Artificial intelligence is not just a technical issue; it's also a test for democracy, human rights, and social equality. If we approach these technologies solely with the logic of speed, efficiency, and profit, we could accelerate the authoritarian tide. Alternative paths to strengthen democracy through transparency, accountability, and normative development are also possible. As with many examples like Cambridge Analytica, AI solutions that influence human behavior will shape the future of society. So, how will we protect freedom in the age of artificial intelligence?
The prevailing hope in the early years of the internet and social media was that access to information would be democratized and individuals would participate more actively in public life. However, this hope has given way to a complex reality: today, these same technologies have become tools that restrict freedoms, shape politics, and strengthen authoritarian regimes. This concept, articulated by Shoshana Zuboff as surveillance capitalism, argues that digital platforms, particularly FAMGA (Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Apple), process the data they collect from users to predict and guide their behavior, thus gaining the capacity to intervene both economically and politically. In this approach, data is no longer simply a source of revenue for companies; it is an influencer that maps, predicts, and shapes human behavior. This aspect of data enables the transition from an advertising model to a policy model: an individual's preferences not only provide clues about what they will buy but also become capable of predicting their political perceptions, sensitivities, and reactions.
When discussing the digital and global Gang of Five, it is insufficient to consider the risks posed by these companies solely within the framework of surveillance capitalism. These companies not only provide the digital infrastructure but also become central drivers of innovation through platform ownership, data access, and content control, creating a monopolistic structure that controls the entire chain. For example, consider a new digital venture: your mobile app must be accepted into Google Play or the Apple App Store; your database infrastructure must be largely provided through Amazon Web Services or Microsoft Azure; and your social media presence must be managed through Facebook and Instagram. In this context, it becomes virtually impossible to launch an idea "without FAMGA" and grow it without relying on them. Platforms effectively regulate which content is visible, which voices are suppressed, and which information is circulated. For more detailed reading on this topic, I recommend William Janeway's article "Big Tech Is Watching — and Being Watched" on Project Syndicate.
Of course, it would be inadequate to address surveillance capitalism and the oligopolistic structure of digital platforms solely in the context of FAMGA. We can see surveillance capitalism practically transforming into an evolving tool of oppression in the hands of authoritarian regimes in authoritarian countries, especially China. Facial recognition systems, social credit systems, and extensive camera networks, currently among the most heavily invested applications worldwide, are the most powerful examples of this transformation. But is this transformation frightening? This is where a paradoxical situation emerges. On the one hand, these systems eliminate the individual's privacy, opening the boundaries of private life to state control, effectively rendering personal freedom vulnerable to public surveillance. On the other hand, these forms of surveillance are legitimized by large segments of society on grounds such as preventing crime, maintaining public order, or protecting "social morality." This dual structure is actually the result of a cultural and ethical void. If a society's self-control, respect for public space, and culture of communal living are weak, digital surveillance mechanisms fill this void. Authority replaces morality; algorithms replace conscience. Thus, the tools of surveillance capitalism begin to shape not only behavior but also value judgments. This transformation is supported not only by infrastructure but also by state-corporate collaboration. In China, public security institutions commission surveillance software from private technology companies, which in turn gain extensive data access, scale advantages, and domestic market support. Thanks to this "home-market effect," companies can transform state demands in the domestic market into a global competitive advantage. Recent studies show that this cooperation has astronomically increased the surveillance capacity of authoritarian regimes. For a more detailed analysis, I recommend reading Albert Cevallos's article "How Autocrats Weaponize AI — and How to Fight Back," published in the Journal of Democracy.
The framework I attempted to outline above bears similarities to Michel Foucault's concept of the "panopticon," which describes how surveillance has become central to power in modern societies. Jeremy Bentham's prison model is not only an architectural structure for Foucault, but also a metaphor for modern forms of power. In a panoptic order, individuals, knowing they are under constant surveillance, discipline their own behavior without the need for external coercion. This mechanism operates not through the permanence of surveillance, but through its possibility: individuals obey, assuming they can be monitored at any moment. The digital age has taken panoptic surveillance to a new dimension. Now, surveillance is conducted not through the eyes of the guard in the tower, but through the device in each individual's pocket. Social media interactions, location data, digital payments, search histories, and biometric information constitute the "data citizen" of modern society. In this new panoptic order, individuals are not only monitored but also voluntarily share their own data, ensuring the continuity of surveillance. The desire for "likes" and "visibility" is replacing the classic disciplinary society with a "society of self-regulation and display." An important point needs to be emphasized here. Digital authoritarianism, unlike the crude censorship methods of classical authoritarianism, operates through behavioral manipulation and data manipulation. Here, instead of banning information, the government directs its flow. Consider, for example, China's social credit system. In this system, the most visible form of digital authoritarianism, citizens' economic, social, and political behaviors are transformed into a single point system, and citizens are guided using their data.
Moreover, digital authoritarianism is not limited to authoritarian regimes. Algorithmic forms of authoritarianism are also emerging in democratic systems. The algorithms of social media platforms that manipulate user behavior represent the surveillance power of the market, not the state. Thus, the line between surveillance and manipulation is blurred; citizens are not only monitored, but also the information they will access and how they will react is predetermined. Consequently, the most striking feature of the digital age is that surveillance is no longer legitimized through coercion, but through the production of consent. People voluntarily share their private data for greater security, convenience, or social visibility. This voluntary surveillance, unlike the disciplinary society envisioned by Foucault, is combined with the neoliberal subject's desire to optimize their own behavior. As a result, an invisible yet profoundly authoritarian structure emerges. While believing themselves free, the individual begins to operate within the algorithmic boundaries of the system.
The reshaping of the surveillance capitalism model in authoritarian regimes transforms not only technology but also the paradigm of power. The FAMGA Five's transformation of innovation into both resource and platform providers and content regulators poses the risk of a new "gatekeeper" for democracy. Today, the question is unavoidable: What is the path to protecting freedom and democratic governance in the age of artificial intelligence? This question requires not only technological regulations but also the reestablishment of norms, international cooperation, and social awareness.
