Ownership or reach? Why digital visibility without control is deceptive

While many companies, creatives and public figures proudly talk about their "reach", one crucial question is increasingly being lost:

Who actually owns that reach?

A new, in-depth policy article in M. Schall Verlag's online magazine asks precisely this question - and links it to a larger development: the transition from the information society to the knowledge society.

The article shows why visibility on platforms such as social networks or video services often goes hand in hand with a fundamental misunderstanding. Although reach can be measured there, it is rarely owned. It is borrowed, controlled, can be withdrawn at any time - and is therefore structurally insecure.

Reach is not a possession - but a contractual relationship

The article explains why reach and ownership are two fundamentally different things in the digital world. While ownership means control, permanence and transferability, reach on platforms is always bound by external rules: Algorithms, business models, terms of use.

Specific examples are used to show that even very well-known people and brands often do not have their own digital base. They do not have their own websites, content is only available on platforms and archives are hosted externally. The supposed power of reach thus turns out to be dependency.

Reach on platforms: Visible - but not sovereign

Using common social media platforms, the article shows very specifically why reach is often confused with ownership in the digital space. YouTube channels, Instagram profiles, TikTok accounts or even large presences on X (formerly Twitter) convey influence, publicity and power at first glance. Subscriber numbers, follower counts and view statistics suggest control - but in fact this control lies almost entirely with the platforms themselves.

Algorithms decide which content is displayed, reach can be restricted or withdrawn without warning, accounts can be blocked, demonetized or made invisible. Even communities that have been built up over many years are therefore dependent on external decisions at all times. In these cases, the reach does not belong to the content creator, but to the platform operator.

The article makes it clear that anyone who communicates exclusively via social media does not own their own public sphere, but uses someone else's. Reach is not property, but a temporary right of use that is linked to conditions that can change at any time. This is precisely why the supposed strength of many successful channels becomes a structural weakness on closer inspection.

From the information society to the knowledge society

A central part of the article puts these observations into historical perspective. The free information society of the 1990s and 2000s was characterized by open access, decentralized websites and personal data sovereignty. However, this state of affairs was - according to the thesis - a historical exception.

Today, the focus is shifting: information is still available, but access, context and use are increasingly controlled. In the emerging knowledge society, it is no longer just who has information that decides, but who structures it, owns it and keeps it available in the long term.

Digital ownership issues are therefore taking center stage - not as a philosophical side issue, but as a tangible prerequisite for independence.

Digital freedom starts with your own infrastructure

The article makes it clear that digital freedom does not come from maximum visibility, but from having your own structures: your own domains, your own archives, your own data sovereignty. Platforms can provide reach, but they cannot replace ownership.

This distinction has far-reaching consequences, especially for companies, freelancers, authors and organizations. Anyone who publishes content exclusively on external platforms is effectively relinquishing long-term control - even if high access figures are achieved in the short term.

A quiet alternative to the attention economy

Stylistically, the article focuses on depth rather than exaggeration. With clear language, many sources and systematic classification, it deliberately avoids alarmism. Instead, it invites readers to question fundamental assumptions about digitalization, reach and success.

Read the full article on the online magazine of M. Schall Verlag.

The text is not intended as a platform critique, but as a structural analysis. It highlights correlations that are often overlooked in the hectic pace of everyday digital life - and thus provides a sound basis for strategic decisions.

About the article

The article "Reach is not ownership - Why visibility is no longer enough today" is part of a larger series on digitalization, Europe, AI and social change. It appears on the online magazine of M. Schall Verlag and is freely accessible there - without a paywall and available in several languages.

Frequently asked questions

* What is the core of the article "Ownership versus reach" about?
The article examines a central misunderstanding of the digital public sphere: many people equate reach with ownership. In reality, however, reach on platforms such as YouTube, Instagram or TikTok is not ownership, but borrowed visibility. The text shows why true digital independence only arises where content, data and structures are controlled by the users themselves - for example via their own websites, archives and domains.

* Why is reach on social media platforms not real ownership?
Because reach there is always dependent on external factors. Algorithms, business decisions or rule changes determine whether content remains visible. Accounts can be restricted, blocked or invalidated - even without breaking the rules. Those who rely exclusively on platforms therefore do not have their own public sphere, but rather a revocable use of third-party infrastructure.

* What practical examples are mentioned in the article?
The article refers to YouTube channels, Instagram profiles, TikTok accounts and other social media presences with a wide reach but without their own website. Even well-known personalities and brands often do not have their own digital foundation. Their content, archives and contacts lie entirely with platform operators - and therefore outside their control.

* What does the transition from the information society to the knowledge society mean?
In the information society, access to information was largely open and decentralized. In the emerging knowledge society, however, the question of control comes to the fore: Who structures information? Who owns it? Who decides on access, context and permanence? The article places this development in historical perspective and shows why digital ownership issues will become increasingly important in the future.

* Who is the article particularly relevant for?
The article is aimed at entrepreneurs, the self-employed, creatives, authors, journalists, decision-makers and organizations - in other words, anyone who wants to be digitally visible without losing their independence. It is particularly relevant for people who have previously relied heavily on platforms and are now considering how they can gain long-term control over their content.

* Is the article a criticism of social media?
No. The article is not a critique of platforms, but a structural analysis. Social media platforms are not demonized, but classified. They can provide reach, but are no substitute for digital property. The text advocates conscious use - not complete withdrawal.

* What role does digital freedom play in the article?
Digital freedom is understood as a structural issue, not a feeling. Those who own their own content, data and publication channels are freer in their language, attitude and choice of topics. Those who operate exclusively on third-party platforms inevitably adapt to their rules. The article shows why ownership in the digital world is a prerequisite for genuine freedom of expression.

* Why is the article freely accessible and without a paywall?
The author sees the text as a basic and reference article. Especially when it comes to complex topics such as digitalization, data sovereignty and ownership, readers should be able to think for themselves without access barriers. Openness is part of the content-related attitude: anyone writing about digital property issues should not hide their content behind artificial barriers.

M. Schall Verlag
Hackenweg 97
26127 Oldenburg
Germany

https://markus-schall.com
Herr Markus Schall
info@schall-verlag.de

Schall-Verlag was founded in 2025 by Markus Schall - out of a desire to publish books that create clarity, stimulate reflection and consciously avoid the hectic flow of the zeitgeist. The publishing house does not see itself as a mass marketplace, but as a curated platform for content with attitude, depth and substance.

The focus is on topics such as personal development, crisis management, social dynamics, technological transformation and critical thinking. All books are the result of genuine conviction, not market analysis - and are aimed at readers who are looking for guidance, insight and new perspectives.

The publishing house is deliberately designed to be compact, independent and with high standards in terms of language, content and design. Schall-Verlag is based in Oldenburg (Lower Saxony) and plans multilingual publications in German and English.

This release was published on openPR.