Data Rights and Digital Hegemony

 

By Lilian H. Hill

The internet was once imagined as a democratic digital common; however, that notion has been rendered idealistic (Shurety, 2021). Today, mainstream internet use is predominantly governed by a handful of powerful corporations, signaling that cyberspace has also undergone significant privatization. Digital hegemony refers to dominance exercised by a small group of powerful technology companies and states over the digital infrastructure, norms, and data flows that shape global information ecosystems. This form of control extends beyond simple market power; it encompasses the ability to set standards, influence public discourse, and dictate the rules of engagement in cyberspace. Much like cultural or economic hegemony shapes societal values and resource distribution, digital hegemony influences how knowledge is produced, circulated, and monetized, often with limited transparency and accountability.

Digital hegemony intersects directly with data rights, meaning individuals’ and communities’ control over how their personal and collective data are collected, stored, used, and shared. Although AI tools may appear to generate content out of thin air, generative AI systems are built and trained on vast datasets, drawing from extensive collections of images, text, and audio. These systems rely on billions of parameters shaped by complex algorithms that analyze and learn from massive archives of digital information.

In a digitally hegemonic landscape, data are frequently extracted without meaningful consent and commodified by dominant actors, reinforcing asymmetries of power. Citizens often have little recourse or understanding of how their data shape algorithmic decisions, advertising profiles, or political targeting. As scholars like Shoshana Zuboff (2019) argue in The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, this unchecked exploitation of data amounts to a new form of dispossession. Advocating for data rights—including the right to access, delete, and control one's data—is therefore essential to challenging digital hegemony and restoring individuals’ democratic agency.

Monetizing Data

In the digital age, data have become a central asset. Personal information is collected, analyzed, and monetized by both corporations and governments. The commodification of personal data has given rise to growing concerns about privacy, surveillance, and individual autonomy. The concept of data rights has emerged as a response to these concerns, advocating for individuals’ control over their personal information. Verhulst (2022) emphasizes the need for digital self-determination, where individuals have the agency to decide how their data are used and shared. Likewise, Huang and Siddarth (2023) discuss the importance of protecting the digital commons, suggesting that generative AI models trained on public data should contribute back to the communities from which they draw.

The digital realm is also susceptible to more insidious forms of power consolidation. The term digital coup has been used to describe situations where digital platforms or technologies are leveraged to undermine democratic processes. A notable example is Meta's (formerly Facebook) response to Canada's Bill C-18, which aimed to ensure fair compensation for news content shared on digital platforms. In retaliation, Meta restricted access to news content for Canadian users, effectively using its platform's dominance to challenge governmental authority (MacArthur, 2023). Such actions highlight the immense power wielded by tech giants and the potential threats they pose to democratic institutions.

In more extreme cases, digital tools have been employed to facilitate governmental overthrows or suppress dissent. The 2021 military coup in Myanmar saw the junta implementing internet shutdowns, surveillance, and censorship to control the narrative and stifle opposition (Coppel & Chang, 2024). These tactics exemplify how digital technologies can be weaponized to consolidate power and suppress democratic movements. The international community must recognize and address these challenges to safeguard democratic values in the digital era.

Preserving Data Rights

Preserving data rights involves ensuring individuals have meaningful control over how their personal information is collected, used, and shared in digital environments. Legal frameworks play a foundational role in this effort. For example, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) provides comprehensive protection, including the rights to access, correct, delete, and restrict the processing of personal data (European Commission, 2016). Similarly, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) empowers consumers to know what personal information is being collected and to opt out of its sale (California Civil Code § 1798.100, 2018).

Beyond legislation, preserving data rights requires implementing technical and organizational strategies such as privacy by design, where data protection measures are integrated into the development of systems and technologies from the outset (Cavoukian, 2009; Solove, 2025). Another critical principle is data minimization, which means collecting only the data necessary for a specific purpose, thereby reducing the risks of misuse or unauthorized access. Additionally, increasing public awareness and digital literacy helps individuals make informed choices and assert their rights more effectively. Together, legal, technical, and educational approaches form a multi-layered strategy for upholding data rights in the digital age.

Counteracting Digital Hegemony

Counteracting digital hegemony involves resisting the concentrated power that dominant technology corporations and states hold over digital infrastructures, platforms, and user data. Digital hegemony allows a few powerful actors—often multinational tech companies like Google, Meta, and Amazon—to control the flow of information, shape public discourse, and exploit user data for economic and political gain (Couldry & Mejias, 2019). This monopolization raises concerns about surveillance, censorship, and the erosion of democratic processes. To counteract these trends, various strategies have emerged. These include promoting open-source technologies and decentralized networks that reduce dependency on corporate-owned platforms (Zuboff, 2019), enforcing antitrust regulations and data protection laws (Birhane, 2021), and enhancing digital literacy to empower users to navigate and critically engage with online systems (Hintz et al., 2018). Furthermore, advocating for digital sovereignty—where communities and nations assert control over their digital infrastructure and data—is a critical step toward reducing reliance on foreign or corporate technologies (Tomasello, 2023). Ultimately, counteracting digital hegemony involves redistributing digital power, protecting civil liberties, and promoting a more inclusive and equitable digital ecosystem.

 

References

Birhane, A. (2021). Algorithmic injustice: A relational ethics approach. Patterns, 2(2), 100205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2021.100205

Brush, H. (2003). Electronic civil disobedience. In Encyclopedia of new media (pp. 167-168). SAGE Publications, Inc., https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412950657.n86

California Civil Code § 1798.100. (2018). California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018. https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/civil-code/civ-sect-1798-100/

Coppel, N., & Chang, L. Y. C. (2024). Coup #4: February 2021 and after. In Myanmar’s digital coup (pp. 23–45). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-58645-3_2SpringerLink

Cavoukian, A. (2009). Privacy by Design: The 7 foundational principles. Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. https://www.ipc.on.ca/sites/default/files/legacy/2018/01/pbd-1.pdf

Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2019). The costs of connection: How data is colonizing human life and appropriating it for capitalism. Stanford University Press.

European Commission. (2016). General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj

Hintz, A., Dencik, L., & Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2018). Digital citizenship in a datafied society. Polity Press.

Huang, S., & Siddarth, D. (2023). Generative AI and the Digital Commons. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.11074arXiv

MacArthur, J. R. (2023, October 1). A Digital Coup. Harper’s Magazine. https://harpers.org/2023/10/a-digital-coup/Harper's Magazine

Shurety, E. (2021, June 17). What happened to electronic civil disobedience? Hyperallergic. https://hyperallergic.com/654595/what-happened-to-electronic-civil-disobedience/

Solove, D. J. (2021). Understanding privacy. Harvard University Press.

Tomasello, F. Digital civics and algorithmic citizenship in a global scenario. Philos. Technol. 36, 39 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-023-00638-3

Verhulst, S. G. (2022). Operationalizing digital self determination. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.08539arXiv

Wikipedia contributors. (2025). Electronic civil disobedience. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_civil_disobedienceWikipedia

Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.