Information is now just a click away, but this accessibility is accompanied by a permanent temptation: that of consuming the latest news over and over again. Certain media, specialized in the cyclical dissemination of the same facts hour after hour, end up making us prisoners of scoop and immediacy. Periods of confinement, by limiting us to the domestic space, have accentuated this phenomenon, transforming a simple consultation into a real time-consuming addiction.
Today, criticism is increasing: social networks are taking up an increasing share of our time, to the point of representing a systemic risk for society. If the figure of Big Brother resurfaces with force, it is because this theory is based on technological mechanisms whose predictive power is beginning to frighten.
The theory: towards total capture of available time
The premise is simple: social media are no longer just tools used in our daily lives, but machines designed to monopolize our attention. From this perspective, they would seek to absorb all of our “available brain time”.
This theory suggests a form of behavioral dictation: an invisible war would rage between platforms to design the most efficient predictive algorithm. The more data compiled, the more accurate these systems become. Ultimately, such finely targeted requests could orient the individual to the point of anticipating their own desires, by relying on the behavioral reactions of billions of other users, and thus deprive them of their free will.
Behavioral analyzes already anchored in reality
This theory has undeniable solidity, because it is a continuation of proven marketing practices. Behavioral analysis has been used for a long time to influence the act of purchasing. This is not a disruption, but a technological evolution: selling has always involved a form of influence rather than a simple transmission of objective information.
The success of cookies and the constant calculation of conversion rates by web giants prove that we are naturally sensitive to adapted information, emerging at the appropriate time.
A vision to qualify: automation versus individual control
However, the image of a “great watchmaker” lurking behind a screen to manipulate each user is partly truncated. In reality, this influence is managed by computers processing masses of global data rather than individual trajectories.
The imperfection of the theory also lies in the economic model of these giants. In fact, they employ relatively few employees compared to their audience. Thus, automation is the heart of their business model. Therefore, it is physically impossible for a few thousand employees to monitor billions of individuals. From then on, targeting is done by “communities of behavior”. Moreover, as shown by the controversy surrounding the study of Lancet During the Covid-19 crisis, scientific and algorithmic calculations also have their own limits. Indeed, they are not infallible.
Influence: an ancestral dynamic
While the idea of being influenced is unpleasant, we must remember that free will persists. Each user retains the power to log out. Networks remain, ultimately, only tools.
Furthermore, mutual influence is the characteristic of human organization. “Influencers” have this name because they have professionalized a common practice: seeking advice before a purchase or decision. Faced with ever more dense and complex information, relying on the opinions of others to avoid errors has become a rational reflex. The current theory would therefore only modernize pre-existing social mechanisms.
Human complexity: the final defense
The main fault of the theory of total manipulation is to believe in a uniformity of human functioning. In reality, the human being is a complex entity. Thus, its reactions depend on a changing environment and circumstances. Therefore, they cannot be completely predictable or uniform.
Even for those close to us, our actions sometimes remain unpredictable. Indeed, in two identical situations, an individual can react in two opposite ways. Thus, for algorithms to truly dictate our lives, they would have to integrate an infinity of decisive criteria as well as their mutual interactions. However, such a requirement represents a task of extraordinary scientific complexity.
The example of citizen resistance
Recent history gives us reason to be optimistic. A part of the population has largely shunned tools like the Stop-Covid application, although presented as essential, despite massive communication. This demonstrates that, faced with a technological or state injunction, the citizen retains his capacity for distrust and his independence.
In conclusionif this theory is based on very real practices and formidable marketing effectiveness, it comes up against the complexity of human psychology and our intrinsic capacity for resistance. The risk exists, but our freedom remains, for now, in our hands.
