In 2010, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg claimed that privacy was no longer a "social norm"; that people had become so comfortable sharing more information, more openly and with more people, that the notion of holding back and protecting personal information was antiquated, even obsolete. Technological and societal threats to privacy have only increased since then. Sceptics and certain sections of the media would have you believe that those who seek to assert their right to privacy must have something to hide - they are branded as "furtive", "evasive" or "secretive". Yet the human right to respect for private and family life is intrinsically connected to our respect for human dignity and autonomy. Although the technological and societal threats to privacy are greater than ever, privacy is not dead and is worth fighting for.
Welcome to the digital age, where our lives are intertwined with technology in ways we could have never imagined a few decades ago. The dawn of the internet, smartphones and social media has revolutionized how we communicate, build relationships and navigate the world. Today, social media platforms have become the new town square, where people gather to share news, opinions and personal updates. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and TikTok are not just platforms for entertainment; they are powerful tools for social interaction.
But, in all the hullabaloo of these posts and shares, we are losing one important norm of our life: privacy. As our lives become increasingly digital, concerns about privacy have come to the forefront. The information we share online, intentionally or unintentionally, can have significant implications for our privacy and security.
The concept of privacy has never been weaker than it is today. We can now see every detail of how people on the other side of the world live, and often without realizing it, they can see what we eat, drink and do as well. What we call “freely sharing” on social media is not genuine freedom. At times, we willingly expose our private lives to show off, to gain status or even to make money as influencers. We have become frogs in boiling water. According to the boiling frog theory, a frog placed in hot water will immediately jump out because it senses the danger. However, a frog placed in cold water that is very slowly heated will not perceive the danger and will slowly be cooked to death. This theory is a metaphor for the idea that privacy is being stripped away at such a slow pace that individuals will not recognize the danger before it is too late to do anything about it.
You may remember that in 2025, a CEO was caught at a concert with a company employee. The moral aspect of the incident is another matter. However, within minutes, the details of both their families were identified and spread across social media worldwide. More accurately, they were exposed.
We may assume that we will never face such extensive exposure, yet through our daily posts, we gradually disclose personal information that could, and should, remain private. The troubling part is that many people no longer seem concerned. Increasingly, privacy is willingly surrendered in exchange for visibility or income as influencers.
Without consent
Imagine a child. A happy birthday photo, a recording of them singing, or many of their first experiences in life are shared by their family on social media as memories — more than 75% of families share their children on social media. Over time, they gain followers they have never met in real life – followers who know a lot about your child, depending on how much you share.
A few years ago, Deutsche Telekom released a video titled “A Message from Ella | Without Consent.” Ella's parents thought they were going to watch a movie when they entered the cinema. However, a digital version of their little girl Ella had been created using deepfake technology. Her voice and image were identical to Ella's. As her parents watched in shock, they saw how stolen data could be turned into horrific scenes using deepfake technology. Can you imagine what could be done now that artificial intelligence is rapidly becoming widespread?
Psychologists, educators and experts constantly issue the same warning: Children should be kept away from social media. Even governments are now stepping in. Australia has taken a pioneering step and banned social media use for children under 16.
Digital never forgets
We see every day how interaction captivates our minds. Couples livestreaming from their bedrooms, people embellishing their pain with music and sharing it, those who turn every moment of life into a story. When you become a prisoner of interaction, turning your own life into a “revealed” story becomes inevitable.
Of course, creating content on social media can be enjoyable within certain limits. But living in a world where nothing remains private for the sake of interaction is not easy at all. It is important to remember: Digital never forgets. Even if deleted, every piece of data leaves a trace and can fall into the hands of malicious individuals.
In addition to all this, now, there is the risk of rapidly developing AI. AI-generated images that looked amateurish a few years ago have now become images that even experts find difficult to distinguish. Images can be spread in contexts that have nothing to do with a photo and that we would not want to be associated with, showing people in inappropriate situations.
Whether it concerns ourselves or our children, we must protect our privacy rather than voluntarily surrender it. We also need to recognize that AI is not merely the opportunity it is often portrayed to be, but a reality that may further erode privacy.
Fear of being alone
Whether shaped by religious beliefs or a sense of individuality, everyone's personal life should remain personal and not be shared indiscriminately. People need space for their own joys and sorrows.
On social media today, content creators often share only their happiest moments, striving to influence others, gain approval and present their lives as desirable. Yet, we live in the age of algorithms and the dynamic is changing. When algorithms begin to amplify sorrow as much as happiness, individuals may feel compelled to expose even their deepest pain. Breakups, the loss of a loved one or personal failure, moments essential for growth, are increasingly shared online. As a result, everyone feels entitled to comment. Alongside support, people are often met with harsh criticism and unprovoked insults. This raises an important question: why do we voluntarily expose ourselves to such vulnerability?
Perhaps what we fear most is being alone with ourselves. Consider this striking statistic: over 4.5 billion reels are uploaded to Instagram every day, and more than 200 billion are watched daily. What else could explain such insatiable demand?
We are trapped in an endless scroll, bombarded with thousands of pieces of information every day. Life is accelerating.
In this rush, we share our private lives without fully realizing it, driven by the fear of being left behind. Yet, the ones we leave behind the most are ourselves and what we truly want. On top of that, we willingly expose our privacy, knowing it draws attention. That is why we cannot seem to stop. The question is: how aware are we of the danger?
Looking into the future
a. The pessimist view
Pessimists believe that privacy in the future will be diminished primarily due to (1) convenience to the consumer, (2) the need or demand for governments to provide services to and protect their citizens, and (3) the “Internet of Things” (IoT) – the ever-increasing interconnection of personal and home devices through the Internet, including your ability to check the contents of your refrigerator, or its ability to check its own inventory and place orders with the grocery store to replenish supplies; check or change thermostat settings; lock and unlock doors; visually monitor rooms in the house; chart your heart rate during the day; track the location of your children; measure the number of steps you take and stairs you climb; and locate your misplaced smartphones and other devices. In time, due to the IoT, the devices we carry and have at our homes and workplaces will tattle on us about everything we do!
The pessimist group believes that individuals will get used to the fact that mass surveillance exists and will not expect much in the way of privacy by 2025. This group also believes that government compilation of data about individuals will increase because the government has become more willing to demand data collected by commercial entities, data that the government itself cannot collect directly.
b. The optimist view
The optimists believe that individual interest and belief in privacy rights will be maintained into the future. They say that the public will become more sophisticated about security and safety and that businesses will feel pressure to implement stronger security practices such as two-factor authentication and end-to-end cryptography. This group also believes that users will insist on having the ability to encrypt their email as needed. The group believes that the future Internet will have a universal, secure standard for unambiguously establishing a person's identity. They believe that people will become more aware of the conscious and unconscious traces of their existence as they work online and that legislatures and policymakers will achieve the right balance between personal privacy and secure data.
Although the optimist group believes that egregious privacy invasions are inevitable, they also believe that a backlash will occur to bring a new equilibrium between consumers, governments and businesses, and that the free market will force policymakers and corporations to strike the right balance to protect and secure consumer data.
c. The pragmatist view
The pragmatists accept the notion of increased tracking of their public physical location by governments (e.g. toll road payments, police car license plate scanning) and private-sector tools that track phone IDs, faces, etc. They also believe that there will be stronger rules and societal expectations against surveillance of activities within people's homes or other enclosed spaces when, for example, people walk by or into retail shops or other commercial facilities. Pragmatists predict there will be no tolerance for drone Peeping Toms or efforts to access wireless emissions from tablets, smartphones and other devices.
Conclusion
The best way to guard against loss of privacy is by being mindful about what we share, with whom and how it is received by the recipient. It is prudent to set clear expectations before sharing – so that if information is not for onward dissemination, that is understood and agreed in advance. Equally, if privacy boundaries are set, they must be actively policed in order to be effective – and unlawful interference addressed.
The writer is a social media enthusiast.
