Nshua Cali-Dibang · Global Voices · Creative Commons Attribution 3.0. Text excerpted and formatting simplified; media and third-party quotations excluded. No endorsement implied.
Source excerpt
How much control do people retain over their personal information in a world increasingly shaped by AI?
Illustration by Nshua Cali-Dibang, used with permission.
This post is part of Global Voices’ October 2026 Spotlight series, “Big Tech and Authoritarianism.” In this Spotlight, we explore how Big Tech facilitates and hinders authoritarian governments and practices, and how these choices influence the Global South. You can support this coverage by donating here.
Every search, social media interaction, and conversation with an artificial intelligence (AI) tool can leave behind information about its user. Individually, these digital traces may appear insignificant. Collectively, however, they can reveal interests, habits, preferences and patterns of behavior that have considerable commercial and political value.
As AI becomes increasingly embedded in everyday life, technology companies are finding new ways to use data to develop their products, personalize services and generate revenue. While these developments offer considerable benefits, they also raise a difficult question: How much control do people retain over their personal information in a world increasingly shaped by AI?
The issue extends beyond privacy policies and user agreements. It concerns the growing power of technology companies to collect information, draw conclusions about individuals, and influence the digital environments in which people communicate, work, and access information.
In September 2024, the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) published findings from an investigation into nine major social media and video-streaming companies, including Meta, YouTube, TikTok, and Amazon-owned Twitch.
The FTC reported that these companies collected extensive information about users and, in some cases, non-users. The information included personal details, interests, online activities, and data obtained from other sources. The investigation also raised concerns about lengthy data retention, inadequate privacy protections, and the use of personal information in automated systems, including AI.
The report highlighted a fundamental imbalance: Companies can accumulate substantial information about individuals, while those individuals may have limited understanding of how their data is used or how to prevent certain uses.
AI adds another dimension to this problem. Data can help train models, improve recommendations, and power automated decisions. However, the greater the volume and variety of information companies can access, the more important it becomes to establish clear limits on its collection and use.
The concern is not that every company collecting data is necessarily acting maliciously. Rather, it is that systems designed to maximize commercial value from information can create incentives to collect more data than people reasonably expect or understand.
For millions of people, AI offers opportunities that were previously difficult to access. Students can use AI tools to support learning, small businesses can improve their operations, and journalists can explore new approaches to research and production.
In countries such as Nigeria, where access to resources and professional services can be uneven, these tools could help narrow certain gaps. AI systems that support local languages and reflect diverse cultural experiences could also make digital services more accessible.
Yet inclusion should mean more than allowing people to use a technology. It should also mean ensuring that they understand the conditions under which they use it and retain meaningful rights over their information.
Many digital services are governed by lengthy terms and privacy policies that users may accept without fully understanding the implications. Some AI products also raise questions about whether information submitted through prompts, uploaded documents, or other interactions may be retained or used to improve models.
The precise practices differ between companies and products. Nevertheless, users need clear explanations of what information is collected, why it is needed, how long it is retained, and whether it may be used for purposes beyond the immediate service.
Without these safeguards, the benefits of AI inclusion risk coming with an invisible cost: reduced control over personal information.
The connection between big tech and authoritarianism requires careful examination. Authoritarianism is not simply the collection of data by private companies. It involves the concentration and exercise of power in ways that undermine accountability, rights, and freedoms.
However, extensive corporate data collection can create conditions that make surveillance easier. Detailed personal information can support profiling, targeted persuasion and the prediction of individual behavior. Depending on the circumstances, businesses, governments, or other actors may exploit these capabilities.
The risks become particularly serious when personal data can be accessed or shared without adequate safeguards, when automated systems make consequential decisions without meaningful oversight, or when people have little opportunity to challenge how their information is used.
Concentrated corporate power adds another concern. When a small number of companies control widely used digital platforms, AI services, and large pools of information, individuals may have few practical alternatives. Leaving a platform may mean losing access to professional networks, customers, communities, or essential services.
This does not mean that every AI system is a surveillance tool or that every technology company intends to restrict freedom. It means that the infrastructure of digital life deserves scrutiny because its capabilities can be used in ways that extend beyond their original commercial purpose.
Nigeria has a legal framework intended to protect individuals against the misuse of their personal information. The Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 established the Nigeria Data Protection Commission and provides a framework for the lawful, fair and accountable processing of personal data.
Legislation is an important step, but effective protection also depends on implementation, public awareness, and regulators’ ability to hold organizations accountable.
As Nigerians increasingly adopt AI-powered services, questions about data governance become more pressing. Users need to understand their rights, while organizations must take responsibility for explaining their practices and protecting the information they collect.
There is also a wider question of representation. If AI systems are developed using data that inadequately reflects Nigerian languages, cultures, and social realities, their benefits may be distributed unevenly. Responsible AI governance must therefore address both the protection of personal information and the inclusion of communities whose experiences are often underrepresented.
UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence emphasizes privacy, data protection, transparency, accountability, and fairness throughout the AI lifecycle. These principles provide a useful foundation for ensuring that technological progress respects human rights.
The challenge is not to reject AI or prevent companies from using data to develop useful technologies. It is to establish boundaries that allow innovation without making personal privacy an acceptable casualty.
Technology companies should minimize unnecessary data collection, communicate their policies clearly, provide meaningful choices, and strengthen protections against unauthorized access. Regulators must ensure that existing laws remain effective as AI capabilities evolve, while users need accessible information about the rights available to them.
Ultimately, digital inclusion cannot be measured solely by the number of people using AI. It must also consider whether those people can participate safely, understand the systems they rely on, and exercise meaningful control over their information.
As AI becomes more powerful, the question is no longer simply what technology can do with our data. It is who decides what can be done, who benefits from those decisions, and who has the power to challenge them.
The future of AI should not be defined only by what machines learn about us, but also by how much control we retain over ourselves.
Source: Global Voices ↗
Source details
Last checked 7 Nov 2026, 1:53 am IST · Coverage & methodology