We’ve seen the rise of many great empires and nations–Romans and their expansive empire, the British and their global dominance–only to see it crumble to dust. We can blame a lot of things on these collapses: new rising nations, changing technology, unexpected external factors. However, the collapse typically comes from within, as the relationship between the government and its citizens starts to crack and fail. This dramatic decay can be explained by a concept called the social contract. The social contract is one of the most important ideas in political philosophy (the study of the nature of politics, society, and the relationship between citizens and government). It states that citizens willingly consent to give up some personal freedoms to a governing authority, in exchange for the protection of their rights. To put it really simply, citizens give up some free will to gain protection from the government. The social contract was essential to the founding of the United States, but the digital age is bringing new changes to this centuries-old concept.
The concept of the social contract goes all the way back to the days of Plato. In his Republic, Plato proposed that a just society functions like a ship, where each person plays their role for the common good of the ship, with politicians making laws to help the citizens and citizens utilizing these laws to generate economic and militaristic output. Plato explored this idea of duty and morality with the “Ring of Gyges” myth, which examined whether people are naturally just or only act justly because of the fear of punishment. After this thought experiment, Plato concluded that laws and social agreements are necessary to curb selfish behavior and promote societal order. Plato’s ideas were monumental as they laid the groundwork for ideas that impacted many forms of government. One of these ideas was the social contract, which Thomas Hobbes formalized in his 1651 political treatise Leviathan, which attempted to answer the question of what makes a government legitimate.
In Leviathan, Hobbes wrote about what he believed humanity would be like if there was no higher government. He argued that in this “natural” state, there would be no laws or authority to restrain individuals, leading to people acting cruelly and selfishly. Without a higher power to regulate a society, people would act purely out of personal desire, often in conflict with others, resulting in a “war of all against all.” This was a very extreme stance (and he was called out on it many times by his contemporaries), but Hobbes had a very authoritarian viewpoint on government due to him witnessing the chaos of the English Civil War. According to Hobbes, in order for humanity to go beyond this primitive state of life, humans would need to willingly surrender some freedoms to a “sovereign authority” (a government) in exchange for protection and stability. This was the crucial moment where the social contract was born. This new government, Hobbes believed, should have absolute control over their citizens. From this thought experiment, Hobbes concluded that a legitimate government is one that can protect its citizens from the dangers of the state of nature and uphold the “social contract”.
John Locke wrote a more moderate take of Hobbes’s social contract in his Two Treatises of Government (1689). Locke, along with most enlightenment thinkers of the time, were not big fans of an authoritarian regime. Locke believed that in the state of nature, humans are capable of living in peace and cooperation. However, conflicts can arise, so people form governments to protect their life, liberty, and property from unnecessary conflicts. Unlike Hobbes, who believed that an authoritarian government was necessary to prevent chaos, Locke argued for a government that was restricted by the consent of its citizens (a principle called limited government). Therefore, Locke believed a government’s primary goal was to protect the natural rights of its citizens. This became known as the principle of popular sovereignty. Locke also introduced the idea of rebellion. If a government fails to protect its citizens and ensure their natural rights, the government can and should be overthrown by the people.
The social contract, and more specifically the principle of popular sovereignty, became a founding principle of the United States. The most obvious example of this was the fact that the colonists rebelled against the British government, who had been ignoring the “natural rights” of its colonists overseas. A slogan of the American Revolution was “No taxation without representation”, which directly represented the idea of popular sovereignty and the frustration the colonists felt.
The social contract became even more important as the founding fathers began to construct a new government. Jefferson was deeply influenced by Locke, and directly quoted him with the statement “That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” This quote nearly identically matched Locke’s quote about the natural rights of citizens: “Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.” From these quotes, you can get the sense that the founding fathers (especially Jefferson) were fans of Locke’s social contract.
This becomes even more apparent after the revolution, as the US Constitution was derived from concepts from the social contract. The preamble literally begins with “We the People,” stating that governmental power comes from the people (citizens) themselves. Locke’s beliefs on limiting government influence also led to the creation of the system of checks and balances, which was designed to prevent any one branch of government from becoming too powerful. The Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution) also reflects Locke’s ideas about the necessity of a government to protect the natural rights of its citizens, as it protects citizens from each other and the government. As a whole, the founding of the US government largely followed the concepts from the social contract put forward by Locke.
Fast forward to the present day. We’ve entered the digital age, where social media giants like Facebook/Meta, Google, Twitter/X, and Amazon have become influential entities that control vast amounts of data and information. These platforms serve as middlemen for much of our online communication, news consumption, and even economic transactions, giving them incredible power over individuals’ daily lives and making them quasi-governing bodies. In the digital age, personal data has become a key asset. Social media companies collect mind-boggling amounts of information about users’ habits, preferences, and even (sometimes illegally) conversations. However, unlike governments that are bound by democratic principles, technology companies create their own rules through Terms of Service agreements. These terms are usually super vague and extremely wordy, which leaves users confused about what they have actually agreed to.
This is the new social contract of the internet: companies provide platforms for connection, information, and entertainment, while users pay with their own personal data. However, unlike a traditional social contract, where governments are accountable to citizens, tech companies are primarily accountable to shareholders. This creates a very dangerous conflict of interest, because there’s no clause in this new “digital” social contract that requires companies in the best interest of the users. As a result, we are witnessing the erosion of Locke’s ideals of a true “social contract” and instead witnessing the rise of a new social contract, one that has far more sinister repercussions for users. In the digital age, companies use surveillance and user data to monetize attention and manipulate user behavior, often without informed consent. Examples include targeted ads, behavioral nudges, and the use of AI-powered algorithms to promote content that increases engagement, even if it’s misleading or harmful. Philosopher Shoshana Zuboff coined the term “surveillance capitalism” to describe this new effect in her 2014 essay “A Digital Declaration”.
One of the most well-documented cases of surveillance capitalism is the Cambridge Analytica Scandal. Cambridge Analytica, a consulting company, used Facebook data to aid in the political campaigns of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, all without the users knowing what was happening behind the scenes. This scandal revealed how social media data could be silently harvested to influence elections and showed the world how dangerous it was for big tech companies to keep people’s personal data (Cambridge Analytica was also doing a bunch of other shady things at the time, including running psyops for British Intelligence).
However, there’s no need to lose hope just yet. There’s a growing movement to redefine the digital social contract to better protect users’ rights and address the power imbalance between individuals and tech companies. Governments are exploring regulations to help protect users and restore the balance of power. For example, the European Union passed the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) which regulates how Big Tech companies store user information and gives users more power over their own personal data. In addition, the concept of digital citizenship is emerging, which suggests that users should have clearly defined rights in the digital space. This “digital citizenship” mirrors the rights that the US government grants its citizens, therefore making a full circle back to Locke’s idea of the social contract.
In conclusion, the traditional social contract that formed the basis of democratic governments is being eroded and redefined in the digital age. The new social contract includes large tech companies that wield more and more power as we become more dependent on technology. We as a society need to find ways to balance the benefits of technology with the need to protect individual rights. In the immortal words of George Santayana, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” We need to look back at the ideas set forth by Hobbes and Locke to help define this delicate balance for the betterment of humanity and set the precedent for future generations.