When I was in elementary school, I typed google.com into my web browser for the first time. A search bar appeared and I wrote “Green vegetables,” looked through the results and clicked on a site. I had successfully used the internet and the entire experience took just a few seconds. Once I found the information I needed, Google and I went our separate ways for the day.

A decade later, my experience with Google is vastly different. Today, Google’s omnipresence in the digital sphere constricts my autonomy of choice and I no longer have a say in which browser or app I use, who has access to my personal data and what it is used for. In 2020, I spend far more time on the internet, from using Google Docs for school to finding my way around town with Google Maps. I cannot even download an app without accessing the Google Play Store. This humongous technological empire dominates every aspect of my life, and probably yours too. At this point, we have to ask — why are there no viable alternatives to Google?

Google’s presence in our life is here to stay. We incorporate its apps in our daily routines, making our online experience more convenient, but for a price — our behavioral data. When our privacy is invaded and we are not sure who has access to our personal information, we are forced to question whether giving away our data is really worth the experience.

Most websites today use Google’s ad software which tracks a user's browsing history. This technology creates an advertisement profile whenever the user opens an article containing a Google-served ad. And the act of storing information does not stop there: Google saves location history, search history, attendance of events, every email sent, even deleted search histories. Users are feeding, often unintentionally, data about themselves to Google’s servers, which Google later uses for ad-serving to make profits. With Google holding a chilling amount of data on billions of people around the world, there is an increasing sense that selling users’ data without their consent is an unethical practice.

Google claims it does not “sell” our data. Instead, the company shares, monetizes and exploits it. Google uses data to build profiles with demographics and interests, shares data directly with and allows advertisers to target people based on those traits, and asks them to bid on individual ads. It also engages in a process called real-time bidding where user data passes through three different layers of companies on its way from a device to an advertiser. This auctioning happens on our phones, in our browsers and in Google’s servers.

Yet, Google claims that it is not “selling” anything. These practices confirm that, over the years, we will lose all autonomy over our privacy and our choices. With time and the expansion of Google’s looming presence, privacy, which should be the default priority, will not even be an option.

The Silicon Valley company’s digital practices have brought it to a critical point. Recently, the United States Department of Justice sued Google for anticompetitive practices, more specifically, for creating a monopoly and blocking out competition. The Justice Department also investigated Google’s behavior in the overall digital advertising market, since Google collects data about users’ every click, tap and movement from the web to deliver the most relevant advertisement to the user. Online advertising was the source of virtually all of Alphabet’s — Google’s parent company — 34 billion U.S. dollar profit last year.

The Department of Justice lawsuit could reshape one of the U.S.’s most recognizable companies and the internet economy that it has helped define. Perhaps a victory could even set the path for a law that ensures monopolies do not extend their dominance by foreclosing competition — which Google does by entering into agreements that cement its status.

On a personal level, we can minimize our usage of Google’s services — for example, by switching to Mozilla Firefox which promises to honor users’ privacy in all of their products. We can deactivate our Google accounts, switch to encrypted mail websites, sign petitions on digital privacy and watch documentaries such as The Social Dilemma that inform us of Big Tech’s malpractices. Mozilla recently set up a campaign that aims to empower people into regaining autonomy of choice on social networks. With enough support from internet companies such as Mozilla, people can influence the government to restrict Google’s unethical behavior. However, opting out of Google services would only stop us from receiving targeted ads, not stop our data from being collected.

Ultimately, if the lawsuit does not make a difference, with time it will become mandatory to own a Google account and share data in order to remain present online. We will eventually morph into digitally manipulated individuals stuck in conformity. Soon enough, our entire personalities will be combined in a hive mind and will be uploaded to Google’s cloud, available to be molded into the perfect user who will behave in the most lucrative way. What users need right now is a new regulatory framework based on today’s issues: privacy, who owns and profits from data and the dangers of a monopoly. We need to demand rules that protect consumers, ensure continued innovation and allow for competition, without creating additional, unintended problems.