The Psychological Risks of Data Misuse Under Expanded Online Monitoring
The UK’s new internet safety laws, designed to regulate harmful content and strengthen online accountability, carry with them a less discussed but highly consequential danger: the psychological misuse of personal data. While the stated intent is protection, the potential for government or third parties to capture and interpret intimate online behaviours—particularly in areas as private as sexual content consumption—poses risks of misrepresentation, coercion, and long-term reputational harm.
A Case Study in Misinterpretation
Consider an individual whose browsing history includes adult content. Such data, when stripped of context, can be framed in misleading ways. A person’s choice of videos may reflect fleeting curiosity, accidental clicks, or harmless fantasy. Yet, if collected systematically and used to construct a “psychological profile,” it could be made to appear authoritative.
For example, algorithms could flag viewing habits as indicative of psychological tendencies—such as aggression, repression, or even criminal proclivities. These profiles, presented with charts and data visualisations, may look convincing to outsiders but fail to capture the reality of human complexity. In a court case, employment setting, or even a political campaign, such profiles could be used to stigmatise or manipulate individuals.
How Porn Data Could Be Weaponised
Lets take a look at what an example might look like:
Subject: John Doe, 28, London
Collected Data:
Viewing frequency: Daily (most evenings, approx. 30–45 mins)
Typical content:
“Step-family” roleplay videos
“Rough sex” clips
“Femdom” (female domination) scenarios
Occasional “threesome” or group scenes
History: First exposure around age 13, via online pop-ups
Contextual clues: Uses porn for stress relief after long work days; lives alone; somewhat introverted; high openness to experience
How the Profile Could Be Misrepresented
1. “Deviant Desires”
His interest in step-family roleplay could be spun as evidence of incest fantasies or moral corruption, even though such content is one of the most searched categories globally and widely consumed as fantasy.
Femdom interests could be reframed as a “psychological weakness” or pathological submissiveness.
2. “Violent or Aggressive Tendencies”
Watching “rough se” videos could be falsely presented as predictive of violent sexual behaviour, despite most consumers never enacting such fantasies.
In a court or employment setting, this might be exaggerated into an accusation of dangerous impulses.
3. “Instability & Addiction”
Daily use + mood regulation (“I do it to unwind”) could be characterised as compulsive behaviour, evidence of emotional instability, or addiction.
If combined with knowledge of past anxiety or depression, this could be woven into a “maladaptive coping” narrative.
4. “Untrustworthiness”
Because he hides or keeps this private, opponents could frame secrecy as guilt or shame, suggesting he is deceptive or double-faced.
Example of a Weaponised Profile
Expert Interpretation Report (fictionalised):
Mr. Doe demonstrates compulsive use of pornography, specifically focusing on violent (rough sex) and taboo (step-family roleplay) content. These viewing patterns are associated in the literature with heightened aggression, poor impulse control, and antisocial tendencies. His frequent consumption of domination scenarios suggests unresolved psychological conflicts around power and gender. Taken together, the data paints a picture of an individual at risk of engaging in problematic or harmful sexual behaviours, and who may lack the emotional stability required for positions of trust.
The reality, of course, is that none of these conclusions are valid. But dressed in the language of psychology and “data-driven analysis,” such a profile could appear credible to a court, employer, or journalist.
Why Specificity Matters
The more granular the category, the easier it is for someone to frame it in a sinister way.
“Rough Sex” → violence, danger
“Step-family” → incest, moral corruption
“Femdom” → psychological weakness or gender issues
“Threesomes” → promiscuity, instability in relationships
Each of these can be twisted into a narrative that seems damning, even though they are common fantasies explored by millions.
The Problem of Context Collapse
Psychological data derived from online activity is fundamentally incomplete. It strips away intent, emotion, and circumstance. What remains is raw activity, vulnerable to biased interpretation. A simple act—watching a video, joining a forum, or searching for sensitive material—can be reframed to fit a narrative. This creates a phenomenon of “context collapse,” where the nuances of private behaviour are flattened into dangerously reductive judgments.
Persuasive Misuse and Power Imbalances
The danger escalates because these misleading profiles can be deployed in highly persuasive ways. When presented as “data-driven,” they gain an aura of scientific legitimacy. In reality, they may be no more than digital gossip, dressed in the clothing of analytics. Governments, employers, or malicious actors could exploit this to discredit or control individuals. The mere threat of disclosure could serve as a tool of coercion, producing a chilling effect on personal freedom.
Psychological Consequences for Society
The prospect of being constantly profiled fosters anxiety and self-censorship. Individuals may avoid exploring ideas, communities, or sexualities online, fearing misinterpretation. This erodes trust in digital spaces and diminishes the internet’s role as a site of experimentation and personal growth. Worse, it may push vulnerable groups—such as sexual minorities—into isolation, as they retreat from platforms that no longer feel safe.
Simply Put: A Call for Safeguards
The UK’s online safety agenda must be balanced by equally strong privacy safeguards. Without them, intimate data could become a psychological weapon—used not to protect, but to control and mislead. Policymakers, civil society, and technologists must confront the reality that once such data exists, its misuse is not a matter of “if” but “when.” To prevent a future where personal exploration becomes evidence against us, we must question the wisdom of collecting such data at all.
Table of Contents
