More than 60% of the planet’s population is already on the Internet. Over the past few decades, this creation has profoundly impacted all aspects of the world, changing the way people live online and profoundly affecting their way of thinking and even their culture. The Internet space and the real space have merged with each other to form a new form of society. Every day, most of us start the day by lighting up our cell phone screens and end the day by turning them off. We work, we learn, we communicate and we interact on the Internet. Many people happily browse the web and social media, with tons of content flashing across the screen in front of their eyes, and people constantly engaging with it by clicking, commenting, and so on. The impact of the Internet is so far-reaching that it has become an integral part of most of our lives. The internet has given a great boost to human development, but at the same time it has also brought new problems. The web, for example, was conceived as a tool that could be decentralized, empower individuals and provide great value, as Tim Berners-Lee(2024), the creator of the web, put it, “Underlying its whole infrastructure was the intention to allow for collaboration, foster compassion and generate creativity – what I term the 3 C’s”. However, in his view, instead of embodying these values, the web has been eroding them over the past decade. embodying these values, it has instead played a role in eroding them, with platform centralization seemingly running counter to the notion of decentralization, and the AI technology revolution having major implications for the system as a whole. Platform centralization seems to be steadily eroding the rights of individuals on the Internet, step by step pushing people into passive situations. The potential loss of an individual’s right to privacy on the Internet is one of the major issues that has been feared.
Why is the right to privacy important? Why do we need to defend this right?
On January 7, 2025, researchers from Cybernews discovered a major security vulnerability that compromised an Apple App Store app called “Gay Daddy: 40+ Date & Chat”, they found that the app’s Firebase instance leaked more than 50,000 user profiles and 124,000 private messages sent between users(Ernestas Naprys, 2025). The consequences could be devastating for users of the app. This vulnerability raises further concerns about privacy and security issues, especially given the profile of the software’s users, and could be even more damaging to those in areas with conservative LGBTQ+ attitudes.
Just as walking on a beach leaves footprints, our various activities on the Internet leave traces. The footprints on the beach fade with the wind, and we hardly ever discuss who has the right to them, but the traces on the Internet are much deeper and more complex, the data is actually stored in a facility somewhere, and they are actually capable of being preserved and having an impact over a long span of time. Moreover, these traces are usually not owned by their creators.
Privacy is recognized as an inherent human right, and the right to privacy in the digital environment can be broadly thought of as an individual’s right and ability to control how his or her personal information is collected, shared, and used in the digital environment. Solove(2006) categorizes activities that harm privacy into four categories: information collection, information processing, information dissemination, and intrusion. Flew(2021) noted that, in the Internet environment, privacy issues have become even more important due to the sheer volume of information available, the trade-off between privacy rights and access to free online services, and the scope for commercial interests and government agencies to utilize big data for the analysis of personal data without the user’s consent.
Antitrust and Privacy
The centralization of platforms means that control of digital infrastructure, services, and user data is concentrated in the hands of a few Internet giants. These giants dominate our experience of the Internet world, and these platforms are not just carriers of content, but also shape user behavior and derive value from user data through means such as algorithms. The centralization of platforms has indeed facilitated the user experience, but as the platforms continue to expand their power, inequality of power and responsibility, surveillance capitalism, and a lack of regulation have become increasingly evident, as have privacy concerns. In Tim Berners-Lee(2024)’s view, platforms today have adopted an exploitative business model, in which platforms strive to keep users hooked and optimize profits through passive access to content, while personal data markets take advantage of people’s time and data, constructing profiles out of the data, delivering targeted advertisements to users, and controlling the information they have access to. Zuboff(2020) uses the term surveillance capitalism to describe this system, which centers on the commodification of personal data, whereby companies collect, analyze and profit from personal data. Simply put, virtually all traces of activity on the internet – searches, clicks, purchases, comments and the others are made into products. Once the product is obtained, the platform then sells these products to advertisers, marketers, etc. The collection of data happens every second of every day, and we are under the watchful eye of the platforms all the time – for example, a study conducted by Trinity College Dublin(2025) showed that Google starts collecting user data from the moment an Android phone is switched on, even if the user hasn’t opened any software or given consent.
With the Internet platformed today, there is no doubt that Internet users are in a passive position, while some Internet platforms have grown to become huge behemoths, and these platforms are still growing in strength. One of the reasons for the frequent occurrence of privacy issues is that today’s Internet users hardly have control over their own data, and users are very passive in front of Internet platforms. To understand why Internet users are becoming more and more passive, we first need to start by discussing how Internet giants continue to centralize and grow their power. One of the foundations of Internet companies’ profitability is the monetization of data and user data, with Internet companies providing users with “free” Internet services. In return, users hand over their data, which is then used by the Internet platforms to monetize the data, for example by selling it to advertisers. Surveillance capitalism. And, because of the network effect, as more and more users join an Internet platform, the value of this Internet platform will be higher and higher, which will form a positive feedback mechanism. And in the face of an already growing Internet platform, a new platform newly joining the market will find it hard to be competitive. At the same time, Internet platforms can continuously obtain new data to improve their algorithms, thus gaining higher and higher competitiveness. Internet platforms can also use acquisitions to eliminate competitors and grow their own strength, such as Facebook’s acquisition of Whatsapp and Instagram. All of these things will lead to one result, that is, a few Internet platforms gain monopoly status, i.e., the centralization of the Internet. Once a monopoly is formed, these Internet giants will have so much power that the conditions for healthy competition in the market will not exist, and users’ power of choice will be greatly restricted. Internet giants have the right to set their own terms and conditions, and while platforms have always claimed that they respect the rights of users, terms and conditions put the platforms in a stronger position. Some users are forced to use the platform even though they are unhappy with the content of its terms and conditions. For example, when your family, friends, and at the same time are all using a platform, you will inevitably join that platform as well. Surveillance capitalism encourages Internet platforms to collect and analyze as much user data as possible, which is somehow in conflict with privacy protection, which may prevent Internet platforms from profiting with the help of data, and so, with Internet giants dominating the scene, users’ privacy is naturally not valued. When a user chooses to accept the services of an Internet platform, the user first has to choose whether or not to accept the online terms of service of the platform, and the user also has little choice in the face of the terms. Users are usually given an “all-or-nothing option”, where they must accept all of the terms in order to receive the platform’s services, or else they will be completely excluded, and the terms are numerous and difficult to understand for most people who lack knowledge of the law. It will take a lot of effort to read and understand them carefully. Think back to the moment you were confronted with the Internet’s online terms of service: did you read them carefully and understand them? I’m sure most of you, like me, just hurriedly swiped the screen and checked the “Agree” box at the bottom of the terms and conditions. This is what being called the “privacy paradox”: “Even though people say they care about privacy, they act as if they don’t ”(Francis and Francis, 2017, p. 46).
Considering the monopoly status of Internet giants, antitrust measures will be important in order to address users’ privacy concerns. The behavior of invasive data collection is rooted in the centralization of the market, and good market competition is necessary as far as privacy issues are concerned.Those Internet platforms that respect users’ privacy should be given more support to deal with the suppression of Internet giants, and the expansion of Internet giants should be curbed and regulated. In 2020, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had filed an antitrust lawsuit alleging that its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp were part of an effort to eliminate competition, and that through the acquisitions, Facebook strengthened its dominant position and expanded its collection of data(Federal Trade Commission, 2020).
Data portability and interoperability are also promising solutions to the privacy concerns of platform centralization. This means that users are able to move and exchange data between platforms and can give them more control over their data. The EU’s Digital Marketplace Act (DMA) moves in this direction by requiring platforms to ensure data portability(European Parliament, 2021).
conclusion
The Internet was conceived as a decentralized tool at its inception, yet today, decades after its development, platform centralization has become a prominent feature. Nowadays, more and more people are aware of the problems caused by platform centralization, especially the privacy issues caused by invasive data collection and processing. Users appear to be very passive in the face of powerful platforms, so it is essential to strengthen users’ control over their data and to strengthen the supervision and management of platforms. In addition, healthy competition in the market is essential. The expansion of Internet giants must be curbed, and some new platforms that respect users’ privacy will be able to add vitality to the Internet environment.
References
Flew, T. (2021). Regulating platforms. Polity Press.
Zuboff, S. (2020). The age of surveillance capitalism : the fight for a human future at the new frontier of power (First Trade Paperback Edition.). PublicAffairs.
Leith, D. J. (2025, February 13). Cookies, identifiers and other data that Google silently stores on Android handsets. Trinity College Dublin. https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/cookies_identifiers_and_other_data.pdf
European Parliament. (2021, December 9). EU Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act explained. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/en/article/20211209STO19124/eu-digital-markets-act-and-digital-services-act-explained
Federal Trade Commission. (2020, December 9). FTC sues Facebook for illegal monopolization. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2020/12/ftc-sues-facebook-illegal-monopolization
Solove, D. J. (2006). A Taxonomy of Privacy. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 154(3), 477–564. https://doi.org/10.2307/40041279
Francis, L. P., and Francis, J. G. (2017). Privacy: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Be the first to comment