Over the holiday weekend, I sorted through old papers and came across this 1999 article I wrote (who knew my French used to be so good) for the French newspaper L'Humanité. I wrote about the contradiction between the promise of new media technologies as transparent, accessible tools for citizen dialogue and the reality of information overload, lack of guidance in discerning truth from falsehood, and the use of these technologies by private companies for control and surveillance.

Plus ça change.... Today, the blurring of boundaries between public and private life still leaves individuals vulnerable to pressures from both the market and the state. The concerns about the concentration of media ownership, surveillance, and the commodification of personal data have only intensified with the rise of big tech platforms and AI. Algorithms curate our information feeds, often prioritizing engagement and advertising over truth and diversity of perspectives. Echo chambers and filter bubbles have exacerbated polarization and the fragmentation of public discourse.

A contradiction is developing within democratic culture, between communication and new media. These media are presented as transparent, inexpensive, easily accessible, and capable of facilitating dialogue among all citizens. However, if everyone is supposed to be able to express themselves, it is feared that no one will listen to anyone anymore, especially since the vast amount of information disseminated - particularly on the Internet - is not accompanied by any "instruction manual" to help "sort" which information is relevant or not, true or false, etc. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that so-called "transparent" networks actually function - because they are tools in the hands of private companies - like techniques of control and surveillance that make our private lives "transparent," which is detrimental to democracy.

Indeed, we have entered an era where the boundaries between public and private life are no longer clearly defined, which tends to place individuals in a space where they are increasingly unprotected from pressures, both from the market and the state.

More than a matter of a classic definition of "American imperialism" - as is often said outside the United States - it seems to me that we are dealing with a new type of relationship between the development of certain techniques in the field of media and the strategies of large global companies, which are increasingly subject to hyper-concentration, particularly in Europe today. This has the effect of shifting communication for diverse individuals from public spaces to the individual computer, whether for shopping, chatting with friends, political discussions, or simply getting information; with the risk that a gap will widen between those who have this new tool and those who, for various reasons, do not. In itself, this change is neither positive nor negative: what matters is to look at the results, particularly in terms of democratic debate and political life, while also asking how the public space can avoid being entirely subjected to market influence.

This does not seem to me to be just an American problem - even though there are public televisions in Europe and, in France, a dual system between public and private channels. In the long run, the question seems to be about the flourishing of places on the networks converging towards the creation of a new public space that can be identified as such. While I am in favor of freedom of expression, I believe that to be truly ensured, it now needs laws and regulations. But I also think that the nature of these new tools could promote the emergence of self-regulations by the citizens themselves, on a global scale.

The most important thing, if we want to move forward in this direction, is undoubtedly the development of independent "electronic guides" to counterbalance the power of private spaces - where advertising and information are no longer really distinguished - by facilitating access to new networks whose contents escape, or would escape, the sole logic of the market. Ultimately, one could thus conceive the existence of a "public Internet" that functions more like a window open to the world than a mirror where everyone is finally only reflected back to themselves and their own isolation.

To illustrate my point, I would take a single example: in 1979, 40% of Germans watched the film Shoah on television the same evening. How can we imagine a future where such a federating event in public space no longer exists? How can we not fear a future without common ground, where everything is fragmented, in time and space? Furthermore, while a certain form of individualization in the ability to choose between infinitely multiplied programs can be a factor of personal autonomy, there is also the risk of a gap between those who have this new tool and those who, for various reasons, do not.

At the same time, a reflection can be engaged on a certain type of use of these new media to improve democratic processes in real life. For example - as sometimes seen in the United States - with the establishment of public networks of citizens and experts aiming together to influence certain decisions. This is not without risks, but I also believe that the nature of these new technological tools could promote the emergence of self-regulations by the citizens themselves, on a global scale.

Just as the prospect of installing electronic voting everywhere in order to remedy the crisis of representation seems fraught with danger even if it can be useful, democracy cannot be synonymous with speed: it requires, on the contrary, time for reflection, debate, and choice; in short, a certain slowness.

But it also requires engagement in the process of building new institutions, using new technologies if necessary, to make the participation of individuals in all decisions that concern them more effective.

Original french and the translation can be found here.