One cannot speak of censorship without understanding the structures of power. The purpose of censorship is to prevent statements that are hostile, contrary, or simply unfavorable toward those entities or individuals with sufficient power to suppress them. In other words, censorship is simply the exercise of asymmetric power in which the dominant entity subjugates its detractors.
However, censorship is not static; it feeds on an essential element for its propagation: fear. That is how it achieves its primary objective: blocking, in various ways, the spread of any unwanted narrative. Among the mechanisms it employs is self-censorship, which manifests both consciously and unconsciously, as people avoid speaking about a specific subject to avoid a range of negative consequences. Fears range from the rupture of relationships to more obvious repercussions, such as job loss, persecution, and, in extreme cases, death.
Self-censorship is a pact a person makes with themselves for the sake of self-preservation, avoiding repercussions that could violate the parameters of any traditional human rights framework.
Mariano José de Larra defined censorship tersely as a behavioral order in which criticism is not permitted. Supposedly, we live in a reality where few current governments could be described in such dictatorial terms. Even the most autocratic regimes allow the occasional outlet for criticism of the government, but this criticism must be carefully measured. It is a feigned openness designed to legitimize the regime by providing evidence of the opposition’s existence. It matters little whether that opposition is weak and fearful or frequently intimidated by law enforcement. Censorship does not have to be explicit to be effective.
Nor is it an exclusive legacy of the public sector. The business world has identified and exploited the potential advantages of silencing people. This has become easier through digital platforms. The same outcome is now achieved without actual silence. As Goebbels aptly put it, one needs only be relentless with a new message, constantly repeated, and censorship appears as if by magic. Distract, distort, and above all, flood networks with false or skewed information, whether to conceal pedophiles or to make genocides disappear.
Such a reality makes it unnecessary to silence dissenting voices. The hyperbole of gossip is sufficient. Just as Dumas had his Count of Monte Cristo manipulate the telegraph network to carry out his revenge, large media conglomerates send the same script to all their subsidiaries to editorialize about an event using the same qualifiers, the same heroes, and the same villains. Any criticism is deconstructed with the argument that the objective was never to inform but to entertain.
Likewise, large digital enterprises, in their evolution, seek ways to continue marketing products and services at scale to generate high revenues and returns for their shareholders. In the process, loyalties become murky, particularly with platforms that subtly seek to impose a new relationship between the individual, the government, and society.
Lobbyists exploit technicalities to ensure that elements not addressed by existing regulations remain unexamined in future legislation. But every action generates a reaction. What was once a well-defined territory of censorship and information control opened into a battlefield where accusations of digital colonialism are leveled against those who resist revising current legal frameworks to integrate them into the broader economy. The same principle applies. There is no need to educate; only to confuse and brand any discourse related to digital sovereignty as extremist.
The situation grows more complex if we accept the premise that we are drawing closer to an increasing number of global narratives that tend to forget the neediest, those who need local solutions. because the free market, by the grace and work of Adam Smith’s spirit, will somehow resolve the wealth asymmetries that exist in most countries from the Global South.
Down with analysis! Up with stupidity! Thinking seems to be a subversive act. The immediate consequence is the uncritical adoption of self-censorship, compounded by an a-geography that enables behavior to be monitored everywhere, at all times. Any comment judged unfavorable to the current power is thus recorded for posterity, available for analysis across countless futures. Forgiveness and memory do not align in this new digital world.
As Larra already said: “What is permitted is to praise” and, in a caricature of Voltaire, to affirm that we live in the best of all possible worlds. To disagree is to sink into silence; truth is counterproductive and dangerous. Freedom of expression has been gradually reduced to a philosophical concept, since a few defiant acts can result in professional ostracism or even the denial of tourist visas. The world is distilled into short Instagram and TikTok videos centered on entertainment.
