With the rise of the internet, it seems that almost everyone now has a platform from which to speak. It is tempting, therefore, to think that the days when the rich and powerful set the agenda have come to an end. This would be far too optimistic: those at the top levels of society are best positioned to exploit social change, and exploiting fundamental changes in the way society communicates information could potentially allow them to shape the public discourse more effectively than ever.

Just as the pen is mightier than the sword, it is ideas that more than anything else, shape the world. Ideas are the basis of what we take to be ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’, right and wrong, thinkable and unthinkable.  Historically, they have sparked revolutions, triggered wars, and altered the course of human development. On a more mundane – but no less important – level, they dictate every aspect of our lived experience, often without us even realising it.

Social theorists have long recognised the link between ideas and power. From Marx’s views on ideology to Gramsci’s concept of hegemony, much has been made of the fact that those who control the flow of information can, to a large degree, control society itself. More recent critical thought has concerned itself with the mass media; with the general line of thought being that the corporate media are inherently biased towards the interest of big business and social elites and that they ‘manufacture consent’ for courses of action which serve these interests.

In recent times, however, two factors have fundamentally changed the social context. Firstly, rapid advances in technology have irreversibly changed our relationship with information. With the internet, people now have access to much more information, from far more varied sources, than previously thought possible. Meanwhile, social networks and video-sharing sites have given rise to ‘many-to-many’ forms of communication which, in theory, give everyone a platform from which to speak. In itself, this might not pose any great threat to the status quo; since multiple competing views could all too easily drown each other out and thus come to resemble white noise. Indeed it could even increase the perceived credibility of the established mainstream media by making them appear as the ‘voice of reason’ amidst the chaos.

 Yet this brings us to the second factor: a collapse of faith in anything connected with ‘the establishment’. The past 15 years or so have, by modern standards at least, been a relatively turbulent period. The economic crisis of 2008 shook the world and raised serious questions about the dominant economic model. The years of grinding austerity that followed have led many to take a much more critical view of contemporary capitalism and its inherent inequalities, and the recent ‘cost of living crisis’has only served to throw fuel on the fire. At the same time, there has been an increasing acknowledgement that our current way of life is simply not sustainable, with calls for fundamental change being made.

All of this has had great implications in terms of the likelihood of any message disseminated by the elite-serving mass media being accepted. Thus, on the face of it, those who control the flow of information are left facing the perfect storm: a population which is more critical of the social system they sit atop, and which has easier access to platforms from which to air their views – views which in turn are more likely to find a receptive audience.

But it seems that the elites have found a solution; one that not only preserves their power but potentially increases it. Consider the context; society suddenly finds itself awash with wide-ranging (and often contradictory) views, opinions, and thoughts on a whole range of issues and topics. Some of these will of course be contrary to the interests of those who sit atop the social ladder, but others will fit their agenda perfectly. In this context, all they need do is to apply some sort of ‘filter’ and they can then simply harvest consent for pretty much anything.

 The most obvious example of such a filter is the idea of ‘fake news’, or ‘disinformation’ as it is sometimes called.  Whilst it is beyond the scope of this discussion to reflect upon the extent to which ‘fake news’ is a genuine social problem, the obvious question that, on a conceptual level, arises is how ‘fake’ does news have to be to earn the distinction? In a world where even scientists disagree, where does the line fall between dissenting opinion and conspiracy? Most importantly, who gets to decide? As it stands, the answer, increasingly, is profit-seeking corporate tech giants who, by straddling national borders, remain largely unaccountable to anyone.

Yet the concept of ‘fake news’ is merely the tip of the iceberg in terms of such ‘filters’; and whilst it may be effectively employed in some cases to bludgeon dissenting views into disrepute, there are numerous other, more subtle ways of influencing the public agenda. For example, search algorithms, user policies, censorship, and demonetisation all have the potential in terms of shutting down debate and stifling dissent.

In essence, changes in the social context have made it such that unaccountable elites can now shape the public discourse to fit their agenda without the possibility of being challenged. Put simply, the agenda is still being set, but the process by which it is being set is increasingly slipped under the level of conscious processing. To the average person, it appears that the views they are encountering are simply the commonsense views of the people. A result is that such views are extremely unlikely to be subjected to critique since where the source is unclear, relevant questions pertaining to bias, vested interests, lack of expertise, etc. simply cannot arise. Further, those who do attempt to challenge such ‘commonsense’ views are left in the unenviable position of swimming against the flow of the tide.

This is not to say that things such as the internet and social networks are of no use to those of us who would advocate for social justice they do have potential in this respect. If we are complacent, however, we risk having an extremely potent weapon turned against us. Put simply, technological advancement may have changed the battlefield – and the tactics – but not necessarily the battle itself.

***

Lee Marsden completed his PhD at the University of Sheffield, where he currently teaches social theory. His research interests include media and discourse, social class, and inequalities.