Bye-Bye Meta, X, and Google: Reclaiming Our Autonomy in the Surveillance Economy

They’ve turned your life—every click, every conversation, every private moment—into their profit, and they’re betting you won’t care enough to stop them.

In today’s digital landscape, every interaction feels like a transaction. We invest our time, energy, attention, and money, expecting fair returns—whether in connection, information, or entertainment. However, increasingly, as the digital giants grow even more powerful, a question nags at us: Are we satisfied with what we are getting from this arrangement? Or are we just endlessly feeding a machine that gives us diminishing returns?

In recent years, social media has shifted from a tool for connection to an engine for control, commodifying our attention and data while shaping what we see and believe. This shift has not gone unnoticed by influential figures like Donald Trump and Elon Musk, both of whom recognized the power inherent in controlling media platforms. Trump created Truth Social, his personal social media echo chamber, while Musk acquired Twitter (now rebranded as X) in a high-profile bid to make the platform his own. While Musk claims to be a “free speech absolutist,” he has repeatedly been shown to limit the reach of posts criticizing him or his interests.

Amid these concerns, new platforms like Bluesky and tools like the Tor browser and VPNs are emerging as ethical alternatives prioritizing user privacy, transparency, and autonomy. These systems signal a return to values that powered our most essential technologies for generations: transparency, collaboration, and accountability. However, before we understand why these alternatives matter, we must recognize how deeply entrenched the current, profit-driven model is and what it costs us.

The Power of Open Source: Foundations Built by and for the People

Much of the digital world we take for granted today runs on open-source technology. These systems—created and maintained by global communities of developers—are the unsung heroes that keep the internet functional, resilient, and adaptable. Unlike closed, corporate-controlled platforms, open-source software is freely available for anyone to inspect, modify, and improve. This approach does not just foster innovation; it fundamentally empowers users by placing control and transparency at the forefront.

Consider Linux, an open-source operating system that forms the backbone of the internet. No single entity owns Linux; instead, it is maintained by countless developers worldwide. Nearly 75% of websites, including those run by industry giants like Google and Amazon, rely on Linux servers (W3Techs, 2023). Similarly, the Apache HTTP Server powers about a third of all websites globally, handling everything from personal blogs to enterprise-level platforms. Without these cornerstone technologies, the Internet as we know it would not exist.

Why does open source matter in the context of our vending machine economy? Open-source software offers a path to transparency and collaboration that profit-driven companies rarely provide. In proprietary systems, users are often left in the dark, with corporations controlling the features, updates, and privacy settings. On the other hand, open-source technology lets users take control—if there is a security flaw, developers worldwide can see it and work together to fix it. If someone needs a new feature, they can build it themselves or find support within the community.

A prominent advocate for user rights and digital transparency, Cory Doctorow argues that open source “lets us, the users, control what our tools do to us and for us” (Doctorow, 2020). This ethos aligns with the principles behind platforms like Bluesky, which rethinks social media from the ground up, favouring decentralized, user-controlled experiences over centralized control. If open-source technology represents a collaborative, transparent alternative, what happens when this transparency is absent? What does it mean when media platforms fall under the sway of personal interests, unchecked and unaccountable?

This brings us to the motives behind recent moves by figures like Elon Musk and Donald Trump, who, aware of social media's influence, have sought to place themselves at its helm. But what does it mean when media platforms become tools for personal agendas rather than public discourse? Let’s dive into the implications of this shift.

The Influence of Power: Media Platforms as Tools for Personal Control

In recent years, high-profile figures like Elon Musk and Donald Trump have come to recognize the immense power embedded within social media platforms. These digital spaces are far more than just tools for connection; they are levers of influence capable of shaping public opinion, amplifying voices, and directing the flow of information. For Musk and Trump, acquiring or creating social media platforms has become a way to exert unparalleled control over public discourse, often in ways that serve their agendas before the public good.

Donald Trump’s Truth Social was born out of a need for a platform where he could bypass the moderation and restrictions imposed by mainstream social media networks. After being suspended from major platforms for repeatedly violating content policies, Trump constructed his own echo chamber that could broadcast his unfiltered narratives to loyal followers without outside oversight. Truth Social offers Trump complete control over the narrative, allowing him to reinforce ideas that benefit his political image and sway public opinion in ways that serve his interests. It’s a striking example of how social media, originally intended as an open forum for discourse, can be manipulated to avoid accountability and amplify insularity.

Similarly, Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter (now rebranded as X) underscores his desire to shape public dialogue on his terms. Musk has branded himself a “free speech absolutist,” promoting Twitter as a platform for unfiltered expression. However, reports have shown that he selectively limits the reach of posts critical of himself or his business interests, curating speech to suit his image and goals. This selective approach to “free speech” highlights the gap between Musk’s stated ideals and his actions, revealing that his definition of open discourse appears contingent on whether it serves his personal interests.

Trump and Musk have histories that underscore their tenuous relationship with regulation and transparency. Trump has faced multiple bankruptcies, criminal indictments, and several SEC violations. Meanwhile, Musk has repeatedly clashed with the SEC, particularly over accusations of manipulating Tesla stock prices with misleading statements on Twitter. Their ventures into media control amplify this pattern: platforms that should serve as spaces for open, accountable discourse instead become extensions of their influence, curated to protect and amplify their voices while downplaying dissent.

This alignment of interests has now expanded into the realm of cryptocurrency. Since Trump’s 2024 re-election, both Musk and Trump have used their platforms to generate hype around Bitcoin, fueling a massive inflation in the cryptocurrency’s value. Observers and financial analysts caution that this appears to be the latest in a pattern of “pump and dump” tactics, where influential figures inflate an asset’s value before offloading it for profit, leaving ordinary investors with the fallout. This approach to unregulated “crypto land” is attractive to figures like Musk and Trump, who are often comfortable operating in financial gray areas where traditional accountability is absent (Reuters, 2024).

Watching these platforms serve the interests of the few rather than the many raises a critical question: How do we maintain spaces for honest, transparent discourse when those spaces are controlled by individuals who leverage them for personal gain? When public platforms become private tools, accountability and openness suffer. This dilemma underscores the need for alternatives prioritizing transparency, decentralization, and community-driven governance over individual control.

Leading us to a critical aspect of today’s digital landscape: data. Social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Truth Social thrive on data—every click, like, and interaction generates valuable information that fuels the surveillance economy. So, how does decentralization address this issue? And what role does data privacy play in platforms like Bluesky, where user control takes precedence? To answer these questions, we must first understand the actual cost of a data-driven economy and its impact on our privacy and autonomy.

The Surveillance Economy: When Privacy Becomes a Commodity

In today’s digital economy, our data—our habits, preferences, locations, and identities—has become one of the most valuable commodities. Social media platforms like Meta, Google, and ByteDance rely on the vast data they harvest to drive their profit engines. Every click, scroll, and interaction generates data points, which these companies use to build detailed profiles of users. This data is then leveraged to sell hyper-targeted advertising, allowing companies to profit immensely from our online behaviours.

Shoshana Zuboff, in her seminal work The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, describes this as a new economic order that “claims human experience as free raw material” (Zuboff, 2019). In this economy, our private information becomes the fuel that powers corporate profits, creating a “surveillance economy” where users themselves are the product. The result? Tech giants have unprecedented insights into our lives, wielding an almost omniscient knowledge about what we do, think, and desire.

However, this surveillance economy goes far beyond just selling ads. The algorithms that analyze this data are designed to keep us engaged for as long as possible. Platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok prioritize content that provokes strong emotional responses because it drives higher engagement, which in turn generates more data and more ad revenue. A study by MIT and Stanford researchers confirmed that emotionally charged content—including misinformation—spreads significantly faster on social media than balanced, fact-based information. This creates echo chambers and filter bubbles, where divisive content is amplified and becomes normalized (Vosoughi, Roy, & Aral, 2018).

In this environment, the truth becomes secondary to engagement, and privacy becomes a casualty of corporate ambition. Every interaction with these platforms feeds an endless loop: the more we engage, the more data we generate, and the more tailored (and often manipulative) the content we see becomes. This constant surveillance has a psychological impact as well, as users begin to self-censor or even alter their behaviour, aware that they are constantly being watched.

Tools like Tor and VPNs (Virtual Private Networks) offer some degree of protection from this invasive tracking. An anonymous browser, Tor routes internet traffic through multiple servers, making it difficult for websites to trace user locations or track their activities. VPNs mask users’ IP addresses, creating a layer of anonymity that disrupts the data-collection processes of advertisers and platforms. While these tools are not foolproof, they represent a small but crucial resistance to the pervasive data economy—a way for users to reclaim a measure of privacy in a landscape where it is often disregarded.

But is this enough? Even with these tools, users are still at the mercy of platforms whose primary goal is profit. This is where decentralized, user-first models like Bluesky come into play, offering an alternative not rooted in surveillance capitalism but in user autonomy and data privacy. In a decentralized environment, user data is not automatically harvested, sold, or exploited. Instead, control over data is in the hands of the community, empowering individuals to decide how, and if, their data is shared.

The promise of decentralization brings us back to a fundamental question: can we build digital systems that respect privacy and encourage genuine discourse? Or are we doomed to an internet where profit always precedes the public good?

The Decline of Journalism: When Profit Trumps Truth

In this profit-driven digital age, journalism—a cornerstone of democracy and accountability—has been compromised. Quality journalism has traditionally kept power in check, providing the public with reliable, well-researched information that holds leaders, corporations, and institutions accountable. However, as news outlets compete for attention in the era of social media, they have been forced to prioritize engagement over rigorous reporting. The result? There is a steady decline in investigative journalism and an increase in sensationalist headlines prioritizing clicks over accuracy.

Today, around 55% of U.S. adults get their news from social media, yet only 29% trust the information they find there (Pew Research Center, 2022). This shift reflects a profound erosion of trust in mainstream news sources, which are pressured to produce stories that will drive engagement metrics rather than serve the public interest. The need for clicks has led to a rise in “clickbait” and “infotainment,” as news stories are designed to provoke outrage or awe rather than inform. Studies show that emotionally charged content has a much higher engagement rate than balanced reporting, which often requires context, nuance, and complexity—qualities that do not lend themselves well to shareable headlines (Vosoughi, Roy, & Aral, 2018).

The pressures of the attention economy are particularly damaging for investigative journalism, which requires time, resources, and, often, significant risk. Investigative pieces that expose corruption, corporate malfeasance, or abuses of power are costly to produce and may not attract the immediate, mass engagement that today’s platforms demand. Consequently, fewer news organizations can afford to invest in this work, leaving critical stories untold and power unchallenged.

Jay Rosen, a media scholar, highlights how the “attention economy” has turned journalism away from public service and toward a model that caters to what generates the most attention. This shift, he argues, undermines journalism’s essential role in a democratic society (Rosen, 2019). When newsrooms are forced to prioritize metrics over truth, journalism’s ability to hold the powerful accountable is weakened, and democracy suffers.

The decline in rigorous journalism is also influenced by the algorithms of platforms like Facebook and Twitter, which prioritize content based on engagement rather than credibility. When misinformation and sensationalism are algorithmically favoured over accuracy, public trust erodes further, creating a vicious cycle where the audience is fed what is engaging rather than what is true. Over time, this breeds distrust, division, and an environment where critical thinking is discouraged in favour of quick, emotional responses.

In this landscape, the integrity of journalism is at risk, and with it, the accountability of those in power. Without a robust, independent press, democratic systems struggle to function effectively, as citizens are left without the reliable information they need to make informed decisions. This underscores the necessity of platforms and models that prioritize truth and transparency over profit. The question, then, is how to support journalism that serves the public good in a media ecosystem driven by profit.

This leads us to consider the emerging alternatives—decentralized platforms like Bluesky, which hold the promise of a new model where truth and accountability aren’t sacrificed for engagement. Can these alternatives provide the foundation for a healthier, more democratic information environment?

Choosing Ethical Alternatives: Reclaiming Power in the Digital Age

A new wave of ethical digital alternatives has begun to gain traction in response to the failures and limitations of mainstream, profit-driven platforms. These platforms are built on principles of privacy, transparency, and user empowerment—values often overshadowed by profit motives on traditional social media. Bluesky, for instance, has become a notable decentralized social media network, recently reaching 15 million users, a milestone that reflects the growing demand for user-first platforms (The Verge, 2024). Bluesky represents a bold departure from the surveillance-based, centralized social media model, offering an environment where users, not corporations, control the platform’s direction and content.

Unlike platforms like Meta and ByteDance, where user data is harvested, monetized, and algorithmically manipulated to maximize engagement, Bluesky’s decentralized structure gives users genuine control over their data and experiences. Here, users can shape the content they see, choose which algorithms, if any, guide their interactions, and make informed decisions about their privacy. This model empowers individuals and communities to design a digital space that respects user autonomy and rejects the commodification of attention.

DuckDuckGo, a privacy-focused search engine, complements this new approach to digital platforms by providing a browsing experience that does not track, collect, or store personal information. Unlike Google, which meticulously profiles users to optimize ad targeting, DuckDuckGo allows users to search the internet without leaving behind data trails. This search engine has steadily grown in popularity as privacy concerns become more prominent, demonstrating that people are increasingly seeking alternatives to data-mining giants. DuckDuckGo is a vital reminder that even the most straightforward online activities, like searching for information, can be free from surveillance and profit-driven manipulation.

In news consumption, Ground News provides another example of how ethical alternatives reshape digital spaces. Ground News aggregates stories from across the political spectrum, highlighting potential biases and presenting a balanced view of events. This transparency in media reporting helps users discern fact from bias, fostering media literacy and helping restore trust in news sources by prioritizing accurate, balanced reporting over sensationalism.

Privacy tools like the Tor browser and VPNs enable users to reclaim their privacy in a landscape where data is constantly harvested and traded. With its anonymous browsing network, Tor routes users’ internet traffic through multiple nodes, obscuring their location and identity. VPNs (Virtual Private Networks) mask users’ IP addresses, creating an added layer of anonymity. These tools help users navigate the web on their own terms, free from the tracking and surveillance of advertisers and data brokers.

Each platform—Bluesky, DuckDuckGo, Ground News, Tor, and VPNs—allows users to regain control in a digital economy that increasingly prioritizes profit over people. By choosing these alternatives, we are casting a vote against the surveillance-driven, profit-first models that dominate today’s internet. This choice is more than a matter of personal privacy or convenience; it is a stand for a digital future that values truth, accountability, and respect for individual autonomy.

The rise of these alternatives poses a powerful question: Are we, as users, ready to make the switch? Adopting these platforms requires us to rethink our digital habits and seek ethical alternatives that align with our values rather than our convenience. As a collective, can we break free from the dominant platforms’ familiar comforts and commit to platforms that respect our rights and interests? And if we do, what kind of internet might we help create in the process?

Ultimately, our most significant power lies in choosing which machines we feed. In a vending machine economy, where we place our attention and resources is a profound act of agency that could determine the future of digital spaces and the values that define them.

The Road Ahead: Building a Digital Landscape That Respects Privacy and Accountability

Choosing ethical alternatives in today’s digital landscape is not simply about avoiding the surveillance of tech giants or resisting the profit-driven motives of major social media platforms. It’s about envisioning a future where digital spaces are built to empower, inform, and respect us. If we want an internet where privacy is protected, information is balanced, and users are treated as individuals—not data points to be sold—we must collectively choose platforms that reflect these values.

Adopting platforms like Bluesky, DuckDuckGo, and Ground News signals a shift in how we, as users, engage with technology. Bluesky’s decentralized model offers a blueprint for social media where control is not in the hands of a single corporation but is distributed among users, allowing communities to set their own standards and manage content in a way that aligns with their values. DuckDuckGo has shown demand for search engines that do not track or profile users. Ground News promotes transparency and balance in journalism by revealing the biases of different news sources. Each platform offers an alternative to the corporate-driven internet, a way to reclaim agency in spaces rapidly becoming dominated by surveillance and sensationalism.

But, embracing these alternatives is not without challenges. Moving away from mainstream platforms can feel like swimming against the current. It requires us to adapt to new interfaces, develop new habits, and reimagine how we connect and consume information. There is a level of discomfort in breaking free from the platforms we have used for years—platforms that have, intentionally or not, become woven into the fabric of our daily lives.

Nevertheless, the rewards of switching are tangible. When we choose platforms that do not track us, respect our autonomy, and prioritize ethical principles, we protect our privacy and invest in a future where accountability and transparency take precedence over profit. We support the emergence of digital ecosystems that empower users rather than exploit them. This collective action—small as it may seem—can influence the tech industry, sending a message that users value their rights and will support companies that respect them.

The stakes could not be higher. As long as we remain attached to surveillance-driven platforms, we risk reinforcing an internet that operates at the expense of our privacy, our democracy, and even our mental well-being. However, by consciously choosing alternatives, we can shift the digital landscape toward one that reflects our values rather than compromises them.

So, what kind of digital world do we want to create? Can we envision an internet that’s genuinely inclusive, transparent, and respectful? The answer lies in our choices—where we spend our time, place our trust, and which machines we feed. By supporting platforms like Bluesky, DuckDuckGo, Ground News, and privacy tools like Tor and VPNs, we’re casting a vote for a more ethical, democratic digital world. It is a small but essential step that could pave the way for a future where our digital lives are genuinely our own.

A Call to Action: Redefining Our Role as Digital Citizens

The journey toward a more ethical internet requires us to recognize our role as users and digital citizens. Every click, every search, every scroll represents a choice—a tiny but powerful vote for the type of digital landscape we want to see flourish. In an economy where attention and data are the new currency, our choices send a message to tech companies, developers, and innovators about what we value most.

The stakes of these choices are more significant than they seem. When we engage on platforms prioritizing surveillance, we contribute to a system that commodifies our data, shapes our perceptions, and subtly alters our behaviours. Studies have shown that constant exposure to algorithmically prioritized content can even impact mental health, amplifying anxiety, polarization, and self-doubt. Moreover, when algorithms are programmed to elevate sensationalism over accuracy, our understanding of reality itself becomes skewed, compromising our ability to make informed decisions and weakening the foundations of democracy (American Psychological Association, 2023).

But the alternative—a digital landscape where platforms prioritize transparency, user autonomy, and accountability—is possible. By choosing platforms like Bluesky, DuckDuckGo, and Ground News, we align ourselves with an emerging movement that values these principles. Every search conducted on DuckDuckGo, every article read on Ground News, and every post shared on Bluesky is a small act of resistance against the surveillance capitalism model that has come to dominate our online lives.

Being a digital citizen in this evolving landscape means looking beyond convenience and questioning the motives behind the platforms we use. It means supporting tools that protect our privacy, foster accountability, and create spaces for genuine connection. When we choose privacy-focused tools like Tor and VPNs, we assert our right to an untracked, unmonitored digital experience. When we seek balanced news sources highlighting media bias, we commit to being informed, active participants in our democracy.

This call to action is not about rejecting technology but demanding better technology. It is about embracing innovation that enhances our lives without exploiting our data and supporting platforms that serve people over profit. The technology industry is listening, and when we shift our collective attention toward ethical platforms, we create demand for a future where digital spaces empower rather than exploit.

The question, then, is not whether we can change the digital landscape, but whether we are willing to. Can we break the cycle of convenience and commit to a digital world that respects our values? The answer lies in each of us, in our daily online choices. Let us reclaim our power as digital citizens and create an internet where our privacy, well-being, and right to information come first.