This Article is written by Pritam Chandra Ashutosh of Naarayan School of Law/ Gopal Narayan Sigh University, an intern under Legal Vidhiya
Abstract
This article critically examines the complex interplay between social media and individual privacy rights. It begins by situating social media as a ubiquitous mode of communication that transforms free expression and information dissemination. We highlight social media’s benefits for civic engagement and news-sharing (broadened reach of journalism, empowered citizens), alongside its significant privacy risks (pervasive data collection, surveillance advertising, and psychological harms). We analyse how social media platforms’ business models and design choices – from opaque privacy policies to engagement-driven algorithms – systematically encroach on privacy. A multi-jurisdictional survey of legal responses follows, showing how emerging global frameworks (e.g., the EU’s GDPR and similar laws) and enforcement actions seek to rein in abuses, balanced against fundamental rights and free-speech concerns. The article discusses legal theory (from Warren–Brandeis’ “right to be let alone” to modern data-protection concepts), academic commentary, and recent policy developments, concluding that effective privacy protection on social media requires comprehensive, international regulation and user‐empowering technology.
Keywords
Social Media, Data Privacy, Free Expression, Surveillance Capitalism, User Consent, GDPR, Dark Patterns, Digital Rights
Introduction
Social media platforms – from Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to Instagram, TikTok, and LinkedIn – have revolutionized communication and community-building worldwide. Over the past two decades they have become “vast and powerful tools for connecting, communicating, sharing content, conducting business, and disseminating news and information”. In many countries, major segments of the population now rely on social networks as primary sources of news and social interaction. Yet this extraordinary growth has come with extraordinary intrusions: platforms have gained unprecedented access to users’ lives and collect “sensitive data about individuals’ activities, interests, personal characteristics, political views, and online behaviours”. Such data powers algorithmic content curation and targeted advertising, often without meaningful user control. Critics warn this model has turned social media companies into “surveillance advertising” engines that “turn users into products” and even “weapons of mass manipulation”.
At the same time, social media plays a vital role in modern society. It enables rapid dissemination of information, free expression, and community engagement that were previously impossible. Surveys indicate[1] that majorities of people in many countries view social media as a net positive for democracy and information access.
This suggests that social media fosters pluralism and engagement by giving diverse voices wider reach. Indeed, academic observers note that social networks allow “dissemination of news and other media products beyond traditional platforms” and expose citizens to “diverse content formats… and a plurality of viewpoints”. Social media has also expanded public discourse: ordinary users, not just elite journalists, can broadcast information and opinions globally.
This duality – benefits for free expression and information sharing on one hand, versus deep incursions into personal privacy on the other – lies at the heart of the social media–privacy nexus. This article will unpack both sides of the coin. We first discuss the ways social media transforms the exercise of fundamental rights (freedom of expression and privacy) and the concerns this raises. We then examine specific privacy harms linked to social media: mass data collection and monetization, algorithmic manipulation and psychological impacts, and surveillance by state and private actors. Next, we analyse the roles of user behaviour and platform design (interfaces, defaults, “dark patterns”) in eroding privacy, including the concept of user consent and the “privacy paradox.” Finally, we survey the evolving legal and regulatory landscape – from domestic statutes to international human-rights law – that addresses these issues. Throughout, we draw on legal theory, case law, scholarly commentary, and recent enforcement (such as privacy regulators’ orders and fines) to illuminate how law is responding to social media’s challenges to privacy.
Social Media, Free Expression, and Privacy Rights
Social media exists at the intersection of two fundamental sets of rights: free speech and informational privacy. On one hand, social networks have dramatically extended the reach of free expression. They allow any user to publish news, opinion, and creative content to a potentially global audience, bypassing traditional gatekeepers. This helps democratize information and can empower marginalized communities. For example, in times of political unrest or emergencies, social media facilitates swift coordination and instant updates. As noted by one analyst, these platforms “reshape how freedom of expression functions” by allowing information to spread beyond traditional media and introducing users to diverse perspectives.
In democratic contexts, many citizens report that social media helps them stay informed and engage with civic issues; Pew found that a majority of respondents in most surveyed countries believe staying informed is part of good citizenship and that the internet/social media makes this easier.
At the same time, privacy is a recognized fundamental right under international instruments. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protect privacy (and data protection has been affirmed by the UN Human Rights Council as a fundamental right of the digital age).
Social media challenges these traditions by blending the private and public spheres. When a user posts on a social network, personal details that might once have been truly private can become public (to contacts or even to all users), often with no real understanding of who will see them. Just as Brandeis and Warren famously posited a “right to be let alone,” this right in practice means controlling who sees one’s information. In the social media era, that control is often lost. Commentators note that many users today “voluntarily and actively[2] give up their right ‘to be let alone’” on these platforms. In other words, the expectation of privacy has shifted: people may consent to sharing personal data in exchange for the utility of these services. Yet this “consent” is highly contested in practice, as discussed below.
For example, doxxing (publishing private personal details online) may occur under the guise of free expression but infringe on privacy and safety. Courts have long balanced these rights; European case law (ECHR) develops a proportionality standard when they clash, and US courts grapple with how First Amendment principles apply to online speech while not undermining privacy torts or statutory rights. A balanced view must recognize that robust free expression often requires some privacy safeguards (to prevent chilling self-censorship) and that privacy protection need not prevent lawful speech. Platforms’ own terms generally reflect this tension: they typically aim to maximize user speech and engagement but also forbid harassment, doxxing, or stalking.
Positive Aspects of Social Media
Social media plays a vital and multifaceted role in today’s society, contributing significantly to the exchange of information and enhancing public discourse. It has diminished the monopoly of traditional media, enabling individuals, NGOs, and citizen journalists to share news, images, and reports swiftly—whether related to global e vents or local issues. During emergencies like natural disasters or protests, these platforms often deliver real-time updates that conventional outlets might overlook. Social media is also a powerful tool for grassroots activism and community engagement, as evidenced by movements such as the Arab Spring and #MeToo, where viral content helped spark meaningful social change. In professional and organizational contexts, leaders use these platforms to interact with the public, receive feedback, and strengthen stakeholder relationships.
Public opinion supports these functions: surveys conducted across various nations reveal that many people view social media as a driver of civic engagement and increased awareness. For instance, a Pew Research Centre study covering 19 countries found that approximately 70–80% of respondents believed social media helps raise awareness, shape public policy, and influence opinions. A median of 57% viewed it as beneficial for their democracy. Younger generations, in particular, see social media as a source of empowerment, frequently using it to express views on social and political matters and affirming its potential for real-world impact.
In addition to its civic functions, social media offers psychological and social benefits. Studies in psychology show that online interactions can offer meaningful support and foster a sense of belonging. These platforms connect users with shared interests, provide support communities for stigmatized conditions, and assist in healthcare efforts, particularly in mental health. Research also indicates that online engagement can reduce feelings of loneliness and that anonymity can be helpful for those with social anxiety. Overall, social media broadens users’ personal and informational networks, overcoming geographical and societal limitations.
Privacy Risks and Negative Consequences
While social media provides significant advantages, its privacy-related drawbacks are both profound and multifaceted. These challenges can be grouped into several key areas: data collection and commercialization, algorithmic influence, surveillance and discrimination, as well as psychological impacts.
Data Collection and Commercialization: A central privacy concerns stems from the vast amount of personal data harvested by social media platforms. These services gather not only the content users shares but also extensive behavioural metadata-such as time spent on posts, clicks, geolocation, device usage, and shopping behaviour. According to the Electronic Privacy Information Centre (EPIC), platforms collect detailed insights into individuals’ preferences, behaviours, and personal traits, using this information to fuel engagement algorithms and deliver highly targeted advertisements. This business strategy transforms user interactions and communities into marketable assets. As Federal Trade Commissioner Rohit Chopra[3] noted, the model effectively “converts users into commodities” and social media into tools of large-scale manipulation. Since ad revenue depends on accurate targeting, these platforms are incentivized to amass increasingly detailed user data.
However, this revenue model shifts the burden of privacy risks onto users. Although platforms present themselves as “free,” users actually pay by surrendering their personal data-often unknowingly. This data is not confined to a single platform; third-party sites featuring social media widgets can track non-users as well. EPIC highlights that these massive data repositories are prime targets for breaches, scraping, and exploitation. Past incidents-such as the Cambridge Analytica affair-have exposed sensitive data, including private messages and health or location information. These leaks have had real-world consequences, including stalking, harassment, and the involuntary revelation of personal attributes like religion or sexual orientation.
Algorithmic Influence Mental Health Risks: Social media algorithms, designed to maximize engagement, shape user experiences in powerful ways. By prioritizing content that drives interaction, these systems may promote harmful or divisive content, including misinformation and hate speech. Commissioner Chopra warned that such algorithms “coax users into monetizable behaviours” while simultaneously driving platforms’ insatiable appetite for more user data. These feedback loops contribute to the formation of ideological echo chambers and societal polarization.
On a psychological level, prolonged social media use has been associated with increased rates of anxiety, depression, and loneliness. Meta-analyses of mental health studies suggest that frequent users—especially adolescents—report higher levels of emotional distress. Online harassment, such as cyberbullying, can significantly worsen mental health outcomes for children. Issues like social comparison, commonly referred to as “Facebook envy,” and the fear of missing out (FOMO) contribute to emotional strain. One study found that individuals who accessed social media frequently were nearly three times as likely to report significant depressive symptoms compared to lighter users. While some individuals do find emotional support through digital communities, others—particularly those with pre-existing conditions—may find that social media deepens their distress.
Surveillance and Data Exploitation by Third Parties: Another serious concern is the increasing use of social media for surveillance purposes. Governments and law enforcement agencies are increasingly seeking access to user data, sometimes with limited legal checks. EPIC has emphasized that such data is susceptible to abuse, not only by state actors but also by third-party companies and malicious applications that build detailed user profiles. This confluence of commercial and government monitoring creates what some scholars call “surveillance capitalism,” where individuals’ online activity is constantly observed by various entities.
Concentration of Power and Market Control: Consolidation within the social media industry intensifies privacy vulnerabilities. When major companies acquire multiple platforms—as seen with Facebook’s integration of Instagram and WhatsApp—they gain the ability to merge user data across services in ways users did not originally consent to. EPIC points to Facebook’s acquisition of WhatsApp as a cautionary example, where early privacy assurances were later abandoned post-merger. The European Union fined Facebook €110 million (approximately $122 million USD) for providing misleading information during the merger review, revealing how monopolistic power can suppress privacy innovation. Such consolidation stifles competition and limits user choice, diminishing the availability of privacy-conscious alternatives.
Privacy and User Behaviour: Consent, Defaults, and “Dark Patterns”
Grasping the nature of privacy on social media requires examining both user habits and the structural choices made by platforms. Often, privacy breaches occur not because of malicious actors, but because users—intentionally or unknowingly—disclose personal information or are subtly encouraged to do so by design.
Consent and Illusion of Control: A major concern lies in the notion of consent and how it’s operationalized through privacy policies. Most social media sites have lengthy and complex terms of service that assert users give consent to the collection and use of their data. However, these documents are typically written in dense legal language that very few users fully understand or even read. The Electronic Privacy Information Centre (EPIC) points out that in the absence of robust legal safeguards, these policies serve as weak stand-ins for real consent, with users often clicking “I agree” without knowing the full implications of how their personal data will be used for profit.
Even users who strive to protect their privacy may end up disclosing more than intended. Reports by the OECD[4] highlight that platforms design their interfaces—often through a concept known as “choice architecture”—to steer users toward greater data sharing. Default settings and confusing navigation options are often configured to encourage behaviour that benefits the company rather than protects user privacy. These manipulative design elements, sometimes referred to as “dark patterns,” undermine the notion of informed consent. In essence, users have limited agency: opting out typically means losing access to essential services and social connections, forcing most people to accept the platform’s terms.
Voluntary Disclosure and the Privacy Paradox: Users also contribute to privacy erosion by voluntarily sharing personal information to engage with others. Posting photos, revealing relationship details, or sharing locations all constitute personal disclosures that increase digital exposure. When this is done by minors or inattentive users, it can lead to serious ethical and legal concerns. This phenomenon is captured in the concept of the “privacy paradox,” where individuals express concern about their privacy but still disclose personal data online. Some interpret this as apathy, but others—like legal scholar Daniel Solove[5]—suggest it’s more about weighing the social benefits of sharing against poorly understood risks. Regardless of motivation, the result is a significant expansion in the volume of publicly available personal data.
Platform Architecture and the Shift in Privacy Norms: Design features built into platforms further magnify these risks. Tools such as geotagging, facial recognition, and permanent chat histories make personal data more visible and enduring. When Facebook introduced the News Feed in 2006, backlash wasn’t about the information being shared, but rather its newfound visibility. This marked a shift from privacy as secrecy to privacy as control over accessibility. Users were startled to find that formerly obscure updates were now broadly broadcast to their network. This example illustrates how digital platforms prioritize visibility and engagement, often overriding users’ expectations of contextual or situational privacy. As a result, personal reputation—which individuals once curated through deliberate self-disclosure—is now shaped, and sometimes distorted, by algorithms and design decisions outside their control.
Ultimately, the interplay between user behaviour and platform architecture significantly weakens privacy protections. Users may share data or consent to terms, but the environment in which these choices occur is heavily shaped by the platforms themselves. Without accessible privacy tools and ethical design defaults, users are left vulnerable. Many legal experts argue that reliance on user consent is an insufficient safeguard. Instead, they advocate for stronger regulatory frameworks—like the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation[6] (GDPR)—which place clear limits on data collection and usage, regardless of whether the user has given explicit consent.
Legal and Regulatory Frameworks
The privacy challenges posed by social media have spurred a patchwork of legal responses worldwide. Rather than detailing one jurisdiction, we survey major trends in international and comparative perspective.
European Union (GDPR and related rules): Europe leads with stringent data-protection law. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), effective 2018, enshrines informational privacy as a fundamental right in Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. GDPR imposes broad requirements on “controllers” and “processors” of personal data: legality of processing, data minimization, purpose limitation, user rights to access, correction, deletion (the “right to be forgotten”), and more. Notably, GDPR applies extraterritorially to any company offering goods/services to EU residents, so major social media companies (even if headquartered outside Europe) must comply. Violations can bring fines up to €20 million or 4% of global revenue. The law embodies the notion that individuals should have “greater control” over their data and that processing must be transparent and fair. These principles directly address social media practices (data sharing, profiling, automated decisions). Indeed, GDPR includes special protections for children’s data, recognizing the perils of platform abuse. Under GDPR, data subjects can demand access to all data a social network holds on them, and require erasure in some cases.
European regulators have actively enforced GDPR in the social-media context. For example, the Irish Data Protection Commission recently fined TikTok €405 million (roughly half a billion dollars) for multiple GDPR breaches, including transferring youth users’ data to non-EU servers. A new U.S.-EU privacy framework (post-Schrems II) and amendments to the EU’s ePrivacy Directive (pending ePrivacy Regulation) also aim to govern cookies and electronic communications – often the technical heart of social media data flows. Additionally, EU antitrust enforcers are beginning to treat privacy conduct as relevant to competition reviews (as seen in the Facebook/WhatsApp fine for misleading privacy promises).
United States (Sectoral Regulation and Enforcement): Unlike Europe’s omnibus law, the U.S. lacks a single federal privacy statute. Instead, a combination of sectoral laws (HIPAA for health, COPPA for children, FCRA for credit, etc.) and broad agencies are at work. Social media generally falls under the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) as unfair or deceptive practices. The FTC has levied large penalties on tech companies for privacy lapses. In 2019 the FTC extracted a record $5 billion penalty[7] from Facebook – by far the largest privacy fine ever – for deceiving users and violating a previous privacy consent order. The FTC also imposed sweeping new restrictions on Facebook’s data-sharing practices. FTC Chair Simons stated that Facebook “undermined consumers’ choices” and that enforcement is necessary to “change [Facebook’s] entire privacy culture”. These enforcement actions show how U.S. regulators are beginning to hold platforms accountable, though critics argue even harsher measures (structural reforms, executive liability) are needed. Notably, the FTC has also pursued Cambridge Analytica and other data brokers for privacy violations, and has warned health providers against tracking on telehealth apps (emphasizing existing legal limits on sensitive data).
At the state level, a wave of data protection laws has emerged: California’s Consumer Privacy Act[8] (CCPA) and its successor, the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), grant state residents’ rights similar to GDPR (access, deletion, opt-out of sale). Other states like Virginia, Colorado, Connecticut and others have also enacted comprehensive privacy laws. Although these generally do not single out social media, they strengthen the legal environment requiring platforms to limit data collection or improve disclosures when dealing with residents. Concurrently, state attorneys general have begun suing large tech firms (often on antitrust grounds, but sometimes on privacy issues as consumer protection cases).
Other Jurisdictions and Global Trends: Worldwide, dozens of countries have adopted data-protection laws, often inspired by Europe’s model. Brazil’s LGPD[9] (General Data Protection Law) and India’s proposed Personal Data Protection Bill similarly emphasize individual consent, data minimization, and remedies. Many Asian countries (South Korea, Japan, Singapore) also impose robust privacy rules on domestic and foreign entities. Even if enforcement varies, the consensus is growing that information privacy is a human right. International instruments (e.g. Council of Europe Convention 108+, UN resolutions) reaffirm this principle. The OECD’s revised Privacy Guidelines explicitly state that protecting privacy secures individuals’ “safety, dignity, and other fundamental rights and freedoms”.
Content Regulation vs Privacy: The legal ecosystem also touches on speech regulation. A notable area is platform liability. While Section 230 of the U.S. Communications Decency Act shields platforms from much third-party content liability, recent legislation and court cases have tried to carve exceptions (e.g. for anti-discrimination or defamation). Any new regulation on content moderation must be calibrated so as not to erode privacy rights inadvertently. For example, if platforms are forced to monitor all user posts for illegal content, they might also scour personal data, raising privacy alarms. Thus, the interplay of laws on moderation, surveillance, and privacy is intricate. Balancing these interests – as experienced at the European Court of Human Rights and elsewhere – is a continuing legal challenge.
Regulatory Responses: In recognition of social media’s unique challenges, policymakers are exploring targeted rules. Proposals include algorithmic transparency mandates (users have a right to know why content is shown), portability of social data (to allow users to move profiles between platforms), and “right to delete.” Some countries (e.g. France) have pursued cases forcing platforms to reveal source code for recommendation algorithms under freedom of information-like laws (although such efforts raise trade-secret issues). Antitrust authorities, as noted, increasingly see privacy competition as important.
Legal scholars have debated appropriate frameworks. Some argue privacy should be treated as a component of competition law – that is, a dominant firm’s handling of data could be a monopolistic abuse. Others emphasize remedies rooted in tort law or property law (e.g. treating personal data as a property right). In practice, the trend is toward comprehensive data-protection regimes that mix human-rights reasoning with consumer protection. For instance, GDPR recognizes privacy both as a fundamental right and as an economic value to be balanced with business interests.
Challenges and Gaps: Despite these developments, critics note that regulation is still catching up. As EPIC underscores, social media companies remain largely unchecked in many respects. Privacy policies remain mostly boilerplate, and cross-border data flows often escape effective oversight. Even where laws exist, enforcement is slow and litigation is costly. Moreover, law traditionally focuses on harms to identifiable individuals; but privacy harms from social media often involve collective patterns or indirect harms (e.g. targeted propaganda). Some scholars argue for a broader conception of privacy harm, beyond monetary loss, including dignity, autonomy, and social trust.
Finally, the law is not alone: technological solutions such as privacy-by-design (minimal data collection, on-device processing, strong encryption) and user education are also important. However, given social networks’ incentives, it is unlikely they will voluntarily prioritize privacy without regulation.
Conclusion
Social media has transformed society, enabling unprecedented connectivity and speech but also introducing profound privacy challenges. This article has traced those challenges – from the capture of vast personal profiles to the psychological toll of endless engagement – and shown how they arise from the very nature of social networks’ design and business models. At the same time, we recognize the real social value of these platforms: they democratize media, foster community, and inform citizens. The key question is how to preserve these benefits while containing the harms.
Legally, the answer lies in a balanced framework of user rights and platform obligations. Privacy law must go beyond user “consent” and impose substantive limits on data practices. This includes robust statutory rights (access, deletion, objection to profiling) and privacy-centric governance of algorithms. The EU’s GDPR, global privacy guidelines, and an emerging consensus on data protection are promising developments; similarly, the U.S. FTC’s new assertiveness shows regulatory willingness. However, new and evolving issues – such as AI-driven personalization and pervasive surveillance – will require ongoing refinement of laws and practices.
For legal professionals and scholars, the social media–privacy nexus is a rich field of inquiry. It raises fundamental questions about autonomy and dignity in the digital age, the limits of free expression, and the responsibilities of private entities to the public. Future research should further explore how different legal theories (property, tort, rights-based) can inform better regulation of social platforms. Meanwhile, policymakers must coordinate internationally to ensure privacy rights have real force online. Without such efforts, the promise of social media – an open and informed society – may be undercut by the perils of a surveillance economy.
[1] Richard Wike et al., social media Seen as Mostly Good for Democracy Across Many Nations, But U.S. is a Major Outlier_, Pew Research Ctr. (Dec. 6, 2022).
[2] Joan Barata, _Freedom of Expression and Privacy on Social Media: The Blurred Line Between the Private and the Public Sphere_, MediaLaws (Aug. 1, 2023).
[3] Rohit Chopra, _Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Rohit Chopra Regarding the Matter of Facebook, Inc._, Comm’n File No. 182-3109 (FTC July 24, 2019).
[4] Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), _Privacy and Data Protection_ (2024), https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/policy-issues/privacy-and-data-protection.htm.
[5] Adam A. Garcia, _Socially Private: Striking a Balance Between Social Media and Data Privacy_, 107 Iowa L. Rev. 319 (2021).
[6] European Union, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation), 2016 O.J. (L 119).
[7] Federal Trade Comm’n, _FTC Imposes $5 Billion Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook_, Press Release (July 24, 2019).
[8] California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.)
[9] Brazilian General Data Protection Law (Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados) No. 13,709 (2018)
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.
