For this reason, the battle over technology remains part of the broader struggle against domination and exploitation, and for democracy, equality, freedom, and a socialist alternative. Returning the human being to the center of digital decision-making remains a fundamental condition for building a future in which technology serves society rather than the accumulation of capital.
During the recent assault on Gaza, thousands of activists witnessed their posts deleted or their accounts restricted simply for documenting Israeli occupation crimes or expressing solidarity with the Palestinian people. This is far from an isolated phenomenon. In India, the government issued emergency orders to block dozens of accounts during the farmers' protests, while human rights organizations documented the suspension of accounts belonging to large numbers of journalists and activists merely for criticizing government policies. Many felt helpless and furious, as their voices seemed to be deliberately pushed to the margins. These cases offer a clear illustration of what can today be called "soft digital repression."
This form of repression does not always manifest as direct blocking or public arrest. It operates through invisible algorithms and digital systems, reshaping the digital space in ways that determine what reaches audiences and what gets marginalized. With the rapid expansion of artificial intelligence, these mechanisms have grown increasingly complex and far-reaching. This raises a pressing question: how does this system work, and how can it be confronted?
Large digital corporations collect vast amounts of data systematically, using artificial intelligence to analyze it and classify users according to behavioral patterns, intellectual orientations, and political inclinations. Through carefully designed algorithms, left-wing, progressive, and human rights content can be restricted without any need for direct deletion. From the user's perspective, low engagement appears to stem from audience indifference, when in reality it may be the result of algorithmic mechanisms controlling the level of reach and visibility.
Many have experienced this firsthand: a significant post is written and reaches only a limited number of followers. Numerous studies have examined the phenomenon of the filter bubble, whereby users are gradually isolated within information environments that reinforce their pre-existing views while limiting their exposure to critical or alternative content. The 2021 Facebook leaks revealed internal discussions concerning content management and the influence of algorithms on the public sphere. The Brookings Institution has documented how digital platforms contribute to deepening political polarization and entrenching ideological dominance.
Over time, many users begin practicing what might be called "voluntary self-surveillance," imposing restrictions on themselves out of fear of bans or declining reach. This fear reshapes the nature of public discourse and gradually transforms the digital space into a more controlled environment, one that serves the interests of the forces dominating the digital infrastructure.
Through the constant flow of content, algorithms contribute to generating a sense of helplessness and loss of hope in the possibility of change, by repeatedly emphasizing the failures of progressive experiments and presenting the existing capitalist order as the only viable option. At the same time, individualism and personal success solutions are promoted as the primary path for addressing social problems, while consumer culture and individual achievement are presented as the practical alternative to collective action and political organization. The result is the isolation of individuals, the weakening of collective bonds, and the transformation of shared social concerns into personal responsibilities.
When covert surveillance or frustration proves insufficient, the system reaches more explicit levels of digital exclusion. Activists and journalists suddenly find their accounts suspended or blocked without prior warning, with these measures justified by generic phrases such as "violating community standards," even though the targeted content is in many cases documentation of human rights violations or war crimes.
In other cases, the situation reaches what can only be described as "digital assassination": the complete erasure of the digital presence of individuals or entire institutions. The targeting of …