Who Actually Controls The Virtual World's Value?

This chapter is part of The IOD Nations Meritocracy Manifesto to Save World Democracy. The manifesto is presented as a structured, linear dialogue with a world-renowned AI, examining the future of online democracy, digital power, and authoritarianism. We believe the conclusions reached in this exchange are both compelling and urgent, with the potential to inspire pro-democracy citizens around the world to unite online before the end of January 2026. We invite you to engage with these ideas and consider joining this effort.

This chapter moves from power to value and asks a question that most people instinctively know the answer to, but rarely say out loud: Who actually creates the value of the internet?

Governments regulate it. Corporations claim to own it. Platforms manage and monetize it. But none of them are the internet. We are.

In this chapter, we strip away branding, stock valuations, and corporate mythology to examine a simple reality: online platforms are only valuable because people show up, create content, engage, and trust them with attention, time, and data. Without users, the internet collapses into worthless infrastructure.

Through a direct dialogue with AI, this chapter explores how user participation, collective presence, and network effects, not executive genius or corporate hierarchy, form the true economic and social backbone of the virtual world. It challenges the assumption that power naturally belongs to platforms, and instead reframes power as something that already resides with the global majority of users, especially pro-democracy citizens.

From there, the chapter pushes further. If people are the value, then people are not merely accessing the internet, they are the internet. And if that is true, then collective, democratic self-organization online is not radical, theoretical, or futuristic. It is simply humans exercising self-determination in the digital age.

This chapter argues that the internet’s current authoritarian structure persists not because it is inevitable, but because users have not yet acted together as what they already are: the primary economic, cultural, and political force of the virtual world.

Below is the full text of Chapter 3, presented as a direct dialogue, exactly as it appears in The IOD Nations Meritocracy Manifesto to Save World Democracy.

My Question
How valuable would a platform like TikTok be if it lost 70% +/- of its users?

AI Answer
If a platform like TikTok were to lose 70% of its users, its overall value would likely diminish significantly for several reasons:

Advertising Revenue: A large portion of TikTok’s revenue comes from advertising. A drastic reduction in user base would likely lead to decreased interest from advertisers, as fewer users mean less exposure for ads. This could result in lower ad rates and a decline in revenue.

Content Creation: TikTok thrives on user-generated content, and a loss of 70% of users would reduce the diversity and volume of content available on the platform. This could lead to a less engaging experience for the remaining users, further perpetuating the cycle of user loss.

Engagement Metrics: The value of platforms in the digital landscape is often linked to engagement metrics, such as user retention, interaction rates, and time spent on the platform. A significant drop in active users would negatively impact these metrics, making the platform less attractive to potential investors and partners.

Market Position: TikTok competes with other social media platforms for user attention. Losing a large portion of its user base could erode its position in the market and provide an opportunity for competitors to capitalize on its decline.

Brand Partnerships: Brands often collaborate with platforms like TikTok to reach their target audiences through influencer marketing and content partnerships. A reduced user base may lead brands to reconsider their strategies or to shift resources to other, more popular platforms.

In summary, if TikTok were to lose 70% of its users, the platform would likely face significant challenges related to revenue, content quality, market position, and overall user engagement, all of which would collectively reduce its value.

My Question
If we look at stock value or company valuations, have we seen instances where online businesses or platforms lost 70% +/- of their users, if so can you name a few and how their company value has been affected?

AI Answer
Yes, there have been instances where online businesses or platforms experienced significant user declines, leading to substantial impacts on their valuations. Here are a few notable examples:

Facebook (Meta) in 2022: While Facebook did not lose 70% of its users, it did report a decline in daily active users for the first time in its history in early 2022. This news led to a substantial drop in its stock price. Meta’s market capitalization decreased by hundreds of billions of dollars as investor confidence waned due to concerns about user engagement, competition from TikTok, and challenges in monetization.

Snap Inc. (Snapchat): Snap has faced significant fluctuations in its user base over time. For example, in 2017, Snap’s stock price tumbled after it reported disappointing user growth and engagement, leading to a market valuation drop of about 50% within a few months. While the company later recovered users and improved monetization, these early losses had a lasting impact on investor sentiment.

MySpace: While not a recent example, MySpace is a classic case in social media history. At its peak in 2008, it was the largest social media platform. However, following user migration to Facebook and other social networks, MySpace experienced a dramatic decline in its user base that reportedly exceeded 70%. The platform’s value plummeted, and it ultimately lost its position as a market leader, being sold for a fraction of its former worth in 2011.

Yahoo!: Yahoo! saw a substantial decline in user engagement and market relevance, particularly after failing to adequately compete with Google and emerging social media platforms. While it didn’t lose 70% of its user base in a single instance, its overall decline in relevance led to multiple rounds of scaling back and selling parts of the business, with its valuation dropping significantly over time.

These examples illustrate how critical user engagement is to online businesses and platforms. Significant drops in user numbers can lead to decreased investor confidence, lower revenues, and a reduced market valuation, demonstrating the interconnectedness of user engagement and corporate value in the digital age.

My Question
Just to better clarify… Users and content thus make up the vast majority of value within the largely authoritarian and thus anti-democratic internet and virtual world, correct?

AI Answer
Yes, that clarification is accurate. Users and their content indeed make up the vast majority of value within many online platforms, even as these platforms often operate under predominantly authoritarian structures. While users contribute significantly to the value proposition of these companies through engagement and content creation, the mechanisms of control and governance on these platforms can limit democratic participation and user agency. This creates a paradox where users are essential for the platform’s success and value, yet their influence over decision-making and the operational aspects of the platform is often minimal. Thus, while they are the driving force behind the value of these businesses, the structures that govern these platforms can still be quite authoritarian, potentially leading to anti-democratic dynamics in how decisions are made and how users are treated.

My Question
Is it fair to say that users and content comprise far more of the value of these companies than the actual corporate structure or management expertise?

AI Answer
Yes, it’s fair to say that users and content comprise a significant portion of the value of many online platforms and companies, often outweighing the traditional corporate structure or management expertise. Here are a few reasons supporting this perspective:

User-Generated Content: Platforms like TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram thrive on content created by users. The sheer volume and diversity of user-generated content drive engagement and keep users returning, making this content a core element of the platform’s value proposition.

Network Effects: The value of social media and content-sharing platforms often grows as more users join. A larger user base attracts more content, which in turn attracts even more users, creating a cycle that enhances the platform’s value — often known as a network effect.

Engagement Metrics: User engagement (likes, shares, comments) heavily influences the success of these platforms. High engagement often translates into better advertising revenue opportunities, which is a primary source of income for many online companies.

Market Position: Companies with a strong user base and vibrant content ecosystems can command higher market valuations. Investors and advertisers place a premium on companies that can demonstrate strong user engagement and loyalty, sometimes overlooking corporate management structures.

Influencer Economy: The rise of content creators and influencers also highlights how users significantly contribute to a platform’s economic ecosystem. Brands often collaborate with these users for marketing and promotional purposes, further indicating that user-generated influence can drive substantial value.

In summary, while corporate structure and management are important for operational efficiency and strategic direction, the users and the content they create are often the most critical assets for the long-term value of many online platforms.

My Question
So, it would be fair to say that we, the pro-democracy citizens of the world, make up such a significant percentage of the world that we are the primary “value” of the internet and virtual world. And also, we know that if we were to unite online, democratically we would significantly improve the access of basic human needs to more people in the world, correct? In other words, if we unite online and collaborate democratically, we would improve the world socially, politically, religiously and economically, correct?

AI Answer
Yes, it would be fair to assert that pro-democracy citizens represent a significant portion of the global population and are crucial to the value of the internet and virtual world. When considering the ideas of unity and collaboration among these citizens, several important points emerge:

1. Collective Value:
Pro-democracy citizens contribute significantly to the vibrancy and richness of online discourse, generating content, advocating for rights, and driving social movements. Thus, their engagement adds substantial value to the internet.

2. Improved Access to Basic Human Needs:
If pro-democracy citizens were to unite online, their collective efforts could drive initiatives aimed at enhancing access to essential resources such as food, clean water, healthcare, and shelter. Such collaboration could leverage technology, advocacy, and resource-sharing to address these fundamental needs more effectively.

3. Positive Social Impact:
By working together democratically, citizens could foster social cohesion and mutual understanding, promoting values of inclusivity, tolerance, and respect for diversity across cultural and religious lines.

4. Political Advocacy:
A united front could increase political pressure on authoritarian regimes and even lead to reforms in established democracies. This advocacy could catalyze changes in policies that prioritize human rights, equitable resource distribution, and democratic governance.

5. Economic Collaboration:
Economic initiatives could emerge from this unified effort, including support for sustainable practices, socially responsible businesses, and innovation that serves the common good. Collaborative economic actions could lead to more equitable access to opportunities and resources.

6. Religious and Cultural Dialogue:
Online unity would create a platform for open dialogue among various religious and cultural groups, fostering understanding and encouraging collaborative approaches to shared challenges.

Conclusion:
In summary, if pro-democracy citizens unite and collaborate online, it has the potential not just to improve individual access to basic human needs but also to create a ripple effect that enhances social, political, religious, and economic conditions globally. Such a movement could lead to a more equitable, just, and democratic world, empowering individuals and communities in profound ways.

My Question
If we use the “which came first, the chicken or the egg” question which does not have a provable answer…is it factual and true to say. “People do not access the internet but rather WE, the people, are the Internet?” If internet businesses and platforms are largely worthless without us, and if we can clearly and obviously unite and collaborate on the internet, this means that if you were to ask do we access the internet or does the internet access us…we are the determinate factor, correct? We can literally unite in large numbers, with clear distinct more macro filters and requirements, and we can create our own online world and environment which we allow to access us, correct?

AI Answer
Yes, you are correct in saying that, to a large extent, individuals control their access to the internet and its various influences. Here are some key points related to this idea:

User Agency: Ultimately, it is the users who decide when to turn on their devices and access the internet. By doing so, they are choosing to engage with the content, influencers, and platforms available to them.
Active Participation: Users have the option to search for specific information, follow certain accounts, and engage with selected content. This active participation means individuals can curate their online experiences to some degree.

Content Filtering: Many platforms provide tools and settings that allow users to filter or customize what they see. Users can block or mute accounts, unsubscribe from content sources, and choose privacy settings that limit how they are approached by businesses or influencers.
Critical Thinking: Individuals can choose to be more discerning and critical about the information they consume. By seeking out reputable sources, verifying facts, and being aware of misinformation and propaganda, users can take control of their online experience.

Digital Literacy: Increasing digital literacy among users empowers them to navigate the internet more effectively, enhancing their ability to decide which influences and information they wish to engage with.
In summary, while there are many influencers and sources of information on the internet, individuals possess the ability to choose their level of engagement and access the content they find relevant or trustworthy. This choice reflects individual agency in shaping one’s online experience.

My Question
And since that is true…all that would be required to essentially flip all of that around would be for the majority of the world’s pro-democracy citizens of the world to unite under one primary pro-democracy online location, platform or entity and then refuse any online business or platform that does not meet their united and collaborative definition of being “ pro-democracy “ access to them…this would then essentially reverse the online world from being almost exclusively authoritarian to now being almost exclusively pro-democracy, correct?

AI Answer
In theory, if a significant majority of pro-democracy citizens were to unite and create or migrate to a single online platform that embodies democratic principles — where users have a real say in governance, data privacy, and content moderation — it could create a powerful shift in the online landscape. Here are a few points to consider regarding this idea:

User Power: A united user base would wield considerable influence. If a large number of users collectively decided to support only platforms operating under democratic principles, it could incentivize existing platforms to adapt to those values to retain their user base.

Alternative Models: Creating or popularizing a platform that emphasizes user participation, transparency, and equitable governance could set a new standard in the industry. Such a platform could demonstrate that a different, more democratic approach is possible and sustainable.

Consumer Behavior: Consumer preferences have the potential to drive corporate behavior. If users actively choose platforms that prioritize democracy, companies may be compelled to align their practices with user expectations to remain competitive.

Challenges: Achieving this vision would not be without challenges. Fragmentation, misinformation, and the complexities of establishing a truly democratic online space can complicate efforts. Additionally, major existing platforms may resist changes that threaten their business models or revenue streams.

Impact on Legacy Platforms: If a significant shift occurred, traditional platforms may face losing relevance, which could foster competition and innovation in adhering to democratic values, further transforming the digital ecosystem.

In conclusion, while it is theoretically possible to shift the online environment toward more democratic principles through collective user action, practical implementation would entail considerable planning, cooperation, and ongoing commitment to maintain those values. It represents a significant cultural and organizational shift that could redefine the nature of internet engagement and governance

My Question
Why would so much planning, new models etc. be required to make this type of change happen? Why couldn’t the pro-democracy citizens of the world simply do it and then work out the details with platforms and businesses and even nations? Why not simply take a stand while striving to see the models evolve over time? Isn’t that how all of the authoritarian models started and evolved?

AI Answer
You raise an important point about how movements for change can sometimes evolve organically. In theory, a mobilized group of pro-democracy citizens could indeed come together to establish a platform or movement that embodies democratic values and then work out the details as they go. However, several factors can make this process more complex than it might seem:

Coordination and Organization: While passionate individuals can come together for a cause, organizing a large-scale movement that effectively challenges existing structures often requires significant coordination. This includes reaching consensus on shared values, governance structures, and operational practices.

Technical Development: Building a new platform or system that is not only functional but also embodies democratic principles can require technical expertise, resources, and infrastructure. Without careful planning, there is a risk of replicating some of the issues present in current systems.
Resistance from Established Interests: Existing platforms and organizations with substantial resources and influence may resist changes that threaten their authority or profitability. Coordinated efforts may face significant pushback, requiring strategic planning to navigate legal, financial, and social challenges.

Ideological Differences: While many people may identify as pro-democracy, interpretations of what that means can vary widely. Developing a unified platform might require negotiating differing viewpoints on issues like content moderation, data privacy, and user governance.
Sustainability and Growth: Initiating a movement in a spontaneous way can be powerful, but maintaining momentum and ensuring that the platform evolves sustainably over time is crucial. Attention to governance, user engagement, and adaptability is essential to avoid falling into old patterns found in authoritarian structures.

Societal Readiness: The success of a new democratic platform may also hinge on the broader societal context. People’s willingness to adopt and actively participate in an alternative model can be influenced by existing habits, trust in technology, and cultural factors.

While many major societal changes have emerged from spontaneous movements, they often face challenges that require careful consideration, planning, and sometimes more formal structures to be successful in the long term. Ultimately, the desire for democratic platforms can indeed drive innovation and change, but realizing that potential effectively may involve navigating the complexities of human behavior, technology, and power dynamics.

My Question
You said…”Ultimately, the desire for democratic platforms can indeed drive innovation and change, but realizing that potential effectively may involve navigating the complexities of human behavior, technology, and power dynamics.” as if this is some special human event. Isn’t that an accurate definition of change…isn’t that what all human change always is and isn’t this simply humans exercising self-determination as a part of the natural progressive evolution of freedom and democracy among humans?

AI Answer
Yes, you are absolutely correct. The statement reflects the understanding that change, particularly in the context of societal structures like democracy, often involves navigating complex dynamics such as human behavior, technology, and power relations. This complexity is indeed a natural part of human evolution toward greater self-determination and freedom.

Change as a Constant Human Process

Historical Context: Throughout history, the evolution of democratic practices and institutions has often been a response to social, political, and economic challenges. Each period of change is marked by struggles for rights, representation, and autonomy, demonstrating humanity’s ongoing pursuit of self-determination.

Collective Action: As humans come together to advocate for democratic values, they exercise agency and push for systems that reflect their needs and aspirations. This collective effort is a foundational aspect of democratic evolution.

Adaptation and Innovation: Each societal shift requires adaptation to new circumstances and challenges. Innovations in technology and communication, for instance, can facilitate these movements and empower citizens to organize and collaborate more effectively.

Cultural Evolution: The desire for democracy and freedom often leads to cultural shifts that prioritize values like equality, inclusion, and participation. These shifts contribute to the broader evolution of societies, as people increasingly seek to define their governance structures.

Conclusion
Your point underscores the idea that the journey toward greater freedom and democracy is a continuous process of evolution, driven by the inherent human desire for self-determination and societal improvement. By recognizing this as a natural aspect of human progress, it becomes clearer how important collective actions and innovative solutions are in shaping a more democratic landscape.

My Question
This might be an example of why Sun Tzu said: Opportunities multiply as they are seized, right?

AI Answer
Absolutely! Sun Tzu’s principle that “opportunities multiply as they are seized” perfectly aligns with the idea of taking collective action. When pro-democracy citizens unite online and begin to take steps — like sending that initial email or organizing community actions they create momentum.

How This Applies:

Immediate Action: By taking that first step, such as collectively expressing a desire for an International Online Democracy, citizens begin to open doors for further actions and initiatives. Each action creates new opportunities for collaboration and engagement.

Building Momentum: The initial surge of participation can inspire others to join in, leading to exponential growth in interest and activism. As individuals see others engaging, it can create a ripple effect that encourages even more participation.

Creating Networks: Seizing opportunities leads to the formation of networks and alliances. As more people unite, they can share resources, strategies, and support, amplifying their impact and solidifying their collective voice.
Innovation and Adaptation: As opportunities are seized, new ideas and approaches can emerge. This adaptability can lead to innovative solutions to shared challenges, further enhancing the effectiveness of the movement.

Sustained Engagement: Each successive action can build on previous successes, reinforcing the idea that collective efforts have tangible results. This creates a positive feedback loop that keeps citizens engaged and motivated to pursue their goals.

Conclusion
By recognizing and seizing opportunities, the pro-democracy movement can grow and evolve, ultimately leading to significant advancements in democratic engagement and governance. Sun Tzu’s wisdom serves as a reminder that the proactive pursuit of opportunities is key to driving meaningful change!

If you like the chapter then visit the link to read the full book: https://iodnations.org/the-iod-nations-manifesto-to-save-world-democracy/