It seems somewhat appropriate that 2014 is the year when ordinary Web users have begun to seriously question how the Internet is working for them and what impact it is actually having on their lives. It’s been 30 years since 1984, the year when George Orwell envisioned that massive state surveillance and always-on content delivery systems would be used to both control and monitor us. 1994 saw the beta release of the first tracking cookie — it then became possible to monitor which sites we visited, a virtual trace of our fingerprints left over the Web.

Significantly, it has now been 10 years since Google further changed the game with the launch of Gmail. When it launched, much was made of Gmail’s ability to “read” your email and serve you ads based on what you were discussing. But users still flocked in droves, attracted by large inboxes, email chains grouped into conversations and an integrated IM service. Gmail is now the biggest email service in the world, but more than that, it is the biggest demonstration of user consent to being monitored. No one was forced to choose a product that collected and analyzed their data; the abundant free storage and slick interface was a strong enough trade off.

Facebook reaffirmed this. A social network that had its origins in exploiting the identity of individuals has attracted more users than even Gmail. Similarly, it has made no secret of using personal data and “private” correspondence to generate huge income. One step beyond this, users willingly “Like” brands and interests, volunteering personal information to allow Facebook to paint a more complete, more powerful image of its user base. And there are many that even appreciate this — if you’re going to be served ads, they may as well be ads for things you’re actually interested in, right?

Last year’s revelations that data was being handed over wholesale to national intelligence agencies caused a degree of discomfort, if perhaps not the anger that some had predicted it would cause. But recent revelations that Facebook was actively trying to manipulate the moods of its users through the ‘emotional contagion’ experiment may be enough for some people to question if they should finally switch off.

No longer was your data simply being used passively, to see what your interests were and to target you with ads. Rather, now your data was being used as a way to provoke an emotional response out of your fellow users. Your data has now become a weapon, and you have been pitted directly against your peers as a means to influence their emotions.

And how about own data being used directly against you, its creator? It’s long been rumored that the big Silicon Valley data hoarders have been looking at ways to monetize your data beyond just advertising. Insurance companies would love the insight into your life that Google and Facebook have. How would your health insurance premium be affected if your insurer knew you visited your local bar every night and stopped off for fast food on the way home? Or would your car insurance premium go up if it was known that you regularly drove to visit your friend who lived in the shady part of town?

Now, Google’s Larry Page is urging us to hand over the most private of all our data: medical records. Page claims it will save 100,000 lives — but at what cost? And where will the line be drawn? Are we ready for targeted ads for florists when a relative has passed away? Is an organization that already sells advertising and insight to insurance and big-Pharma companies the most appropriate custodian of your medical history?

Rather than “benefit” you by suggesting products and services that you may choose to use or purchase, your data could potentially be used to penalize you directly.

And who is to say that selling data would stop with corporations? Could private investigators track your movements and sell the information to jealous lovers? Would an employer be interested to know your movements on a day you called in sick? Your data, as a commodity, could be used to attack the trust at the very core of your personal relationships.

But this is just the tip of the iceberg, and there have been signs that this is the way things could possibly go for some time now. Mood manipulation and trust conditioning are only the beginning; the next step will be to develop methods to provoke or control reactions — and for whose benefit?

All new Android users are asked if they would like to switch on Google Now. According to the product page, Google Now gives you the “right information at just the right time” and the “information that you need throughout your day, before you even ask.” Based on usage, Google Now aims to pre-empt your consciousness and present to you the data it thinks you will look for before you ask for it.

In theory, this could be really useful, a sort of electronic PA. A meeting in your diary? Here’s the map of how to get there and the different transport options available. It finishes at 12:30, so here are some good spots for lunch nearby.

There is a danger, however, that we will stop thinking for ourselves and swallow all the information that is presented to us whole. Where is the line between the information that is best for us, and the information that is in the best interests of the person that paid Google to bring it to your attention?

We’re being manipulated by the very data that we create, and what others choose to sprinkle on top. Facebook is one of the largest sources of news and its importance is growing all the time, with 170 percent growth in referral traffic to media sites over the last year. If algorithms are already curating your friends’ emotions, you can be sure they’re choosing what article links to put in front of you too.

And what if Facebook or Google tried to engineer political consent? Is it possible to provoke an extreme reaction, or perhaps even register shocking news with someone in such a manner that it is met with indifference?

Provoking an emotional response to make you happy or sad is one thing. Conditioning you to think or act in a certain way is an altogether scarier prospect, albeit one that doesn’t seem so much like “tinfoil hat” territory as it may have appeared prior to the “emotional contagion” experiment.

The data weapons may not be complete just yet, but the arms race has already begun. And we’re the ones building the arsenal, with each click, each app and each Like. With governments and individuals ready to abuse the trust given to them via access to our data, how does this change our relationship with these Internet companies? Purchasing power in the Internet Era is not just about products and services — it has enormous freedom of association and freedom of speech implications — how about the movements you now must give your voice to?

Rafael Laguna is co-founder and CEO of OX.