2. The Problem

2.1 Exploitation of User Data

The vast majority of internet users are unaware of the full extent to which their data is being harvested, analyzed, and monetized. Centralized platforms such as social media networks, search engines, and e-commerce giants collect vast amounts of data from their users—often without explicit consent or a clear understanding of what is being collected. This data includes everything from browsing habits and purchasing behavior to personal communications and location information. The platforms then store this data in centralized databases, where it is aggregated, analyzed, and ultimately monetized.

This monetization process is highly lucrative for the platforms. Through targeted advertising, data analytics, and other revenue-generating strategies, these companies generate billions of dollars by exploiting the personal information of their users. This exploitation often involves sharing the information with third parties—such as advertisers, data brokers, and government agencies—without the user’s knowledge or consent.

Not only are these conditions unjust in terms of transparency, as individuals have no way of knowing who has access to their data or how it is being used, they are also unjust in compensation. The individuals who create this data—the very lifeblood of the digital economy— receive no compensation or meaningful control over how their information is used. This exploitation strips users of their rights to privacy, autonomy, and fair economic participation.

The lack of user control is one of the most significant issues within this model. In most cases, users are not given a genuine choice about whether or not to share their data.The terms of service agreements that govern these platforms are often lengthy, opaque, and written in legal language that is difficult for the average person to understand. As a result, users frequently agree to share their data without fully understanding the implications. Even when users do understand, they may feel compelled to accept these terms because the platforms have become essential tools for communication, work, and daily life. This creates a coercive environment where users are forced to trade their privacy for access to basic digital services.

Privacy concerns are exacerbated by the centralized nature of these platforms. Because user data is stored in large, centralized databases, it becomes a prime target for cyber-attacks. Over the years, there have been numerous high-profile data breaches in which millions of users’ personal information has been exposed or stolen. These breaches not only result in financial losses and identity theft but also erode public trust in digital platforms. The centralized control of data also means that users have little recourse if their information is misused or mishandled.

2.2 Centralization of Internet Operations

Beyond the exploitation of user data, another significant issue plaguing the current digital economy is the ongoing centralization of internet operations. This centralization is driven by a small number of tech giants, including Amazon Web Services (AWS), Apple, Google, and Microsoft’s Azure, which now operate a substantial portion of the global internet infrastructure. These corporations control vast networks of servers, data centers, and cloud services that power a significant percentage of websites, applications, and online services worldwide. Their dominance has reached a point where they effectively hold monopolistic power over the digital economy, dictating the terms of access, participation, and innovation.

The centralization of internet operations under these tech behemoths has profound implications for the future of the internet. On one hand, their control over critical infrastructure has made the internet faster, more reliable, and more scalable. However, this concentration of power also poses serious risks to the principles of openness, freedom, and neutrality that the internet was originally built upon. These corporations have increasingly exercised their dominance to shape the digital landscape according to their own interests, often at the expense of competition, innovation, and user rights.

One of the most concerning aspects of this centralization is the ability of these tech giants to exercise what can only be described as “unrighteous dominion” over the internet. By leveraging their monopolistic control over infrastructure, they have the power to ban, censor, or cancel applications, websites, and even entire platforms that do not align with their policies, values, or business interests. This has been demonstrated in several high-profile instances where applications or services were abruptly deplatformed or denied access to essential cloud services, effectively rendering them inoperable. Such actions are not only antithetical to the principles of a free and open internet but also highlight the dangers of allowing a few entities to control the digital lifeblood of the modern world.

The monopolistic practices of these corporations stifle competition and innovation. Startups, independent developers, and alternative platforms often find themselves at the mercy of these tech giants, who can restrict access to essential services or impose terms and conditions that are impossible to meet. This creates a chilling effect, where new ideas and disruptive technologies are either co-owned by the dominant players or suppressed entirely. The result is an internet that is increasingly homogenized, with fewer voices and less diversity in terms of content, services, and innovation.

Moreover, the centralization of internet operations has significant implications for freedom of expression and access to information. When a handful of corporations control the majority of the digital infrastructure, they also control the flow of information. This concentration of power allows them to act as gatekeepers, deciding what content is allowed, what is censored, and who gets a platform. The ability to unilaterally ban or cancel applications based on their own criteria—often without transparency or accountability—raises serious concerns about the erosion of free speech and the suppression of dissenting voices.