Abstract

In an era defined by rapid technological advancements and pervasive media consumption, questions about autonomy, identity, and the influence of information are more pressing than ever. This article explores how information shapes human actions and identity, drawing on insights from epistemology, philosophy of mind, critical theory, and social philosophy. By examining the power dynamics between individuals and the entities that control information, this work argues that our sense of self is continuously redefined by the media we consume, often in ways that compromise our autonomy. It calls for a critical and intentional approach to information consumption, emphasizing the need to reclaim control over our actions and preserve the integrity of our identity.

Introduction

The question of what it means to be human, particularly in the context of a highly mediated society, has long been a subject of philosophical inquiry. At the core of this inquiry is a concern with autonomy—our ability to act based on our own will rather than being manipulated by external forces. In the digital age, where information flows ceaselessly through social media, news outlets, and algorithmically curated feeds, understanding how these forces shape our actions and identities is crucial. As Marshall McLuhan famously stated, “the medium is the message,” suggesting that the way information is delivered can profoundly impact how we perceive and interact with the world (McLuhan, 1964).

This article examines how modern information systems influence our sense of self and autonomy. Drawing on the works of McLuhan, Noam Chomsky, Michel Foucault, and Shoshana Zuboff, among others, it argues that our actions are increasingly driven not by our intrinsic self but by the biased, censored, and often manipulative information that surrounds us. By critically analyzing these dynamics, this work seeks to highlight the importance of intentional information consumption as a means of preserving autonomy and authenticity.

The Self as a Sum of Actions

Human beings can be seen as a sum of their actions—a perspective rooted in existentialist thought, particularly in the works of Jean-Paul Sartre. Sartre argued that “existence precedes essence,” suggesting that our identity is not predetermined but continually shaped by our actions and choices (Sartre, 1943). In this light, every decision we make contributes to who we are, reflecting an ongoing process of self-definition.

Two primary factors drive our actions: the existing intelligence within us—our accumulated experiences—and the information we receive in real time. This duality raises critical questions: How much of our behavior is genuinely influenced by our internal self, and how much is merely a reaction to external stimuli? The distinction is crucial because, as Daniel Kahneman’s work on cognitive biases reveals, human decision-making is often far less rational and self-driven than we assume. Kahneman explains that much of our thinking operates on an automatic, reactionary level, susceptible to external influences and biases (Kahneman, 2011).

Information Control and the Erosion of Autonomy

Philosophers and sociologists have long been concerned with the ways in which power structures influence human behavior. Michel Foucault’s concept of power/knowledge is particularly relevant here, as it describes how societal institutions—governments, corporations, and media—use information as a tool of control (Foucault, 1975). Foucault argued that “power is everywhere,” not just in overt forms of coercion but also in subtler manipulations of knowledge that shape how we think and act.

In Manufacturing Consent, Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman (1988) further explore how mass media serves elite interests, subtly guiding public opinion to align with those in power. They contend that media does not simply reflect reality but constructs it, often prioritizing narratives that serve political and corporate agendas. This controlled flow of information limits our ability to make fully autonomous decisions, as the information we receive is filtered through lenses that reflect the interests of powerful entities.

Shoshana Zuboff’s The Age of Surveillance Capitalism (2019) takes this analysis into the digital realm, where algorithms and data-driven platforms shape behavior in unprecedented ways. Zuboff describes how tech companies exploit personal data to predict and influence our actions, effectively turning users into “products” whose behavior can be bought and sold. The result is a form of manipulation that blurs the line between genuine self-determination and algorithmically induced behavior, raising profound ethical concerns about autonomy and consent.

Censorship in the Modern Information Landscape

The censorship of information by corporations and governments is a critical issue that exacerbates the erosion of autonomy. For instance, the rise of social media has led to instances where platforms like Facebook and Twitter actively censor content, often under the guise of combating misinformation. A study by the Pew Research Center (2020) found that approximately 64% of Americans believe that social media platforms censor political viewpoints that they find objectionable. This perception of bias in content moderation suggests a significant influence over the types of information that are accessible, shaping public discourse and personal beliefs.

Furthermore, research by the Oxford Internet Institute revealed that governments across the globe engage in systematic censorship of online content, often targeting political dissent and unpopular opinions. Countries such as China, Russia, and Iran employ extensive surveillance and filtering techniques to control the narrative and suppress dissenting voices (Tufekci, 2018). This manipulation of information creates an environment where individuals may feel compelled to self-censor, limiting their capacity to express authentic views or engage in meaningful discourse.

Another notable example is the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election, where various social media platforms implemented policies to label or remove posts that they deemed misleading. While these actions aimed to curb misinformation, they also raised concerns about who determines the veracity of information and what criteria are used to justify censorship. A report by the Knight Foundation (2021) indicated that these interventions often disproportionately affected certain political groups, further entrenching divisions rather than promoting informed dialogue.

The Passive Consumption of Information and Its Consequences

Passive consumption of information—scrolling through social media feeds, passively reading news headlines, or consuming content recommended by algorithms—places us in a reactive mode. This type of engagement is largely guided by external forces that determine what we see, hear, and ultimately believe. Neil Postman, in Amusing Ourselves to Death (1985), argues that the shift from print to visual media transformed serious discourse into entertainment, undermining our capacity for critical thinking and self-reflection.

The phenomenon of passive consumption aligns with what critical theorists describe as “false consciousness,” where individuals unknowingly adopt beliefs and behaviors that serve interests other than their own (Horkheimer & Adorno, 1944). This is particularly evident in the way social media algorithms create echo chambers, reinforcing existing biases and limiting exposure to diverse perspectives. By allowing our actions to be driven by curated information rather than intentional, self-directed learning, we risk becoming, as the passage suggests, “puppets” of those who control the flow of information.

Reclaiming Autonomy Through Intentional Information Consumption

Given the pervasive influence of controlled information, it is essential to cultivate a proactive approach to media consumption. As Cass Sunstein discusses in #Republic (2017), actively seeking information from diverse sources and critically evaluating its validity can help mitigate the effects of biased and manipulative content. Sunstein advocates for “choice architecture” that encourages individuals to engage with opposing viewpoints and broaden their understanding, thereby preserving the integrity of their decision-making process.

Engaging critically with information is not merely a defensive act but a fundamental exercise in autonomy and self-determination. By consciously seeking knowledge to address personal goals rather than passively absorbing what is presented, individuals can better navigate the biases and agendas that pervade modern media. This approach aligns with Habermas’s notion of the public sphere as a space for rational-critical debate, where informed citizens can engage freely and thoughtfully (Habermas, 1962).

Conclusion

In an age where information is ubiquitous yet often manipulated, the challenge of maintaining autonomy and a coherent sense of self has never been more acute. This article has explored how the dynamics of information control shape human behavior, drawing on interdisciplinary insights from philosophy, sociology, and media studies. The core argument is clear: our actions and identities are not solely products of our intrinsic self but are continuously influenced by the information we consume.

The censorship and manipulation of information by corporations and governments further complicate this landscape, limiting the diversity of perspectives available and creating an environment where individuals may feel constrained in their ability to express themselves. To preserve autonomy, individuals must critically engage with information, actively seek diverse perspectives, and remain vigilant against manipulation.

By reclaiming control over the information we consume, we can strive towards an authentic existence that reflects our values and experiences rather than those imposed by external forces. As Sartre might suggest, we must take responsibility for our own actions and choices, ensuring that they truly reflect who we are and who we aspire to be.

References

• Chomsky, N., & Herman, E. S. (1988). Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. Pantheon Books.
• Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Pantheon Books.
• Habermas, J. (1962). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. MIT Press.
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Knight Foundation. (2021). Social Media and Political Polarization in America. Retrieved from [Knight Foundation Website].
• McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. McGraw-Hill.
• Pew Research Center. (2020). The Future of Free Speech, Online Manipulation, and the Threat to Democracy. Retrieved from [Pew Research Center Website].
• Postman, N. (1985). Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. Viking Penguin.
• Sartre, J.-P. (1943). Being and Nothingness. Washington Square Press.
• Tufekci, Z. (2018). Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest. Yale University Press.
• Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. PublicAffairs.