The most powerful technology companies are no longer satisfied with selling our attention to advertisers. Their real business is extracting every possible data point, emotion, and behavioral nudge from our lives, then reinjecting that information to keep us hooked. It is a model that treats human beings less like customers and more like wells to be drilled until nothing is left.
That is what critics mean when they describe Big Tech’s emerging strategy as a kind of “human fracking,” a system built to trap people in digital environments so their time, habits, and vulnerabilities can be relentlessly mined. I see this as the defining political and economic fight of the next decade, because the same tools that maximize engagement also warp public debate and democratic decision making.
The extraction engine behind our feeds
At the core of today’s social platforms is a simple but ruthless logic: the longer I stay inside the app, the more data I generate and the more ads I see. The digital economy that has grown up around this logic is explicitly designed to keep people in the virtual world for as long as possible, turning every scroll, pause, and click into another unit of value. That is why feeds feel endless, notifications arrive in carefully tuned bursts, and autoplay quietly removes the friction of choice. The product is not the app itself, it is the continuous stream of behavioral signals that can be harvested from users who rarely get a chance to look away.
What makes this feel like human fracking is the way platforms systematically probe for psychological weak spots, then drill into them. Recommendation systems learn which topics make someone angry, lonely, or euphoric and then serve more of the same, because those states keep people engaged. The result is a business model that, as one detailed analysis of the digital economy puts it, depends on trapping people inside virtual spaces rather than helping them connect and then move on with their lives. Instead of building tools that respect attention as a finite resource, the system treats attention as a reservoir to be pumped until the well runs dry.
From engagement tricks to political weapon
Once a platform is optimized to keep people online at any cost, it becomes a natural vehicle for political manipulation. The same algorithms that learn which videos will keep a teenager awake past midnight can learn which stories will push a voter toward outrage or despair. I see this as the second phase of human fracking: not just extracting data from individuals, but extracting political advantage from the emotional turbulence that follows. When feeds are tuned to maximize engagement, inflammatory content, conspiracy theories, and personalized fear campaigns gain a structural edge over sober information.
That dynamic has turned social media into a central battlefield for modern campaigns, where the goal is not only persuasion but saturation. Political strategists now treat platforms as engines for microtargeted messaging that can be tested, tweaked, and redeployed in real time, using the same engagement metrics that drive commercial advertising. Analysts who study online strategy in the political arena describe a feedback loop in which divisive content is rewarded because it keeps users engaged, which in turn encourages campaigns and influencers to push even more extreme material. The result is a public sphere that feels less like a town square and more like a set of overlapping psychological operations.
How the “trap and monetize” model reshapes daily life
It is easy to treat this as a purely online problem, but the trap-and-monetize model spills into almost every corner of daily life. Parents describe children who cannot put down their phones, workers struggle to focus as notifications slice the day into fragments, and friendships migrate into group chats that never quite allow anyone to log off. The constant pull of the feed is not an accident, it is the outcome of design choices that reward stickiness over well being. When I look at the pattern, I see a system that treats human attention as a raw material to be extracted, processed, and sold, with little regard for the exhaustion that follows.
That exhaustion has social and political consequences. A population that is perpetually distracted is easier to overwhelm with noise, and a public square dominated by engagement metrics tends to privilege spectacle over substance. Researchers who have examined the way platforms are built argue that the business incentives behind social media now shape everything from news consumption to civic participation. When the most profitable outcome is to keep people scrolling, the system will naturally favor content that keeps them agitated, anxious, or addicted, even if that corrodes trust in institutions and undermines shared reality.
Why reformers are targeting the business model, not just the content
In response to this, a growing number of policymakers and advocates are shifting their focus from individual pieces of harmful content to the underlying business model. I find that shift significant, because it recognizes that content moderation alone cannot fix a system built to reward the very material it is supposed to police. Instead of chasing each new viral outrage, reformers are asking whether it is acceptable to have a digital economy that profits from trapping people in virtual environments and mining their behavior at industrial scale. That question goes to the heart of what kind of information infrastructure a democracy can tolerate.
Some of the most detailed policy proposals argue that any serious attempt to clean up the online ecosystem must confront the incentives that drive engagement at all costs. Analysts who study social media reform emphasize that as long as platforms are rewarded for maximizing time on site, they will continue to design features that keep users locked in, regardless of the social fallout. That is why some proposals focus on limiting certain forms of targeted advertising, increasing transparency around recommendation algorithms, or even restructuring how large platforms are allowed to profit from user data. The goal is not to micromanage every post, but to change the rules so that companies no longer gain the most when users lose control of their own attention.
What a post–human fracking internet could look like
Imagining an alternative means asking what it would take to build platforms that treat human beings as participants rather than reservoirs of data. In practical terms, that could mean services that are paid for directly by users instead of advertisers, or at least rules that sharply limit how behavioral data can be harvested and combined. It could mean feeds that default to chronological order, tools that encourage people to log off after a certain amount of time, and interfaces that make it easy to understand and adjust how recommendations are generated. None of these ideas are science fiction, they are design choices that become plausible once the financial incentives change.
Ultimately, I see the fight over Big Tech’s “human fracking” playbook as a contest over who controls the terms of our digital lives. If the current model persists, platforms will continue to refine their ability to capture attention, manipulate emotion, and steer behavior in ways that are largely invisible to the people being targeted. If it is reined in, there is a chance to build an internet that supports democratic deliberation instead of undermining it, and that treats time and attention as values to be protected rather than resources to be strip mined. The reporting on how the current strategy works makes clear that the stakes are not abstract. They are measured in the hours of our lives, the quality of our public debate, and the resilience of our democracy itself.
More from Morning Overview