Category: <span>OPINION</span>

344 times a day. That’s how often the average adult checks their phone, according to the BBC. Every four minutes. Even at night, even for no reason, even when there’s no notification.

In tropical rainforests, there’s an ant that climbs onto a leaf, locks itself in place, and dies. A fungus has taken control of its nervous system to better spread its spores. Biologists call it a parasitic infection. Poets might say: a dispossession of the living.

That fungus took millions of years to perfect its strategy. Our smartphones only needed a decade. The biological parasite forces its host. The digital parasite convinced its host it couldn’t live without it.

This parallel between biological parasitism and digital colonization isn’t just a metaphor. It’s an operating system. The same mechanisms, the same precision, the same result: a host working for its parasite while believing it’s acting freely.

So maybe the real question isn’t: are we addicted to our screens? But rather: at what point did we stop being the masters and become the host?

OPINION

Here is the third and final installment of my series on the privacy of our data. After exploring our own surrenders and the illusion of voluntary transparency, it’s time to ask the most unsettling question of all:

What are we leaving to our children? Not as a material inheritance, but as an inheritance of gaze.

For they are born into a world where the intimate fades before it has even existed, where surveillance dresses itself in the clothing of play, where freedom is confused with permanent connection. What was for us a loss is for them self-evident. Where we see an encroachment on privacy, they simply see life.

This article examines this silent shift: how do we pass down inner freedom to a generation that has never known secrecy? How do we teach depth to those we’ve accustomed to exposure? And above all, what will remain of freedom if we forget to teach it to them?

OPINION

We believe we navigate freely, but we move through a strange bestiary of revisited myths. Like Narcissus, we lean over the digital mirror, fascinated by a reflection that ends up engulfing us. Like Sisyphus, we bear the burden of a memory without forgetting: each piece of data adds to the rock that crushes us without ever rolling back down. Like Prometheus, we offer our traces to a system that feasts on us endlessly. As in the Panopticon, we live under an invisible gaze, but worse still: we have learned to anticipate it, becoming our own jailers.

We are not only losing data; we are losing essential dimensions of the human: the interiority that allows thinking without witness, the forgetting that makes rebirth possible, the autonomy to be oneself, the heteronomy to be several.

Digital servitude needs no chains; it imposes itself through fluidity, seduction, habit. So the real question is no longer: “do I have something to hide?”, but: “how much longer will I remain capable of preserving what makes me a free being?”

OPINION

How many times have you said this phrase while mindlessly accepting cookies on a website?

Yesterday morning, I watched my daughter checking her phone. A simple, innocent gesture. Yet in just a few seconds, she had just revealed her current mood, her sleep patterns, her location, and even her evening plans.

Without knowing it, she was feeding her “invisible digital portrait” – that silhouette made up of thousands of micro-traces we scatter every day.

The problem? This portrait no longer belongs to you. It circulates, gets sold, grows richer. It can predict your desires before you even feel them. And in the wrong hands, it becomes a formidable weapon.

The real question isn’t “What are you hiding?” But “Why should you give up your privacy?”

In a world where forgetting becomes impossible, where every click shapes your future, protecting your data is no longer an individual luxury: it’s the very condition of your freedom.

OPINION

What if the rise of AI in medicine did not mark the end of doctors, but the beginning of a new era of care?

Since Hippocrates, physicians have drawn their legitimacy from knowledge. Yet, for the first time in modern history, they are no longer necessarily the ones who know the most. AI diagnoses faster, sees what the human eye cannot, and sometimes even drafts responses that patients find more reassuring than those of a professional.

So, should we fear the disappearance of doctors? Or should we rethink their place, their role, their unique value in a world where expertise is shared between human and machine?

OPINION