In our era, where digitalization is accelerating, humanity is confronted with a new paradigm shaped by the transition from analog to digital. This transformation has not been limited to technological infrastructures alone; it has reshaped every aspect of life, from the functioning of social structures to individual life practices, from modes of cultural production to political decision-making processes. In this emerging order, where mathematical models, algorithms and big data analytics increasingly assume a central role, the very nature of truth itself is undergoing a transformation. Reality is now understood and defined less through direct experience and more through numerical indicators and data-driven representations. Elements that cannot be measured, digitized, or represented through algorithms are rapidly becoming invisible, gradually being pushed into a position of diminished value.
This process has not only been a revolution that facilitates individuals’ access to information but has also created a complex system that deepens social inequalities. The processes of producing, processing, and interpreting numerical data, although often presented under the guise of technological neutrality, have in fact become one of the primary arenas where power relations are most intensely reproduced. The ownership of data, the capacity to access it, and the ability to process and interpret it are now directly tied to economic, cultural, and political power. The gap between those who can benefit from the opportunities offered by digitalization and those who remain excluded from this process is steadily widening, giving rise to a new form of social hierarchy.
At this point, Ibn Khaldun’s famous assertion that “geography is destiny” offers a striking analogy for understanding the new dynamics of the digital age. Ibn Khaldun emphasized that the lifestyles of individuals and societies, the institutions they build, and the economic systems they establish are shaped by their geographical environment. Today, however, we must reinterpret this proposition: in the digital era, “data is destiny.” Individuals, institutions, and societies are now defined by the data produced about them, while the scores, rankings, and predictions generated by algorithms increasingly shape the direction of the future. In this context, a kind of “data geography” emerges, functioning as a new map that determines the destiny of individuals and societies. Which data can be accessed, which algorithms produce which outputs, and where individuals or groups are positioned within various rankings have become increasingly decisive factors.
In this new order, artificial intelligence technologies play a dominant role. Evolving at an exponential pace, AI is not merely a technical innovation but a transformative force that fundamentally reshapes social, cultural, and economic structures. From decision-making processes to education policies, from labor markets to the public sphere, numerous domains are being reconstructed based on new parameters defined by AI. However, this transformation also brings with it a growing tension between human autonomy and technological autonomy. Decision-making mechanisms driven by algorithms have become the primary tools shaping individual choices, giving rise to a new form of dependency that quietly undermines the concept of free will. People are increasingly being compelled – often unconsciously – to make decisions within the frameworks set by algorithms.
The most dangerous dimension of this dependency emerges in the impact of AI on human cognitive capacity. Digital systems facilitate access to information, providing speed and efficiency; however, they simultaneously weaken individuals’ ability to generate knowledge and construct meaning through their own mental processes. Information is increasingly consumed in prepackaged and filtered forms rather than being processed through intellectual effort. This leads to the erosion of critical thinking skills, a decline in intellectual depth, and a weakening of individuals’ capacity for independent decision-making. On a societal scale, this cognitive transformation contributes to the superficiality of public debates, a reduction in dialogue between different perspectives, and the erosion of a shared sense of reality.
The pervasive integration of mathematical models into every aspect of social life facilitates the invisible reproduction of inequalities. While these models aim to predict the future based on historical data, they simultaneously carry existing biases and disadvantages into the future, reinforcing them within datasets. For example, in education, the allocation of fewer resources to lower-ranked schools exacerbates their disadvantages, while increased police presence in areas with higher recorded crime rates leads to more incidents being documented, creating self-reinforcing cycles. Similarly, recruitment algorithms that prioritize criteria favoring historically advantaged groups concentrate future opportunities within those same groups. This mechanism effectively produces a self-fulfilling prophecy, generating a system where advantage perpetually begets advantage, while disadvantage solidifies into persistent structural inequality.
Another domain transformed by digitalization is the structure of the relationship between success, performance, and reward. In traditional social systems, success was largely associated with individual effort, talent, and discipline. However, in today’s hyper-connected world, this relationship has been radically redefined. The network theory of Albert-László Barabási and Peter Érdi’s analyses of the “success game” reveal that the dynamics of achievement in the digital age have been fundamentally reshaped. Individuals or institutions that gain small initial advantages rapidly accumulate visibility and resources through the mechanism of preferential attachment. While performance often follows a normal distribution, the distribution of success and rewards aligns with the power law: a very small number of actors capture nearly all the returns, while the vast majority fade into obscurity.
In this new order, concentration occurs not only in the economic sphere but also across cultural and cognitive domains. In scientific production, a small number of universities capture the majority of citations; in the art world, visibility revolves around a handful of major galleries and museums; and in the music industry, a limited number of artists control nearly all streams and revenue shares. In the realm of technology, only a few global corporations dominate almost the entirety of data, algorithms, and user behavior. This creates a winner-takes-all system, fundamentally undermining the perception of social equality of opportunity and eroding collective notions of fairness and justice.
The structure of the public sphere has also been profoundly transformed by this shift. Traditionally, the public sphere served as a space where individuals could engage in discussions on shared concerns, freely express their ideas, and collectively construct social consciousness. Today, however, this space has largely fallen under the control of digital platforms. Access to information, visibility, and interaction are now dictated by algorithmic priorities, while the quality of social dialogue has been subordinated to platform logics driven by commercial interests and user data. This marks a critical rupture that poses a deep threat to democratic processes. As decision-making mechanisms become increasingly dependent on data monopolies, political debates are trapped within echo chambers, misinformation spreads rapidly, and polarization intensifies – all of which gradually erode the foundations for democratic consensus.
This reality underscores the urgent need for new institutional, ethical, and political frameworks to redirect the course of digitalization in favor of humanity. Understanding technology alone is not sufficient; it is essential to build a collective will that places it in the service of human well-being. The development of artificial intelligence and algorithms should not be left solely to technical experts; instead, it must include the participation of civil society, academia, labor unions, independent oversight mechanisms, and the communities directly affected by these technologies. Education systems should be restructured around an approach that prioritizes digital literacy, data ethics, and critical thinking, enabling individuals to move beyond being passive consumers of technology and instead become conscious, questioning actors. Furthermore, algorithmic decision-making must be made transparent, AI applications should be subjected to strict accountability standards, and individuals’ digital rights must be safeguarded through robust legal protections.
In conclusion, while digitalization and artificial intelligence present one of the greatest potentials in human history, they also carry profound risks. In the coming period, the decisions made by individuals, institutions and governments will shape not only the trajectory of technology but also the future of humanity itself. Uncontrolled technological growth carries the danger of reducing human beings to passive objects within systems of their own creation; yet, when guided by human will, it offers unique opportunities to lay the foundations for a more just, inclusive and meaningful social order. The direction the future will take depends on the values and principles by which we choose to govern technology. Humanity still holds the chance to remain the subject – not the object – of this transformation. Seizing this opportunity requires building new ethical frameworks, establishing transparency standards and creating mechanisms that strengthen the public sphere.
