Freedom of Expression in a Datafied World

  • Economic Model: Surveillance Capitalism: This model monetizes human behavior and social activities by converting them into data. The digital economy, driven by platform and data broker industries, aggregates and processes personal data to generate revenue (Zuboff 2015, Rieke et al. 2016, Srnicek 2016).

  • Government Use of 'Big Data': Snowden revelations exposed extensive government collection and analysis of online communications, movement data, and social networks from various sources, including social media, telecommunication servers, and user devices (Greenwald 2014). For instance, UK authorities can access citizens' browsing habits (Hintz & Brown 2017).

  • Social Sorting, Classification, and Segmentation: Data analytics systems are central to how commercial and public sectors classify individuals through 'social sorting' (Lyon 2015), used for service allocation, management, and punitive measures.

  • Chinese Social Credit Score: This comprehensive data-based system assesses 'trustworthiness' by combining financial, social, and consumer behavior. It operates on a reward/penalty system (e.g., for community engagement vs. traffic offenses), granting privileges for high scores and restricting services for low scores (Hvistendahl 2017). Data sources span online activity, legal, financial, and educational records, with major tech companies involved in its implementation (Lv & Luo 2018).

  • Global Trends and Criticisms: While criticized in the West as a 'digital totalitarian state', China's system reflects a global trend of applying data analytics in the public sector, extending consumer scoring to citizenship (Jefferson 2018, McQuillan 2018). This includes applications like predictive policing, risk models for child welfare, health, and border control, often leveraging commercial data to inform decisions (Angwin et al. 2016, Eubanks 2018, Crawford 2016, Big Brother Watch 2018).

Consequences: Chilling Effect, Surveillance Culture, and Digital Resignation

  • Reinforced Chilling Effect: Awareness of monitoring restricts self-expression. Chinese social media users censor themselves due to social credit score concerns (Ma 2021), and even hypothetical surveillance can cause 'networked chilling effects' (Penney 2017).

  • "Dataveillance" of Politically Active Citizens: Snowden revelations showed governments monitor political groups and individuals expressing dissent online, leading to self-imposed restrictions on free expression (Privacy International & Amnesty International 2015, Greenwald & Gallagher 2014).

  • Rise of Surveillance Culture: Pervasive data collection normalizes surveillance, turning it into something citizens engage with and even initiate, rather than just an external imposition (Lyon 2017).

Datafication as Authoritarian and Illiberal Practices

Datafication's pervasive collection, profiling, and scoring embody authoritarian practices (e.g., silencing voices, censorship, lack of accountability) and illiberal practices (infringing personal autonomy and dignity) (Glasius 2018, Glasius & Michaelsen 2018). This lack of transparency and accountability fundamentally challenges digital rights and freedoms (Hintz & Milan 2018).

Data Policy: Data Collection and Data Protection

Major data scandals (Snowden, Cambridge Analytica) have pushed datafication onto the public policy agenda. New regulatory frameworks are emerging, divided into data collection rules (constraining surveillance) and data protection legislation (regulating data use). These policies often exhibit conflicting goals, balancing a commitment to data collection with the recognition of citizens' data rights.

The Data Collection Regulatory Environment

Historically, data collection regulatory frameworks were fragmented and predated modern datafication (e.g., UK's 1984 Telecommunications Act), leading to extensive, unaudited data extraction by state agencies (Hintz & Brown 2017). The platform economy, largely self-regulated, often requires users to accept comprehensive data collection for service access (EU Cookie Directive), effectively legitimizing data extraction rather than protecting users (Edwards & Veale 2017).

Policy Reforms Regarding Data Collection (Post-Snowden)

Post-Snowden reforms have led to varied outcomes: some countries (US, Brazil) restricted state data collection, while others (France, Germany, Denmark, UK) expanded surveillance. The UK's Investigatory Powers Act of 2016 legalized and expanded mass surveillance, internet connection record collection, metadata retention, and state-sponsored hacking (Hintz & Brown 2017). The 2017 UK Digital Economy Act further permits data sharing between government and private entities without consent, increasing commercial data aggregation in the public sector (Dencik et al. 2019).

Strengthening Data Protection Rules

Governments have started strengthening data protection, exemplified by the EU's GDPR (2018). While facing criticism, GDPR limits corporate data use and offers citizens enhanced control through rights like data access, explanation, portability, and actively managed consent. It mandates "purpose limitation" for data collection and processing, limits automated decision-making, and prohibits processing sensitive personal data, thereby impacting data brokers (Edwards & Veale 2017, Wachter et al. 2017).

Emerging Citizen Control Over Data? (Effectiveness and Limitations)

New regulations like GDPR and CCPA aim to empower citizens with data control and counter "digital resignation," potentially securing free expression. However, their effectiveness is limited: they often assume an "informed user," which is unrealistic given legal complexity. Their scope mainly covers "personal" data, not "inferred" or "behavioral" data, which analytics companies often claim to own and use for profiling, potentially circumventing sensitive data rules and leading to biased outcomes (Edwards & Veale 2017, Dencik et al. 2019, Angwin et al. 2016). Crucially, these regulations typically do not restrict state agencies' data collection, which remains a primary threat to freedom of expression, reinforcing the chilling effect. Additionally, the individual-centric policy view overlooks that much data, like risk scores and social media activity, is inherently collective, reflecting social relationships rather than purely individual information (Hintz & Brand 2019).