Obedience by Algorithm

To earn money on YouTube, creators must follow 14 rules—four more than Moses required to guide an entire nation. Break these rules, and a creator’s videos are “demonetised”: no ads, no income. Similar systems exist on TikTok and Facebook. Most of the restrictions appear sensible—no hate speech, no copyright violations, no graphic violence. But others, such as “avoid controversy” or “be inclusive,” veer into vaguer territory. For those promoting niche, religious, or ideological views, staying within bounds may mean sanding down their message or staying silent altogether.

One such group—a network of Catholic laypeople dedicated to reviving the cult of a saint—recently found its advertising account on Facebook disabled without explanation. “Our digital mission came to a halt,” wrote the German section’s leader in a newsletter. They debated whether to fight or fold. Eventually, they hired a media lawyer, spent €9,500, and won their case. Their campaign resumed. But the lesson was clear: the price of dissent is rising.

Invisible censors, visible costs

This sense of marginalisation is not confined to religious groups. Across professions and ideologies, users complain of shadow bans, ad suspensions, and algorithmic sidelining. The enemies of free expression, once assumed to be governments, now include platforms and automated moderation systems—less visible, less accountable.

According to the BBC, the Trump administration once advised federal agencies to purge terms like “climate change” and “gender equality” from official documents. Elon Musk’s erratic management of X (formerly Twitter) drove many users away, fearing surveillance or manipulation. A recent global survey found that just 17% of internet users feel free to express themselves online.

Such anxieties are not unfounded. Bologna, Italy, introduced a “Smart Citizen Wallet” in 2022, rewarding good behaviour—sorting trash, taking public transport—with loyalty points. Officials likened it to a supermarket bonus card. Others saw it as a prototype of China’s social credit system, Western-style. The tools of control are less brutal than in authoritarian regimes. But their soft touch—what behavioural economists call “nudging”—may be more insidious.

Slavoj Žižek, a Slovenian philosopher, warns that nudging cloaks coercion in the language of freedom. His favourite parable: once, a father would command his son, “You're going to visit Grandma. No discussion.” Now he says, “Of course, it’s your decision. But do remember, Grandma would be terribly hurt if you didn’t come.” The result? Guilt replaces rebellion. Translated to digital life, creators are “free” to speak—but must weigh the invisible costs.

Salami tactics and silent withdrawals

Platforms don’t muzzle dissent overnight. Instead, they slice away liberties thinly, like salami. A new flagging term today, an algorithmic update tomorrow, a monetisation tweak the day after. Eventually, entire topics are quietly abandoned. Creators internalise the rules and pre-emptively self-censor.

Yet resistance persists. Dissidents in the Eastern Bloc once found creative ways to outsmart the censors. Polish filmmaker Krzysztof Kieślowski recalled embedding blatantly subversive scenes that he knew would be cut—so that the more subtle critiques would slip through untouched. Today’s online rebels may need similar cunning.

Fighting back is possible, but increasingly costly—in money, time, and mental energy. One saint may have intervened to reopen an ad account. Most creators must rely on lawyers, not miracles.

Statement

Online freedom of speech is increasingly conditional, shaped by opaque algorithms and monetisation rules. Platforms like YouTube, TikTok, and Facebook enforce guidelines that penalise controversial or niche content, often without clear explanation. A Catholic group spent €9,500 to reverse a Facebook ad ban, illustrating the high cost of dissent. Soft control mechanisms, such as Italy’s citizen rewards system, echo authoritarian models with subtler means. Philosopher Slavoj Žižek warns of coercion masked as choice, prompting creators to self-censor. Resistance remains, but it's costly. Digital liberties erode gradually—one update at a time—forcing modern dissenters to adopt the cunning of Cold War-era artists.

Weekly