Information Control and the Shifting Nexus of Society
By Darrell Lee
Humanity's journey has always unfolded within a delicate balance: the drive to communicate and share ideas clashing with the equally persistent urge to control and shape narratives. From ancient oral traditions to the hyper-connected digital age, authorities, driven by concerns of morality, order, or self-preservation, have consistently sought to manage the flow of information and expression. This essay traces this historical tension, examining how each shift in communication technology – from the printing press to radio and, finally, social media – altered the societal "nexus" as described by Yuval Noah Harari, simultaneously empowering new forms of expression and catalyzing new attempts at control.
Before the advent of widespread literacy, societies relied heavily on oral traditions. Elders, shamans, and storytellers served as the custodians of collective memory, history, and morality. They transmitted knowledge, laws, and myths through spoken word, ritual, and performance; in this "oral nexus," information control operated through communal consensus and the authority of designated narrators. Deviations from established narratives were often met with social ostracization or, in more extreme cases, accusations of heresy or treason. The very act of remembering and retelling became a form of gatekeeping. While seemingly fluid, this system possessed its rigidities; alterations to sacred stories or ancestral laws could unravel the fabric of a community. Authority resided in the collective memory and its authorized interpreters, who carefully curated the information passed down through generations, ensuring adherence to the prevailing moral and social order.
The invention of writing reshaped this information system. Suddenly, knowledge could exist independently of human memory, inscribed on clay tablets, papyrus, or parchment. This innovation allowed for the accumulation of vast amounts of information and the administration of increasingly complex empires. However, writing also introduced a new locus of control: literacy itself. Scribes, priests, and royal officials became the new gatekeepers, possessing the rare skill of reading and writing. They controlled access to sacred texts, legal codes, and historical records. Religious institutions meticulously copied and preserved scriptures in private libraries, often limiting their dissemination to a select few. Governments issued decrees and laws, ensuring their subjects received information through official channels. The tension here emerged as written texts, once produced, could circulate beyond the immediate control of their creators, challenging established interpretations or revealing inconvenient truths. The burning of libraries, such as the legendary Library of Alexandria, or the destruction of heretical texts demonstrates early attempts by authorities to erase undesirable information and maintain their grip on the written record. Morality, often intertwined with religious doctrine, dictated what knowledge was permissible and what constituted dangerous thought.
The true seismic shift arrived with Johannes Gutenberg's printing press in the mid-15th century. This invention did not merely accelerate the copying of texts; it democratized information on an unprecedented scale. Before the advent of the press, a book was a rare and expensive commodity, painstakingly copied by hand. Afterward, thousands of identical copies could be produced rapidly and relatively cheaply. This technological leap exploded the dissemination of information. Suddenly, shared ideas—religious treatises, scientific discoveries, and political pamphlets—could spread like wildfire across continents, forging new imagined communities and collective identities. Martin Luther's Ninety-Five Theses, widely disseminated through print, ignited the Protestant Reformation, fundamentally challenging the authority of the Catholic Church. Scientific findings, previously confined to small circles of scholars, now reached a wider audience, fueling the Scientific Revolution.
This explosion of information, however, immediately triggered intense efforts to control it. Authorities, both religious and secular, recognized the immense power of the printed word to destabilize existing hierarchies. The Church responded with pre-publication censorship, requiring religious approval for all printed matter, and famously established the Index of Forbidden Books in 1559. Governments implemented licensing systems for printers and booksellers, making them accountable for the content they produced. Laws against "seditious libel" criminalized any printed material that criticized the monarch or government, regardless of its truthfulness. The strain between authority and free expression reached new heights. While the printing press undeniably empowered individuals and movements seeking to challenge the status quo, it also forced authorities to develop more sophisticated and systematic methods of information control, often justified by concerns for public morality, religious orthodoxy, or political stability. The battle for the hearts and minds of the populace now played out on the printed page.
The 20th century ushered in another transformative era: the age of mass media, dominated by radio and later television. These technologies created a new kind of system—an immediate, centralized, and emotionally rich one. Unlike print, which required literacy and active engagement, radio and television delivered information directly into homes, often reaching millions simultaneously. This allowed for unprecedented top-down communication, making them powerful tools for both education and propaganda. Governments quickly understood their potential. State-owned broadcasters became common, ensuring that official narratives reached every household. During wartime, governments heavily censored broadcasts and utilized radio for morale-boosting and dehumanizing the enemy. Leaders like Franklin D. Roosevelt utilized "fireside chats" to directly address the nation, forging a personal connection that print could not replicate. Adolf Hitler masterfully exploited radio for his propaganda, consolidating power and mobilizing public opinion.
The stress in this era shifted. While individuals gained access to more immediate news and entertainment, the control over content became highly centralized. A few powerful entities—governments and large corporations—controlled the airwaves. Morality played a significant role in content regulation, with broadcasting standards committees dictating what was acceptable for public consumption. However, this centralized system also created new opportunities for dissent. Pirate radio stations, though illegal, offered alternative voices, challenging official narratives and providing platforms for marginalized groups. The sheer reach of these media meant that once a message broke through, its impact could be profound and immediate, forcing authorities to react swiftly to maintain control of their narrative. The societal implications were enormous; mass media reinforced national identities, created shared cultural experiences, and, for better or worse, shaped collective consciousness with remarkable efficiency.
The digital revolution, culminating in the ubiquity of the internet and social media platforms, has once again reshaped the information "nexus," creating perhaps the most complex and fragmented landscape yet. Social media platforms like Facebook, X, and TikTok have decentralized content creation, transforming every user into a potential publisher. Information now flows not just from top-down but horizontally, peer-to-peer, and algorithmically amplified. This has created a "hyper-nexus" where individuals inhabit increasingly personalized information realities. The speed and scale of information dissemination are staggering; a single post can go viral globally in minutes.
This unprecedented freedom of expression has come with challenges to control. Authorities, both governmental and corporate, struggle with the vast volume of content and the challenge of distinguishing truth from misinformation, as well as hate speech from legitimate dissent. Governments around the world attempt to regulate online content through legislation, content takedown requests, and even internet shutdowns. Platforms themselves employ moderation teams and AI algorithms to enforce their terms of service, leading to debates about censorship, deplatforming, and bias. A key missing element in this digital environment, compared to traditional media outlets, is the often lack of clear responsibility and repercussions for the dissemination of misinformation or disinformation. While traditional newspapers, broadcasters, and publishers operate under editorial oversight and face legal or reputational consequences for false reporting, social media platforms have functioned mainly as conduits, often shielded from liability for user-generated content. This allows false narratives to proliferate rapidly without the accountability mechanisms inherent in older communication systems. The tension here is multifaceted, pitting individual free expression against platform responsibility for harmful content, national sovereignty against the global nature of the internet, and the pursuit of objective truth against the proliferation of subjective narratives. The very definition of "morality" in the digital sphere is constantly contested, as what one group deems offensive is often considered protected speech by another. Social media has facilitated powerful social movements and revolutions, but it has also amplified polarization, enabled the rapid spread of conspiracy theories, and eroded trust in traditional institutions. The fragmented environment means that establishing shared facts or a common moral ground becomes increasingly complex as individuals retreat into their self-selected information isolation.
Social media has also brought about another shift in mass communication, specifically in the narratives presented by governmental leaders. This shift in leadership communication emerged with Donald Trump's presidency. He famously bypasses traditional media gatekeepers—press conferences, official statements, and interviews—to communicate directly with the populace and even dictate policy via X and Truth Social. His tweets often served as official announcements, policy directives, and direct responses to critics. For instance, he would frequently announce significant policy changes or personnel decisions with a tweet, such as his declaration on July 26, 2017, that "After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military." This direct, unfiltered communication style allowed him to control his narrative, bypass journalistic scrutiny, declare all other information sources, particularly traditional media outlets that were critical of him "fake news," and rally his base instantly. Beyond domestic policy, Trump also used social media for direct diplomatic exchanges and to express strong opinions about foreign leaders, at times even escalating international tensions. For example, in January 2018, he responded to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un's mention of a "nuclear button" by tweeting, "North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that 'Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.' Will someone from his depleted and food-starved regime please inform him that I, too, have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!" He also frequently employed social media to directly insult political opponents and critics, as seen in the recent fallout with Elon Musk. This demonstrated how a leader could leverage the hyper-nexus to shape public debate and even governmental action without relying on established communication protocols, altering the traditional flow of information from the top, and attempting to influence the information consumed by the populace. This kind of top-down information control and influence is now commonplace among government leaders, both local and national, of all parties.
The history of information and speech control reveals a pattern: each technological advancement that expands the reach and speed of communication inevitably triggers new attempts by authorities to manage its flow and subject matter. From the oral traditions guarded by elders to the written word controlled by scribes, the printed page regulated by censors, the airwaves dominated by state broadcasters, and now the digital streams moderated by algorithms, the core conflict remains. Authority, whether religious, political, or corporate, consistently seeks to maintain order and uphold a perceived moral framework, often viewing unfettered expression as a threat to stability. Conversely, the human impulse to share, question, and innovate continually pushes against these boundaries, seeking greater freedom of expression. As our information landscape continues to evolve, this tug-of-war will persist, shaping the fabric of our societies and the nature of our collective reality. The challenge for the future lies not in eliminating control, which is often necessary for societal cohesion, but in finding a sustainable balance that safeguards both the truthfulness of information and the indispensable right to freedom of speech.
Darrell Lee is the founder and editor of The Long Views, he has written two science fiction novels exploring themes of technological influence, science and religion, historical patterns, and the future of society. His essays draw on these long-standing interests and apply a similar analytical lens to politics, literature, artistic, societal, and historical events. He splits his time between rural east Texas and Florida’s west coast, where he spends his days performing variable star photometry, dabbling in astrophotography, thinking, napping, scuba diving, fishing, and writing, not necessarily in that order.