The Protective Instinct, conceptualized as the most fundamental derivative of egoism, is strikingly manifested in contemporary life through the defense of Digital Privacy. This instinct underscores the sensitivity of personal data on the one hand, while on the other, it signifies the individual's focus on solely fortifying their own security perimeter, often at the expense of collective solutions for the sake of self-interest (private space). A concrete illustration is provided by the user employing maximum security precautions, such as VPNs or specialized browsers, to safeguard all personal data, online activities, and even microphone/camera access on their device against large technology corporations. Yet, this very same individual often fails to contemplate how a photograph shared while celebrating their child's birthday might be processed by Artificial Intelligence systems or utilized in the future.
Consider the moments spent meticulously navigating the privacy settings of a social media platform, or the instant one is compelled to assent to a lengthy contract detailing which data an application aggregates. The sense of fear and apprehension inherent in these situations is entirely authentic and comprehensible. It is, however, critical at this juncture to pause and pose the question: 'Why is this situation so perilous and significant? The peril lies not merely in the risk of personal data exfiltration, but in the fact that this fear progressively renders us more introverted and enclosed.
Have you ever uninstalled an application out of the fear of being monitored – asking, 'What if they are watching me?' – and subsequently disclosed this action to no one? Do you recall an instance where you refrained from saving a photograph sent by a friend, motivated by the apprehension that it might cause future repercussions? Have you ever intended to articulate a thought on social media, only to retract the post due to the fear of potential misinterpretation? These inquiries demonstrate the widespread prevalence of the individual protective instinct and highlight how we are all potentially constituents of this iterative cycle.
Today, this 'Protective Instinct' manifests visibly not merely as an individual security reflex, but also as platform exodus, a culture of anonymization, and digital isolation. The mass departure of millions of users from the platform during the WhatsApp contract controversy serves as an illustration; their response was restricted to a declaration of withdrawal ('I am leaving this space'), rather than initiating a collective demand for robust security standards. The same tendency is evident in the emerging reflex against data sharing for Artificial Intelligence training: the demand for 'My data must not be utilized' escalates, while the essential question—'For whose benefit, and under what ethical precepts, should these systems be trained?'—is relegated to the background. At this point, you must ask yourself: Do individual escapes truly weaken the system, or do they simply make it invisible and less open to scrutiny?
In terms of its impact on human consciousness, this protective instinct generates Paranoid Individualism at a cognitive level. The individual consistently perceives all digital systems in their environment as potential threats and consequently tends toward self-isolation. For instance, an individual may opt not to download an application solely because it requests excessive permissions, or they may refrain from sharing a social media post out of the fear that it could be leveraged against them in the future. This situation erodes social trust as a consequence of the individual's continuous effort to expand their zone of protection—a derivative of their own egoism. In acting upon this protective instinct, the individual inadvertently deviates from the notion that data and security constitute a collective right, prioritizing instead the safeguarding of their own private sphere as the primary objective. Paranoid Individualism is distinct from classical individualism. It does not demand liberty; rather, it constantly generates the perception of threat. Within this state of consciousness, the individual is protected yet incapable of forming relations; remains silent yet asserts no right to speak; and feels secure yet remains devoid of power.
Paranoid Individualism finds a contemporary, concrete manifestation in the popularization of the 'Zero Trust' architecture within the technology sector. Zero Trust is a security model positing that, within corporate networks, automatic trust should no longer be granted to any user, device, or system, whether internal or external. Every access request, irrespective of its origin, is verified from scratch. While Zero Trust constitutes a reasonable security strategy for corporations, the transference of this mentality to individual consciousness and social relations manifests as 'Paranoid Individualism'. The individual commences viewing all people and systems in their environment as potential aggressors or spies. An individual, operating under a zero-trust policy, may safeguard themselves; however, this renders participation in civil society or community projects—which require shared information and collaboration—impossible.
As the individual consistently perceives digital systems, and even other individuals, as potential threats, participation in common spaces and collaborative solutions diminishes. The sentiment of 'I am secure' supplants the query of 'What is our collective condition?' This process, in the long term, prepares the foundation for ethical collapse. In a surveillance society, the privacy perception of individuals is altered, and personal spheres become transparent. In a society where everyone harbors suspicion toward everyone else, the construction of a shared future becomes inherently difficult. Consequently, a public sphere emerges that is increasingly taciturn, risk-averse, and therefore less engaged in democratic processes.
Digital security and privacy violations constitute, in essence, a collective problem. The Paranoid Individual, however, operating on the logic of 'every person for themselves,' abstains from investing in collective defense mechanisms such as legal regulations, civil society initiatives, or common data security standards. Data security, freedom of expression, and digital rights are reduced to individual settings; thus, political and legal struggle is attenuated. For example, when a major data breach occurs, the individual who asserts, 'My data is protected,' may feel no necessity to voice concerns on behalf of the millions victimized by the transgression. In the absence of societal pressure, corporations experience less motivation to enhance data security. States encourage a shift toward individual solutions rather than upholding the collective rights of citizens.
As individuals abstain from sharing their data, advancements in fields such as social sciences, health research, or AI-powered public services are decelerated. An instance of this can be demonstrated by the obstruction of anonymized data sharing for purposes such as epidemic tracking or cancer research. By cultivating security anxiety, the individual may remain closed off to potentially beneficial technologies—such as decentralized social networks or next-generation encryption methods—thereby confining themselves to legacy and less secure systems.
As long as individuals distrust one another and are incapable of collective action, it becomes impossible to resist the data manipulation and surveillance practices of centralized powers such as the state or major corporations. Since everyone retreats behind their own protective wall, a unified voice fails to materialize against mass transgressions. Individuals neither speak, nor share, nor object. This, in turn, facilitates the operations of unchecked powers. The danger commences here: Oppression is no longer met with resistance, but with silence.
The constant sensation of being under threat may lead individuals toward solutions such as a fully monitored 'secure' digital identity system that promises safety while curtailing liberties. The individual may voluntarily relinquish their civil liberties merely to satisfy the protective instinct, a derivative of their own egoism. The perpetual perception of threat causes the individual to view the world as more perilous than it truly is. This, in turn, amplifies the belief in conspiracy theories, distorts the information ecosystem, and deepens social polarization.
Paranoid individualism renders digital privacy a purchasable luxury. While a high-income individual can afford high-quality VPNs, specialized browsers, and secure devices, a low-income counterpart remains devoid of such protection. This situation engenders a novel form of digital inequality: the digital aristocracy and the digital proletariat. Data security, as a societal problem, is thereby reduced to an item of individual luxury consumption.
In recent years, numerous users have shared videos, messages, and personal accounts suggesting that their phones' microphones are under constant surveillance. Although the majority of these claims are not technically verifiable, perception has superseded reality. The outcome: Individuals began to place less trust in digital platforms. Some resorted to leaving their phones at home, taping over their cameras, or even completely deactivating smart devices. While these behaviors are understandable at an individual level, at the societal level they signal the collapse of the shared digital sphere.
In my assessment, the individual is being driven toward egoism. The fundamental cause compelling the individual to this defense is the imbalance of power. When the individual confronts centralized powers (Big Tech, the State) possessing an unlimited capacity for data collection and processing, taking purely individual measures (such as utilizing a VPN) can sometimes be perceived as the only realistic course of action. The individual's compulsion toward 'Paranoid Individualism' may stem from the blockage of collective avenues for solutions. Protection serves the system when it remains unpoliticized. Otherwise, the behavior of silence gives rise to a highly dangerous form of consciousness for our age: Totalitarianism no longer advances by coercion, but through the fetishization of individual precaution. People are silent not because they are forced, but because they believe they are acting 'smartly'.
The protective instinct is not inherently wrong; it becomes perilous only when isolated. True security is possible not merely through personal firewalls, but through transparency, common demand, and collective consciousness. Otherwise, this derivative of egoism safeguards the individual while rendering society vulnerable. While undertaking personal privacy measures, simultaneously endeavor toward the widespread dissemination of digital literacy. Engage in collective demands for robust data protection legislation. Support platforms that treat privacy and security as a default right, and openly articulate these issues within your sphere of influence.
While digital platforms enable individuals to reconstruct their identities, they simultaneously introduce new debates concerning privacy, disinformation, and surveillance capitalism. The peril lies not so much in technology itself, but in the risk of our transformation into isolated, paranoid individuals in its presence. The true danger is not the individual's fear; it is the fact that this fear is experienced in an unorganized, silent, and isolated manner. The solution, therefore, lies in transforming our protective instinct into a derivative not of egoism, but of healthy self-regard and solidarity. Self-protection is natural, but focusing exclusively on self-protection is perilous. Digital privacy is a collective right; it cannot be resolved in isolation. Demanding common security standards is as crucial as elevating one's personal firewall. Developing critical awareness instead of paranoid individualism empowers both the individual and society. Contribute to the development of open-source alternatives and support forms of collective digital activism by advocating for digital rights in local assemblies (akin to the passing of the GDPR due to citizen pressure). The positive aspects of the protective instinct, namely the reflexes of self-regard and self-ownership, must also be acknowledged. In this regard, the individual's effort to claim ownership of their data is an energy that can be transformed into a collective rights struggle.
Now consider: If everyone focuses solely on constructing their own digital firewall, what does this signify socially? While the defense of digital privacy as an individual right is certainly important, what happens if this defense alienates us from collective solutions? Might I be inadvertently undermining social trust while protecting myself? For Turkish, German, French, Japanese click.
Books: tr1 tr2 tr3 tr4 tr5 tr6 tr7 tr8 tr9 tr10 tr11 French German Japanese English
