The internet, in theory, is a tool for the democratization of knowledge. And based on functionality alone, it successfully accomplishes that goal—any curious mind through the web can effortlessly find the definition of an obscure word, witness faraway events unfold without taking a single step and compare diametrically opposing perspectives when constrained by the ossified attitudes of one’s own people. The possibilities to augment human cognition that widespread computer ownership foretold led Steve Jobs in 1980 to declare that PCs would become “bicycles for the mind.”
Naturally, the abundance of knowledge carries with it the assumption that ordinary people could assume greater control over their lives and, in turn, create a more democratic society. Those who previously lacked a voice could be heard; information sharing would be dispersed among the public rather than remaining a prerogative of mass media companies.
In reality, most online communities see only 1% of users regularly contribute, and about 90% rarely or never contribute. Factors associated with active engagement include unreliable and heavily-biased sources; vocal minorities with extreme views tend to be the most engaged. Rather than reaching its theoretical possibilities, the internet has hindered vocabulary development, dislocated people from the real world and contributed to the nation’s divide into mutually unintelligible political camps.
Virality on social media platforms hinges on the myriad of often irrational impulses of strangers, who each bear an infinitesimally thin slice of responsibility for the content’s popularity. This collectively means that the scale and speed at which viral content propagates is often enough to counterbalance the fact that most pieces of it serve only to stimulate the impulses for a brief moment. For the individual, the appeal of each successive social media post is usually more than enough to outweigh the ostensibly inconsequential time cost associated with it. Perhaps the reason algorithmically-determined content is so appealing is because it frees people from the burden of conscious decision-making.
That such modes of interaction are characterized by their lack of user agency is not surprising considering that algorithms have become far more sophisticated between the 1998 launch of Google’s revolutionary PageRank and its 2025 introduction of an AI search mode, integrating services like Google Drive, Gmail and Google Docs to hyper-personalize results. Many algorithmic personalization methods, such as TikTok’s “For You” feed which reportedly boosts engagement by up to 60%, now adopt AI. Unlike earlier social networks that facilitated connection, social media platforms’ goal is to keep users online for as long as possible through endless streams of readily-available, often provocative content to profit from selling advertisement data. Paradoxically, websites neutralize users’ agency by inundating them with infinite options.
