“This summer, I had the privilege of working at a technology startup specializing in safeguarding intellectual property and personal data. One of my primary responsibilities involved dissecting the Terms of Service and Privacy agreements of major corporations, many of whose services have become an integral part of our daily lives.
Two of the most striking outcomes from this research were the prevalence of mandatory arbitration clauses and the allowance to use personal data to train AI. The prevailing argument suggests that individuals can simply opt not to use a particular service if they disagree with these terms. However, this stance is becoming increasingly infeasible as our online platforms rapidly evolve into the primary arenas for sharing political viewpoints.
The landscape has shifted, and it’s now almost impossible to freely share one’s opinions without a digital platform to amplify your voice. This reliance on technology platforms is not solely due to any single company’s coercion but rather a result of immense societal pressures that push us in this direction.
In the past, expressing one’s thoughts meant taking to the town square, where public discourse was celebrated. While this option still exists, it often garners less enthusiasm and more skeptical looks. Attempting to voice your opinion can feel like shouting into a vacuum, and our primary channels for self-expression now exist within platforms created by tech giants. Many individuals sign up for these services without fully understanding the agreements they’re entering into.
To address this challenge, it may seem like we do not have many options. In the short term, we can turn to reviving civil discourse in local contexts—whether that’s on college campuses, in our hometowns, or within our neighborhoods. In doing so, we can create spaces for meaningful dialogue that extend beyond the digital realm.”
