13 Mar The Illusion of Safety
In the age of digital governance, the discourse around user safety and censorship has become a battleground where freedom and control intersect. While platforms and private corporations claim to protect individuals from harm, the mechanisms they employ often mirror the very structures of centralized power critiqued by anarchist thinkers like Mikhail Bakunin and philosophers like Gilles Deleuze.
User Safety as a Mechanism of Control
Modern digital infrastructures are built on the premise of safety—an ambiguous term that justifies the regulation of information flows. This aligns closely with what Deleuze describes in his theory of the “society of control,” where mechanisms of repression are replaced by subtle, diffuse, and algorithmically enforced modes of governance. Unlike the rigid enclosures of Foucault’s disciplinary society, Deleuze sees control as fluid, adaptable, and omnipresent, shaping behavior not through overt restrictions but through soft nudges and invisible limitations.
Censorship today does not manifest solely through outright prohibition but through algorithmic adjustments, selective visibility, and dataset manipulation. What is deemed “appropriate” is not an objective reality but a construct shaped by dominant narratives, determined largely by those in power.
Bakunin and the Myth of Benevolent Authority
Bakunin, one of the most fervent critics of centralized authority, warned that power, no matter how well-intentioned, inevitably leads to coercion. In his critique of the state, he argued that even under the guise of protection, any system that dictates what individuals can or cannot access ultimately serves to consolidate control rather than to liberate. This extends to modern digital platforms, where private entities regulate speech and access to knowledge, effectively acting as unelected gatekeepers of truth.
The justification for content moderation often hinges on the idea that individuals are incapable of distinguishing between harmful and benign information. However, as Bakunin posited, true freedom comes not from imposed constraints but from the collective capacity of individuals to engage critically with their reality. The infantilization of the public—treating users as if they are incapable of independent thought—mirrors the paternalistic logic of authoritarian regimes.
Dominant Narratives and the Shaping of Reality
Beyond overt censorship, the more insidious form of control lies in the reinforcement of dominant narratives. When training datasets and search algorithms prioritize certain perspectives while suppressing others, they create a self-reinforcing loop that marginalizes dissent. This is not merely a byproduct of imperfect systems but an active strategy of ideological conditioning.
Deleuze’s concept of modulation—where control adapts to resistances, morphing rather than confronting—becomes crucial in understanding how modern censorship functions. Instead of outright banning certain perspectives, systems are designed to make them less visible, less shareable, and less influential. The result is a reality where permissible discourse is engineered, while anything outside its scope is dismissed as fringe or dangerous.
Decentralization as the Antidote
If control is diffused, so too must be resistance. The response to this modern digital authoritarianism lies in the principles Bakunin advocated—decentralization, open access, and the rejection of hierarchical control over knowledge. An open-source, publicly managed dataset for AI training, for example, would offer an alternative to corporate-controlled knowledge curation. Transparent algorithms, community-driven moderation, and decentralized information networks could serve as countermeasures to the silent hegemony of corporate-driven truth.
The Illusion of Protection
Censorship and user safety are often framed as necessities, yet they frequently act as instruments of ideological enforcement. By invoking Deleuze’s insights on control and Bakunin’s rejection of centralized power, we can see that the issue is not merely about protection but about who defines reality and on whose terms. True safety does not come from curated truths but from an informed populace capable of navigating knowledge without artificial constraints.
In a truly democratic and enlightened society, education—not imposed limitations—should be the foundation of user safety. Without such a shift, digital spaces risk becoming the very authoritarian structures they claim to oppose.