvest personal information on 87 million Facebook users, later sharing it with political strategy firm Cambridge Analytica; this data was used to create marketing campaigns that targeted the United States and the United Kingdom. Even though Facebook later faced a $5 billion fine, Mark Zuckerberg’s apologetic statement missed the mark; he framed the Cambridge Analytica breach as a data misuse when it was in reality, the intended use of the platform’s data.
Today, a growing body of research – including reports from the World Economic Forum, points to digital data as the “new asset” for political control. Indeed, Giant Tech companies are now “data-driven”, meaning that they are motivated by the benefits arriving from the enhanced innovation capabilities gained from data centralization. As data is increasingly gathered and processed, machine learning techniques self-improve their own algorithms, thus continuously augmenting data management proficiency.
As they exploit their massive databases to amass global power through the use of algorithms to detect objects, process texts and model prediction for commercial or political purposes, these firms are engaged in an ongoing algorithmic governance that spills over the offline world.
Now private tech corporations control critical knowledge and resources which used to be the prerogative of the state. This new power structure expands the relationship between states and corporations. In this way, states are increasingly dependent on Big Tech corporations to the point that it is impossible to grasp the full ramifications of their power. As they become more autonomous, these corporations have begun using technological expansionism and personal data to pursue individual political and ideological projects.
For example, in December 2010, a street vendor in the small town of Sidi Bouzid, Tunisia named Mohamed Bouazizi, set himself on fire in an act of desperation after enduring systemic economic despair; since this event, platforms such as Facebook and Twitter have become the royalties of collective movement and activism, serving as powerful catalysts for international uprisings.
This is because social media platforms allow for the rapid spread of information, easier coordination of rallies, and connectivity between disparate groups to harness collective outrage into organized opposition. Activists have seen social media as “liberation technology,” allowing for greater organization and mobilization of civic disobedience. Research from the UCLA Protest Image Dataset shows that countries with higher Facebook usage had more consequential protest mobilization in the context of the Arab uprising in 2011. Facebook offered alternative channels of information that the authoritarian regimes could not easily control and were crucial in shaping how citizens made individual decisions about participating in protests.
Ten years later, the global spread of the #BlackLivesMatter movement was amplified by social media. The ability to quickly disseminate videos of police brutality helped amass support for racial justice protests after the murder of George Floyd. Twitter and Instagram allowed decentralized leadership and made protests far more shareable, with users having full discretion in over-delivering and managing the information themselves. It’s not overstating to say that Big Tech corporations are becoming the operating system of social life through their dominance of the information economy as the key coordinators of contemporary political mobilization.
As an unmediated forum of information, social media enables the spread of alternative news and misinformation that can polarize movements or lead to radicalization. Facebook and Twitter have faced backlash for amplifying conspiracy theories and allowing for the harassment of victims, such as the parents of children killed in the Sandy Hook shooting who were targeted online by far-right extremists who claimed they were lying about the event.
Paradoxically, while designed to be user-friendly, convenient, liberating, and personified, these platforms are also designed to exploit violence. This reflects a radical indifference and radical behaviourism that exploits citizens’ behaviour and feelings to catch their attention.
When we think about power, we often associate it with coercive power. However, technological platforms operate through cooperation-based technologies. Facial recognition technology or fingerprint security in smartphones are presented as tools to facilitate everyday life but in reality, they enable large tech companies to position themselves as key social and economic intermediaries that provide necessary services, products, and infrastructures in exchange for personal data.
Social media, search engines, e-commerce sites, and smartphones have profoundly shaped communication and how people access information worldwide. WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Snapchat, and Instagram have driven a massive shift towards digital and visual communication. Messaging apps now see 60 billion messages sent daily. The average Gen Z user spends over 3 hours a day on social media. This makes these platforms powerful transmitters of cultural trends and political information.
TikTok’s growth to over 1 billion monthly active users shows how its AI-driven recommendation algorithm can make viral meme formats, slang terms, dances, and challenges spread rapidly around the world, with many of these short videos having deeper political or cultural messages embedded within them. Similarly, Facebook and Instagram embed values like social comparison and conspicuous consumption through their focus on profiles, status updates, Likes, and aspirational imagery.
Furthermore, Silicon Valley’s power stems from widespread reliance on tech giants’ services like cloud computing. Amazon Web Services controls over 30% of global cloud infrastructure, hosting platforms like the CIA. Many core functions rely on technology outside direct state control. This grants indirect authority to companies like Amazon that could theoretically withhold services for political ends, as Amazon Web Store did temporarily from Parler after the January 6 US Capitol attack.
Technology is reshaping fundamental institutions like commerce, healthcare, education, security and politics in ways that restructure society and culture. COVID-19 accelerated the adoption of telemedicine, e-commerce, remote work, and more – changes driven and encapsulated by Big Tech.
Presently, seeing Elon Musk welcomed like a celebrity by Chinese officials shows that these Tech billionaires are now central to political governance worldwide. They are on artificial intelligence for civilian and military use, techno-surveillance of populations, the transformation of public spaces, elections and freedom of expression. As Tech firms strive for less regulation and more efficiency, their shaping is disruptive and brings risk to the rights of citizens.
In 1989, many believed in the “end of history” while other global powers like China were already working to create interdependencies they could later exploit for military purposes. Today, we are witnessing the growing conflictualization and brutalization of international relations through economics, law, and technology. Politics has become merely the continuation of war by other means.
Elon Musk’s 2024 launch of brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) has sparked concern among experts. These interfaces enable devices to be controlled using only the mind by measuring brain activity, processing the recorded brain activity to understand the user’s intent and a command signal to the application to execute the desired command to ensure more efficiency. Risks include jeopardizing the freedom to keep our thoughts private, the direct manipulation and coercion of the individual’s mind, inequality and cognitive enhancement divide cyber vulnerability if a person’s thoughts data are hacked and finally the militarisation of people’s minds. In April 2018, META CEO Mark Zuckerberg was already testifying before Congress after Facebook was accused of amplifying anti-Rohinga content that fueled the 2017 genocide in Myanmar. Investigations revealed that Facebook has aimed to maximize engagement by incentivizing anger and genocidal content that led to conflict. In other words, minds and feelings are legitimate targets in this new technological expansionist project.
Indeed, losing one’s right to freedom of thought can mean the loss of one’s human agency and choice. It represents the erosion of individuals’ power needed to drive transformative change, like overthrowing a regime. As debates between efficiency and human complexity are taking place, we should be focusing on Big Tech’s “platform power” rivalling state power. This calls for citizens to urgently take back ownership of data collected on them in order to manage this new operating system of social life. Finally, as technological innovation evolves faster than our human rights system, it urges the re-evaluation of our freedom’s protection in the digital era.
Edited by Campbell Graham
Nina Soula is a third-year student at McGill University, double majoring in Political Science and International Development. Passionate about the intersection of technology and diplomacy, she is exploring how emerging technologies shape global governance, international security, and human rights.