How Markets Hijacked Our Relationships
And How We Can Steal Them Back
For most of human history, markets were part of everyday life. Trade was wrapped in customs, obligations, and shared stories. Land was sacred, labor was personal, and community was something you contribute to.
In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, industrial capitalism and modern states turned labor, land, and money into things you could buy and sell like any other product. Markets were cut loose from many social and moral limits.
By the 1970s, the financial sector began to dominate the real economy. Decisions about factories, jobs, and cities were increasingly driven by financial instruments and shareholders far away.
Households were pushed to act like little financial firms, juggling credit cards, mortgages, retirement accounts, student loans, and insurance. People were being trained to think about their whole existence as a series of financial decisions.
The logic of finance and the stock market invaded every aspect of our lives. We quietly started treating friends, partners, community members, and even ourselves as assets.
And when we don’t, when we attempt to break free from the grip of this world, it shows up everywhere, a daily practice coded into apps, encouraged by self‑help culture, taught by economic theory, and reinforced by the way money and power move through the digital world.
We ask ourselves “What do I get from this? Is this connection worth my time?” We learn to treat our education, our health, and even our free time as an investment. We start seeing other people that way too.
The consequences shows up in our bodies, our politics, and our ability to feel like we belong to anyone or anything.
We are realizing we need more, more than wages, likes, or followers. We need our lives to unfold within a community connected with social relations of mutual respect.
The Internet Factory
It’s 2 a.m. A teenage girl sits in bed scrolling through her phone, refreshing her notifications; her last post did not get enough likes. A 30‑something creator stares at their analytics, stomach in knots as views dip and rent is due. An older man spends the whole day talking to an AI companion while his children are a call away, alone.
None of these people think they are “playing the market.” Yet they’ve all been trained to experience their relationships the way an investor experiences a portfolio: growth charts, crashes, wins, losses, returns, risks.
Platforms like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, and X are digital infrastructures built to match you with content, services, and people while recording every move you make. They make their money by turning you into data and selling the ability to influence your future behavior.
You sign up to stay in touch with friends, be entertained, or build an audience. The platform captures every click, pause, and swipe you make. That data is used to guess what you are likely to do next. Those guesses are sold to advertisers and other customers who want to influence you at the right moment.
Your life becomes free raw material for these companies. At first they just watch. Then they start nudging, all to make your behavior predictable enough to sell.
But this model only works if you are constantly active. So billions of dollars go into research to design these platforms to hook your attention. Notifications pull you back. Endless feeds keep you scrolling. Visible numbers tell you if you are winning or losing today.
Specific kinds of social behavior get rewarded like public posts, fast replies, shareable emotions, and content that keeps others glued to the screen is elevated.
Quiet conversations, slow friendships, unmeasured time together do not show up in this system. They generate no data, so the platforms built for “connection” actively ignore such signals.
Over time, users adapt to the platform and bend to the algorithms. They subconsciously learn being a good friend or partner is not what gets you seen or rewarded. Being a good performer does.
The Death of Presence
The moments that shape your life are just “content” in the world of platforms. The things that matter most to you; your artwork, your breakup story, your political anger, and your joy at your child’s first steps, are broken up into numbers and data to be slotted into feeds, optimized, and measured.
By exploiting our capacity to focus, platforms destroy that capacity. Your attention is constantly chewed up by notifications and micro‑hits of stimulation. As a result, you lose the ability to sit with one person, one feeling, or one thought for long enough to go deep.
Likes, hearts, and similar signals trigger dopamine in the brain’s reward centers. But the rewards are irregular and the system keeps you guessing and checking. That unpredictability is known to be extremely addictive.
When your value in this system is tied to metrics, every number becomes emotional. A teen whose post “dies” may feel that she, not the post, has failed. Around 57% of U.S. teen girls say they feel persistently sad or hopeless. Heavy social media use is widely discussed as one of the factors in that crisis.
The stakes are even higher for creators who depend on these platforms for income.
A 2025 survey of more than 500 professional creators found that 62% report burnout, 65% report anxiety or depression linked to their work, and 58% say their self‑esteem drops when their content underperforms. A new study reports that about 1 in 10 creators have had suicidal thoughts, nearly twice the rate in the general population.
The longer someone is immersed in this world, the more their identity and livelihood fuse with their metrics. Your self becomes a volatile asset, and every dip in the graph feels like both a financial and a relational loss.
People become self‑exploiting. No boss needs to stand over them. They push themselves to disclose more, perform more, and optimize more, because they have learned to see their entire life as a project, a brand, or a product.
The Business of Love
Listen to how people talk about relationships these days. They say they are “investing” in a partner, “building” social capital, “leveraging” their network, “curating” their circle, working on their “personal brand.”
These words come straight out of business and finance. They transform relationships of trust and recognition into networks of resources to help you get ahead.
Therapy culture and consumer culture have fused. We now shop for healing and for partners, self‑diagnose using pop psychology, and treat our emotional lives as projects to manage.
Self‑help books, podcasts, and courses talk about emotional “markets,” teach you how to raise your relationship “value,” and promise to help you optimize your partner choice.
Love has become a data problem. Every profile on a dating app is a mini pitch deck: photos, slogans, stats. Swiping left or right is a literal micro‑transaction of attention.
A 2025 philosophy article on the “gamification of intimacy” points out that many apps borrow game mechanics from mobile games. There are streaks, achievements, time‑limited boosts, and rewards. Affection becomes something to be earned, unlocked, and upgraded.
Your worth starts to feel tied to your match rate.
People start to see themselves and others as items on a shelf, authenticity and the rich messiness of attraction get flattened. As a result we become more likely to treat others as interchangeable and disposable.
Keeping Score
It’s natural in exchange relationships, like business deals, for people track who owes what. But in close friendships, family, and similar communal relationships, people give because they care, not because they expect a direct return.
When people bring exchange thinking into communal spaces, everyone suffers.
People today often think of relationships as exchanges where they weigh costs and benefits. They tend to keep relationships that give them high rewards for low costs and leave relationships where the reverse is true.
Research that followed college roommates over a semester looked at the goals people brought to the relationship. People with compassionate goals wanted to support their roommate and avoid harming them. People with self‑image goals were focused on getting their roommate to see them in a certain way.
Compassionate goals created a virtuous cycle of responsiveness and higher relationship quality for both roommates. Self‑image goals led to more conflict and poorer relationships.
In a world where people are constantly nudged to curate their image and manage their brand, the self‑image goal becomes a default and relationships feel hollow.
In Relational Models Theory human interactions follow four basic patterns. Communal Sharing says “what’s ours is ours” and governs close bonds and shared identities. Authority Ranking orders people in hierarchies. Equality Matching focuses on even turn‑taking. Market Pricing applies explicit ratios and calculations, like wages or prices.
But these patterns are not interchangeable. Market Pricing is great for buying groceries but disastrous when it takes over a marriage. When couples start keeping score and calculating who brings how much value, they are forcing a Market Pricing model onto a Communal Sharing relationship.
The financialization of relationships is spreading across culture. We are being nudged to bring Market Pricing into spaces of Communal Sharing, and it quietly drains trust and ease from the very relationships that depend on them.
Living Differently
In many societies, people are bound together by cycles of giving, open‑ended commitments, and obligations to give, to receive, and to reciprocate. People remember who helped them and who they helped. Societies were systems of credit and obligation long before barter, money, or financial credit.
When you pay a stranger and walk away, there is no ongoing tie. When you give a gift within a community, you create or deepen a tie. That is what makes it a community.
Commercial exchanges are built to maximize efficiency, and they are useful for dealing with strangers or enemies, but all they can create is a market.
Gift economies are alive today even inside commercial platforms. “Buy Nothing” groups organize local gift circles where people give and receive items without money. Studies of these groups find they generate new connections and strengthen trust.
People often give to someone they’ve never met and receive from someone else entirely. There is no ledger, no scorecard. Yet the system works because people want to belong to something more than a transaction.
Some Australian Aboriginal communities practice deep listening, training children to hold silence and attend to subtle cues. Some Native American communities use talking circles where everyone speaks and listens in turn without interruption.
Evolved over thousands of years, these practices are sophisticated social technologies that preserve relationships and shared understanding.
Paying With Loneliness
We live in an era where almost five billion people use social media and spend more than two hours a day on it. According to platform metrics — messages sent, likes tapped, followers counted — we have never been more connected. Yet trust, belonging, and felt support are falling fast.
In 2025, 40% of U.S. adults reported feeling lonely. Men now report slightly more loneliness than women. The American Psychological Association reported in late 2025 that more than six in ten adults feel lonely. Over half feel isolated or left out. Nearly seven in ten say they need more emotional support than they are getting.
The OECD reports that people in member countries are meeting face‑to‑face less often. Men and young people have experienced some of the biggest drops in in‑person contact.
Statistics Canada reports a majority of older adults feel somewhat or very lonely and that regular social participation is declining year over year.
According to the U.S. Surgeon General’s advisory, pulling together hundreds of studies, loneliness and social isolation increase the risk of early death as much as smoking 15 cigarettes a day. They raise the odds of heart disease, stroke, dementia, depression, and anxiety.
Loneliness is a slow, invisible killer and goes beyond simply “feeling sad.”
A heart icon on a feed is not the same as someone sitting next to you when you are afraid. A hundred comments are not the same as one friend who checks in on you.
AI Companions
We are building apps that simulate a friend, lover, therapist, or mentor using artificial intelligence. You talk or type and the AI responds in a way that feels surprisingly personal. It remembers details, mirrors your mood, and adjusts to your style.
Between 2022 and mid‑2025, the number of such apps exploded. Usage statistics report a 700% increase in available AI companion products. Character.ai and Replika each host millions of users. Public reports suggest that a large share of Character.AI’s users are under 24. There have even been virtual weddings between people and their AI partners.
The American Psychological Association now lists AI companionship as one of the defining trends in how people relate.
Brief conversations with AI companions can reduce feelings of loneliness in the short term, about as much as a short chat with a human might. But when people lean on AI companions heavily, the picture changes.
Studies tracking heavy users over weeks found that pouring out your heart to an AI every day is associated with more loneliness, not less, and with less willingness to seek out human contact.
Intense attachment to an AI has been documented to lead to delusional thinking and suicidal crises.
AI companions sell relief by offering a simulation of connection. They are a market solution to ease the pain caused by a market‑shaped world.
If you are starved for kindness, even a scripted response can feel like water. But if that simulation becomes your main relational diet, your capacity and motivation to risk real connection will wither.
Can We Take Back How We Relate?
A 2022 study found that people who are more mindful report better relationship quality.
Acting with awareness — being present and deliberate rather than distracted and automatic — predicted more constructive conflict resolution in couples.
Therapists and counselors who teach mindfulness to couples often report that they fight less and listen more.
Financialized relationships thrive on constant evaluation and comparison. Mindfulness interrupts that by teaching people to notice thoughts like “What am I getting out of this?” and let them go rather than act on them. Evidence suggests we can see through the financialized lens and choose differently.
Studies show even short breaks from screens and social media can reduce stress, negative mood, and compulsive checking. People often report better conversations and more presence with loved ones.
Digital detox practices work, but they are hard. Some people feel lonelier at first when they step away from digital contact, especially if their offline life is thin. Many slide back into old habits once the detox ends. The effect can last for at least a couple of weeks, but the larger environment pulls people back.
Gift‑based communities and mutual aid networks offer an alternate path. When someone joins a local group where people share food, tools, or time without money, they experience help as a shared responsibility, not something they can purchase. Over time, these experiences can rewire expectations and relationships.
The Stakes for All
We have built a world where platform capitalism keeps tightening its grip on our attention and affection. AI companions will become more persuasive and more widespread. Creators keep burning out. Loneliness keeps rising. Health systems continue to struggle with the downstream effects.
People are becoming more vulnerable to political movements offering simple belonging in exchange for complexity and dissent.
The strongest changes require three things: clear understanding of how the system is shaping us, regular practice in contexts where other rules apply, and shifts in the larger structures so the old patterns are not constantly reinforced.
It does not seem like governments are treating loneliness and relational health as seriously as they treat infrastructure and employment.
Platforms can be forced or persuaded to align their incentives with human wellbeing, and regulation can limit the most harmful design patterns in social media and advertising, but lobbying and massive campaign contributions by those companies push hard to limit regulators.
Communities must build and defend spaces where market logic does not rule: local clubs, faith gatherings, mutual aid networks, creative circles, and online enclaves that choose different norms.
Individuals must practice attention, presence, and generosity in small, stubborn ways that do not show up on any dashboard.
Most of all, we must name what is happening without flinching. Our relationships are not financial instruments. Loneliness is not a business model. Our desire to be seen and held is not a product to be packaged, bought, or sold.
You have a choice in every interaction. You can ask, “What can I get?” or you can ask, “What can we be for each other that no market can price?”
The future of our world depends on how many of us choose to build our lives, contribute to our communities, and push systems toward ways of living where we can be truly present in each other’s lives.
Sources:
Disconnected: The Escalating Challenge of Loneliness Among Adults 45-Plus
Polanyi’s Great Transformation and the concept of the embedded economy
Who are the loneliest Americans? See what a new survey revealed.
Taking Back Control over Markets: Jürgen Habermas on the Colonization of Politics by Economics
Dear Hussein,
Wow!! I'm so honored and humbled that I inspired that article you wrote. It's an amazing article. Reminds us to unplug, go for a walk, the store, the library, a town meeting, interact with real people. Clicks are just 1's and 0's.
😊♥️🐾🌿🌏🔆🐈⬛🐕🌹
Love the art, Hussein!