So what would you do if a corporation knew your future health risks, family history, physical traits, and even susceptibility to certain behaviors? And what if they could take that information and sell it to the highest bidder? Well, let me introduce you to 23andMe. It’s a corporation that takes the idea that you can send in a DNA swab and they will use that information to trace your family history. This type of testing is called direct-to-consumer DNA testing. Users send in their saliva and receive ancestry data and health predispositions. But the issue is that data is stored, analyzed, and shared technically with consent, but often hidden in fine print that most people do not fully understand. The California Consumer Privacy Act classifies genetic data as “sensitive personal information alongside data such as race, ethnicity, Social Security numbers, phone numbers, or address.” That puts the 23andMe in a unique position to share or sell that information to pharmaceutical companies and other corporations that are interested in the DNA and family lineage of the population.
Table of Contents
Did You Read the Fine Print?
There have been multiple reports of individuals submitting their DNA to different companies and receiving conflicting results. A study from ASCLS “identified that 40% of all DTC genetic test abnormal results were false positives.” That alone raises questions about how reliable this information really is. On top of that, this data is not heavily regulated. The FDA and HIPAA do not fully apply to the direct-to-consumer testing industry. Instead, the government relies on the Federal Trade Commission to oversee data protection, but there has been limited regulation, allowing companies to largely self-regulate their privacy practices. Which sounds fine in theory, but not so much in practice. A 2018 survey revealed that” over 40% of companies did not even have documentation explaining how they protect genetic data.”At the same time, when people click “agree,” they are not fully understanding future data use or third-party partnerships. So while it looks like informed consent, it’s not always truly informed. This matters because genetic data doesn’t just reveal information about you but it also reveals information about your family members and even entire populations.
Tyrell-esc
In Blade Runner, the Tyrell Corporation manufactures humans and controls their identity and lifespan. While 23andMe doesn’t create humans, it helps to map and therefore monetize them on a biological level. In both cases, corporations gain power over what defines a human being. This parallel becomes even more concerning when considering how that data can be used. In Blade Runner, replicants are tracked and controlled because their creators hold complete knowledge over their biological makeup. Similarly, when a company holds detailed genetic data, it gains a form of informational control that can influence healthcare decisions, research, and future technologies. Looking at this globally, the United States allows for more corporate freedom and weaker data protections. In contrast, the European Union has stricter privacy laws and stronger consent requirements. This shows that the issue isn’t just American, but it’s globally unevenly regulated. There should be a more standardized system for handling genetic information that doesn’t vary so drastically from country to country. I would argue that we are already entering an early cyberpunk future. Corporations don’t need to dominate physically anymore, they gain power through data ownership. Recently, 23andMe filed for bankruptcy and was bought by a pharmaceutical company. This means that a pharmaceutical company could potentially gain access to large amounts of genetic, health, and family data from users. Even though there are claims that protections will be put in place, history shows that these safeguards are often not enough.
Wake Up People!
This matters for several reasons. First, there are serious medical implications. The unreliability of DTC testing, especially the high rate of false positives, raises concerns about how this data could be used to inform decisions made by pharmaceutical companies. Second, it impacts trust in healthcare and laboratory science. If people rely on private companies for genetic testing and pharmaceutical companies act on that data, it raises a bigger question of where healthcare professionals fit into patient care? At the end of the day, we have to think about who controls biological data. Right now, it is largely controlled by private corporations and pharmaceutical companies. This type of data should be more heavily regulated and ethically managed. Because the future of humanity might not be controlled by those who create life, but by those who own the code of it.
AI Attestation
The AI CHATGPT was utilized to help brainstorm ideas, organize the outline, and revise writing for clarity, grammar, and flow.
https://chatgpt.com/share/69efe626-9200-83ea-a765-1e8c72ff87b9
References
Allyse, M. (2013). 23 and Me, We, and You: direct-to-consumer genetics, intellectual property, and informed consent. Trends in Biotechnology, 31(2), 68–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2012.11.007
Gunsolus, B. (2019, May 29). IMPLICATIONS OF DIRECT-TO-CONSUMER GENETIC TESTING - ASCLS. ASCLS. https://ascls.org/implications-of-direct-to-consumer-genetic-testing/
Jamali, L. (2025, May 19). Struggling DNA testing firm 23andMe to be bought for $256m. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0ln0e5g6kgoPustell , E. (2021, July 19). The Onero Institute. The Onero Institute.https://www.oneroinstitute.org/content/genetic-data-protections-in-the-us-and-eu
Do you feel as though you can be anonymous? If you wanted to scrub yourself from the internet forever, could you? The simplest answer is no. (Maybe if you’re in witness protection, but that is the government changing your life, and not you). There is always a chance that your data can be hacked, stolen, or your face put on the internet. For a specific example, I will address the Rayban Meta Glasses. Meta itself has been no shy stranger for its encroachment on user data. Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Meta, testified in a trial questioning Meta’s data concerns in 2024 (Milman, 2024). There is simply no denying that if you own any Meta device or service, that there is a significant chance that there is excessive data collected on you. That includes: Facebook, Instagram, Rayban Meta Glasses, WhatsApp, and Threads, for short. Meta was accused of sending the data of over a million Facebook users to servers in the United States (Milman, 2024). Data and privacy is something that is an essential human right. There should be an option for such to be compromised. Your data should never be compromised without your knowledge and used in something unknown. Although this should be a standard, it is not, and remains a prominent issue. This issue has also been set physically. Specifically looking at Meta glasses, the company that has already breached users’ privacy countless times, has created a product that can further breach people's privacy. Upon initial release, many people were unaware of the use of Meta glasses, considering they look like regular glasses or shades. A person can record someone’s face and actions without anyone but them being aware. So not only is there a big company that is able to breach your data, they made a product allowing anybody that owns it to encroach on your privacy without your knowledge. This is not solely a western issue. The lawsuit against Meta in 2024 was called by the European Consumer Organization (ECO). Meta owns two social media platforms, that is not going to solely be a western issue. This is going to be a problem essentially anywhere the servers work. Products such as Meta Glasses are typically going to be a western issue, however. Situations such as the trial concerning Meta allows for checks to be made, however, the data was still breached. It is more so a warning of the public than a complete halting of the process. This is an issue many platforms face, and not each one will be brought to trial. Since it is more of a global issue, it does seem to have more checks. Again in this instance, Meta is being questioned by a European company. This is very similar to Ghost in a Shell which has everyone connected to a neurointerface controlled and surveilled by the government. There is no such thing as private in Ghost in a Shell, and with the actions of many current companies, there is little privacy left.
Table of Contents
References
Milman, O. (2024, February 29). Meta faces complaints in Europe over 'massive' and 'illegal' data processing. CNN. cnn.com
A SHEIN haul. A try-on. An OOTD caption with “shirt from SHEIN” slipped in like it is no different from saying where you got your coffee. That is what makes this version of corporate power so easy to miss. It does not always look dramatic. It looks fun, fast, and affordable. But cyberpunk has never really been about neon lights alone. Its real warning is about corporations that become so powerful, so fast-moving, and so protected from accountability that they start shaping daily life more effectively than governments do.
That is what makes SHEIN such a striking real-world example. Its success depends on making affordability feel harmless. But cheapness does not erase cost. It simply pushes that cost somewhere else onto workers, onto the environment, and onto regulatory systems struggling to keep up with global platform commerce. By making cheap goods feel innocent while hiding the labor exploitation and environmental damage behind them, SHEIN reflects the corporate logic at the heart of cyberpunk and shows how easily real-world companies can normalize human expendability when profit moves faster than regulation.
Table of Contents
Cute clothes ugly system
One reason SHEIN is so effective is that it does not rule through fear. It works through convenience, low prices, and design choices that make buying feel almost automatic. As Ding explained, fast fashion thrives partly because consumers psychologically distance themselves from its harms. Shoppers often tell themselves that the damage is indirect, that everyone participates in the same system, or that one more order will not matter (Ding, 2025).
Ding also points to “temporal discounting,” where people prioritize short-term enjoyment and price over longer-term environmental damage such as waste and emissions (Ding, 2025). SHEIN’s model intensifies that pattern. Its ultra-fast production cycle turns digital trends into products within days, making gratification immediate while keeping the consequences abstract (Ding, 2025). Corporate power today does not always depend on open coercion. It can work through seduction. The easier it is to click “add to cart,” the easier it becomes not to ask who made the product, under what conditions, and at what environmental cost.
Behind the haul
That illusion depends on keeping labor conditions difficult to see. Reporting on SHEIN’s planned IPO noted that U.S. lawmakers called on the company to prove its products were not linked to forced labor, especially through concerns about sourcing tied to Xinjiang (Wexton, 2023). The same report showed that congressional committees and multiple state attorneys general scrutinized both its supply chain and its trade practices.
SHEIN denied the allegations and said it maintained a zero-tolerance policy on forced labor, but the deeper issue is larger than any single statement of denial (Wexton, 2023). When a company’s supply chain is so vast, global, and opaque that lawmakers, consumers, and even investors struggle to verify its claims, accountability becomes weak by design. That is where the cyberpunk comparison becomes most useful. The danger is not simply that abuse may exist. The danger is that the system is structured in a way that makes human suffering easy to bury behind convenience, scale, and distance. When labor becomes invisible enough, expendability becomes easier to normalize.
Faster than the rules
If cyberpunk warns about corporations moving faster than governments, SHEIN’s regulatory troubles are a strong real-world example. A 2024 report explained that SHEIN and Temu benefited from the de minimis exemption, which allows imported goods under a certain value to enter the United States without duties and processing fees (Neely, 2024). Officials argued that abuse of this loophole undercut workers and businesses while flooding the market with low-value imports. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas also warned that the scale of these shipments made meaningful screening difficult (Neely, 2024).
The same pattern appears in Europe. In February 2026, EU regulators opened a formal probe into SHEIN under the Digital Services Act over illegal products and parts of its app design, including gamified shopping features, reward mechanisms, personalized recommendations, and transparency around how products are prioritized (“EU opens probe into Shein,” 2026). That matters because SHEIN is not only selling products. It is also shaping attention and behavior through platform design. This is corporate power in a distinctly modern form. It does not just respond to desire. It helps produce it.
Maybe this is what cyberpunk looks like now. Not only in skyscrapers and sci-fi spectacles, but in hauls, try-ons, discount codes, and apps that make constant shopping feel playful instead of political. A SHEIN order can look light, harmless, even ordinary. But behind that ordinary feeling is a business model built on distance from workers, from waste, and from accountability.
So, are we heading toward cyberpunk’s corporate dominance? In some ways, we are already living inside a softer version of it. Not the loud version, but the scrollable version. The one that arrives in your feed, learns your taste, and shows up at your door before anyone has time to ask why it was allowed to be this cheap in the first place.
References
Neely, A. (2024, September 19). Biden targets Shein, Temu with import rule. DMNews. https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=news&id=urn%3acontentItem%3a6D0R-51K1-F03F-K2DW-00000-00&context=1519360&identityprofileid=NZ9N7751352
Wexton, J. (2023, November 29). Shein's IPO raises questions about alleged forced labor. CE Noticias Financieras English. https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=news&id=urn%3acontentItem%3a69S1-3HD1-DYY9-03SF-00000-00&context=1519360&identityprofileid=NZ9N7751352
(2026, February 17). EU opens probe into Shein over illegal products and app design. domain-b. https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=news&id=urn%3acontentItem%3a6HXS-D7N3-SBT4-T1X9-00000-00&context=1519360&identityprofileid=NZ9N7751352
Ding, Y. (2025, December 19). Why shoppers buy fast fashion even if they disagree with it. The Conversation – United Kingdom. https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=news&id=urn%3acontentItem%3a6HG1-2663-S00V-P01S-00000-00&context=1519360&identityprofileid=NZ9N7751352
AI Attestation
The content of this post is my own, and AI was used only to assist with planning and editing.
In classic cyberpunk stories like Blade Runner and Neuromancer, corporations don't just influence society-they run it. Governments fade into the background while companies decide who lives comfortably and who is left behind. What once felt like dystopian exaggeration is starting to look increasingly familiar. Today, real-world tech corporations are shaping democracy, labor, and even human identity in ways that echo these fictional worlds.
Table of Contents
One of the clearest examples comes from Amazon and its treatment of gig and warehouse labor. Reports from sources like The New York Times and BBC have documented intense productivity tracking, algorithmic management, and harsh working conditions. Workers are monitored in real time, their movements optimized for efficiency, and their performance judged by systems they cannot question. This resembles the dehumanized labor structures seen in cyberpunk fiction, where individuals are reduced to data points in a corporate machine.
Similarly, Meta Platforms (formerly Facebook) demonstrates how corporations can influence democratic processes. Investigations into misinformation and targeted political advertising covered by outlets like Reuters and The Washington Post-show how platform algorithms can amplify certain voices while silencing others. In Neuromancer, the Tessier-Ashpool corporation manipulates global systems from behind the scenes; today, algorithmic control over information flows raises similar concerns about who really holds power in society.
Another powerful example is OpenAl and the broader Al industry. Al development is concentrated in a small number of private companies, giving them outsized influence over the future of work, creativity, and knowledge. As Al tools automate tasks once performed by humans, the relationship between labor and value becomes increasingly unclear. This directly connects to cyberpunk themes, where technology often displaces human agency while enriching corporate elites.
These developments raise an important question: are we actually heading toward a cyberpunk future, or is this just a hyperbolic critique? The answer is somewhere in between. While corporations today wield immense power, they are not entirely unchecked. Governments still regulate industries, public backlash can force change, and investigative journalism continues to expose harmful practices. For example, antitrust cases in the United States and the European Union show that legal systems can still challenge corporate dominance.
However, the conditions that enable cyberpunk-like worlds are undeniably present. Globalization allows corporations to operate across borders, often avoiding regulation. Digital platforms scale rapidly, creating monopolies or near-monopolies. Most importantly, users willingly participate in these systems-trading data, labor, and attention for convenience. This dynamic reflects what scholars call "surveillance capitalism, where human experience itself becomes a resource to be extracted and monetized.
It's also worth noting that this is not just an American issue. In Europe, stricter data privacy laws like the GDPR show a different cultural approach to corporate power. Meanwhile, countries like China have their own complex relationships between corporations and the state, where government control and corporate influence are deeply intertwined. These variations suggest that while cyberpunk themes are global, their expression depends on cultural and political contexts.
Ultimately, cyberpunk is less a prediction and more a warning. The genre exaggerates trends already present in society to make them visible and urgent. Corporate power becomes dangerous not simply because it exists, but because it goes unquestioned. This is where critique-through journalism, activism, and even classroom discussions-plays a crucial role. By analyzing these systems, we create the possibility of resisting them.
We may not yet live in a world dominated entirely by corporations, but the parallels are too strong to ignore. The question is no longer whether cyberpunk is realistic-it's how much of it we are willing to accept.
References (APA 7th Edition)
Bucher, T. (2018). If..then: Algorithmic power and politics. Oxford University Press.
European Union. (2016). General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). https://gdpr.eu/&
Kang, C., & Frenkel, S. (2021, October 25). Facebook papers show struggle to curb misinformation. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/
Satariano, A. (2020, February 17). Europe's new rules for big tech. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/
Stone, B. (2021). Amazon unbound: Jeff Bezos and the invention of a global empire. Simon & Schuster.
Tufekci, Z. (2015). Algorithmic harms beyond Facebook and Google. Colorado Technology Law Journal, 13(2), 203-218.
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism. PublicAffairs.
Do you feel as though you can be anonymous? If you wanted to scrub yourself from the internet forever, could you? The simplest answer is no. (Maybe if you’re in witness protection, but that is the government changing your life, and not you). There is always a chance that your data can be hacked, stolen, or your face put on the internet. For a specific example, I will address the Rayban Meta Glasses. Meta itself has been no shy stranger for its encroachment on user data. Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Meta, testified in a trial questioning Meta’s data concerns in 2024 (Milman, 2024). There is simply no denying that if you own any Meta device or service, that there is a significant chance that there is excessive data collected on you. That includes: Facebook, Instagram, Rayban Meta Glasses, WhatsApp, and Threads, for short. Meta was accused of sending the data of over a million Facebook users to servers in the United States (Milman, 2024). Data and privacy is something that is an essential human right. There should be an option for such to be compromised. Your data should never be compromised without your knowledge and used in something unknown. Although this should be a standard, it is not, and remains a prominent issue. This issue has also been set physically. Specifically looking at Meta glasses, the company that has already breached users’ privacy countless times, has created a product that can further breach people's privacy. Upon initial release, many people were unaware of the use of Meta glasses, considering they look like regular glasses or shades. A person can record someone’s face and actions without anyone but them being aware. So not only is there a big company that is able to breach your data, they made a product allowing anybody that owns it to encroach on your privacy without your knowledge. This is not solely a western issue. The lawsuit against Meta in 2024 was called by the European Consumer Organization (ECO). Meta owns two social media platforms, that is not going to solely be a western issue. This is going to be a problem essentially anywhere the servers work. Products such as Meta Glasses are typically going to be a western issue, however. Situations such as the trial concerning Meta allows for checks to be made, however, the data was still breached. It is more so a warning of the public than a complete halting of the process. This is an issue many platforms face, and not each one will be brought to trial. Since it is more of a global issue, it does seem to have more checks. Again in this instance, Meta is being questioned by a European company. This is very similar to Ghost in a Shell which has everyone connected to a neurointerface controlled and surveilled by the government. There is no such thing as private in Ghost in a Shell, and with the actions of many current companies, there is little privacy left.
One reason SHEIN is so effective is that it does not rule through fear. It works through convenience, low prices, and design choices that make buying feel almost automatic. As Ding explained, fast fashion thrives partly because consumers psychologically distance themselves from its harms. Shoppers often tell themselves that the damage is indirect, that everyone participates in the same system, or that one more order will not matter (Ding, 2025).
Ding also points to “temporal discounting,” where people prioritize short-term enjoyment and price over longer-term environmental damage such as waste and emissions (Ding, 2025). SHEIN’s model intensifies that pattern. Its ultra-fast production cycle turns digital trends into products within days, making gratification immediate while keeping the consequences abstract (Ding, 2025). Corporate power today does not always depend on open coercion. It can work through seduction. The easier it is to click “add to cart,” the easier it becomes not to ask who made the product, under what conditions, and at what environmental cost.
That illusion depends on keeping labor conditions difficult to see. Reporting on SHEIN’s planned IPO noted that U.S. lawmakers called on the company to prove its products were not linked to forced labor, especially through concerns about sourcing tied to Xinjiang (Wexton, 2023). The same report showed that congressional committees and multiple state attorneys general scrutinized both its supply chain and its trade practices.
SHEIN denied the allegations and said it maintained a zero-tolerance policy on forced labor, but the deeper issue is larger than any single statement of denial (Wexton, 2023). When a company’s supply chain is so vast, global, and opaque that lawmakers, consumers, and even investors struggle to verify its claims, accountability becomes weak by design. That is where the cyberpunk comparison becomes most useful. The danger is not simply that abuse may exist. The danger is that the system is structured in a way that makes human suffering easy to bury behind convenience, scale, and distance. When labor becomes invisible enough, expendability becomes easier to normalize.
If cyberpunk warns about corporations moving faster than governments, SHEIN’s regulatory troubles are a strong real-world example. A 2024 report explained that SHEIN and Temu benefited from the de minimis exemption, which allows imported goods under a certain value to enter the United States without duties and processing fees (Neely, 2024). Officials argued that abuse of this loophole undercut workers and businesses while flooding the market with low-value imports. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas also warned that the scale of these shipments made meaningful screening difficult (Neely, 2024).
The same pattern appears in Europe. In February 2026, EU regulators opened a formal probe into SHEIN under the Digital Services Act over illegal products and parts of its app design, including gamified shopping features, reward mechanisms, personalized recommendations, and transparency around how products are prioritized (“EU opens probe into Shein,” 2026). That matters because SHEIN is not only selling products. It is also shaping attention and behavior through platform design. This is corporate power in a distinctly modern form. It does not just respond to desire. It helps produce it.