New Technology Renews Old Fears of Manipulation and Control

In the first half of the 20th century, Americans gained a new awareness of the malleability and manipulability of the human mind, and the result was a wave of concern over “propaganda” and other techniques of influence. Today we may be seeing a new wave of similar fears as we begin to wonder whether the ways we use and rely upon technology today are making us susceptible to new, dangerous forms of manipulation.

The first wave, in the 20th century, resulted from a number of factors. These included the discovery of a passionate, irrational unconscious by Freud and Jung, and a reaction against the seemingly mindless march toward slaughter in World War I, both of which fed into a broader disillusionment with the enlightenment rationalism of the 19th century and its faith that humans were ultimately orderly, rational beings. Other factors included the increasingly modernized advertising industry and its surprising success in manipulating consumers, and later the use of propaganda techniques by the fascists and communists in Europe.

The sudden awareness of human vulnerability to manipulation was embraced by some, but also sparked fears that the government would use it to control the beliefs of the population, rather than reflect those beliefs as it should in a democracy. Edward Bernays, considered the “father of public relations,” wrote a highly influential 1928 book entitled Propaganda, in which he argued that human manipulability was a good thing . He wrote,

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.

Bernays had the unrestrained faith in expertise and government that was characteristic of the era’s Progressives, but many were not so sanguine. In the first decade of the 20th century, fierce controversy and opposition was sparked by the hiring of press agents by government agencies (first by the Panama Canal Commission and then by the Forest Service and other agencies). In 1913 Congress banned the executive branch from using funds to employ “any publicity expert.” Later that decade Congress also enacted the Anti-Lobbying Act of 1919, which barred agencies from using funds “intended or designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress to favor or oppose, by vote or otherwise, any legislation or appropriation by Congress.”

These acts were largely unsuccessful. During World War I, the government created a Committee on Public Information, an agency founded for the explicit purpose of making the U.S. public enthusiastic about entering the war through propaganda techniques. In the 1920s, after public sentiment shifted toward the view that involvement in the war was a mistake, many viewed this agency as part of the problem.

Concern and controversies were still roiling after the Second World War. In 1947, for example, the Pentagon launched a launched a large-scale lobbying and public relations effort on behalf of Truman’s proposal to institute the draft, prompting an investigation into the issue by a House subcommittee, which charged in its report that the War Department and its employees had “gone beyond the limits of their proper duty of providing factual information to the people and the Congress and have engaged in propaganda supported by taxpayers' money to influence legislation now pending before the Congress.”

In 1948, Congress enacted the Smith Mundt Act, which authorized the State Department to work to influence the attitudes and opinions of populations overseas via the Voice of America—but also banned the use of funds “to influence public opinion in the United States.”

A new wave of concern?

Concern over manipulation by government and companies has never really gone away, with fresh controversies emerging periodically, but today we may be seeing a whole new wave of concern—and of reason to be worried. There have been several stories in recent months highlighting ways that today’s technology could be used to manipulate and control. Foremost among them was the uproar over “experimentation” by Facebook, which manipulated the “mood” of posts seen by some users to see if it affected the happiness or sadness of the content posted by those users. An echo of the controversy took place a few weeks later when OKCupid wrote about its own experiments on users.

Not long after the Facebook story broke, Glenn Greenwald reported that the British spy agency GCHQ had developed a suite of methods and tools for manipulating internet content, such as spreading disinformation, manipulating the results of online polls, inflating pageview counts, and amplifying or suppressing content on YouTube.

The Facebook revelation sparked an immense amount of discussion, much of it focused upon things like informed consent, ethical oversight, Institutional Review Boards, and the potential effects on particular people such as depression sufferers (for example see these critical pieces and this defense of Facebook which, though ultimately unpersuasive, does a clear job explaining how Facebook filters content). But the most trenchant analyses looked past the ethics of experimentation to broader questions: what does this incident tell us about the growing power of institutions to manipulate and control individuals?

As Kate Crawford pointed out in the Atlantic,

some truly difficult questions lie in wait: What kinds of accountability should apply to experiments on humans participating on social platforms? Apart from issues of consent and possible harm, what are the power dynamics at work? And whose interests are being served by these studies?

Putting her finger on what I think was the most significant thing about this story, she writes that it gives us a glimpse of “how highly centralized power can be exercised.”

Similarly, Zeynep Tufekci, writes,

these large corporations (and governments and political campaigns) now have new tools and stealth methods to quietly model our personality, our vulnerabilities, identify our networks, and effectively nudge and shape our ideas, desires and dreams. These tools are new, this power is new and evolving…. I identify this model of control as a Gramscian model of social control: one in which we are effectively micro-nudged into “desired behavior”…. Seduction, rather than fear and coercion are the currency, and as such, they are a lot more effective.

The new wave of consciousness over our potential to be manipulated and controlled may also include the network neutrality issue, which is in great part about such fears.

There are two lessons we could learn from looking back at the earlier history of such fears. One could be that we’ll get over this as we did fears around advertising manipulation, and today’s new concerns will come to seem quaint as do some of the old ones. But a better lesson, I would argue, is that the fears that were identified last century were for the most part entirely legitimate and well-founded, that “techniques of influence” have been abused in many ways—not least by playing a key role in some of the greatest catastrophes of the 20th century—and now we have a new reason to worry and to insist upon checks and balances as our government uses technology in new ways, and as we allow manipulable technologies like Facebook to become ever-more-central to the way we communicate, gather information, and relate to others.

View comments (2)
Read the Terms of Use


gently-nudged is an understatement, although it clearly portrays the fear of being true. It is understandable that such language was appropriate in 1928 when the covert surveillance and the technology that it comes with , probably did not cause cancers or heart attacks, physical hurt or cause marital breakups with an interest to force the children into being part of the surveillance teams .

The question is what is being done to stop this wide spread surveillance that appears to be known to senators and the rest of the leaders who got to be who they are by ignoring what is known about surveillance ? It appears that there is wide spread 'Fear' in acknowledging and questioning the surveillance. Timid people have been getting around it by pretending as if loss of freedom does not bother them or pretending that they have supernatural powers to ignore it. The weaker ones perish in suicides or are being labeled as mentally ill while the rest face induced illness.
One needs to work towards what one can do to protect themselves and their children to be not forced to accept this loss of freedom as norm ? Will I suffer a induced headache or limp tomorrow morning or will my family be continued to be harassed covertly for my 'mistake' of speaking my mind can be silently answered by all those people who are being surveilled.
Acknowledging an issue such as surveillance and showing your opposition to it is the first step towards stopping it.

I have been ull...

I was illegally implanted because i had an issue with local gov't and had law suits i should of went fowarsd with. These implants microbots/nanobots are puiut in the vagina with sexz, i was video taped with hidden camers and mics in my house. then it was put on the internert...people got interest ed and then the camera in the n-( they stole my glasses so having a hard time typing sorry ) anyway-- they performed what is called psych ops.. taking my clothes one of every shoe, moving my importamt thing around, breaking my glasses, then onto more , hacking my computer into financial innstitutions and leaving me to take the blame....i felt my life was in danger, they stole all my just withdrawn money, then my car, then called police on false charges , my son was taken I was heart breoken, So I had to find what happened went to all officials/state senators/ mayors/ state capital/ I was told it was a NSA/DEFENSE/SURVELLANCE issue and i was under sao much surveillance i had to be tortured/ sleep deprived and made to run for my life... thete is soo much more but I hate computers and I must relieve myself of this ...please see my facebook page that i have just been hacked out of at VIKKIBRIGGS@FACEBOOK.COM and pls relay to MARK ZUCKERBURG THAT WE WOMAN KNOW HE IS ALLOWING THIS TO OCCURE WITH THESE GANGSTALKER TERRORIST MEN THAT ARE MORE AND MORE ATTACKING WOMEN IN THIS WAY-- IT REALLY IS MORE PRIVELENT THAN ONE MIGHT THINK...they are making money off it on gaminng sites etc. lets begin a coalition pls to the . well..many men did not friggen care these men worked with computer science/ electical engineers at UC BERKELY, CARNEGIE MELLON, SWEDEN INSTITUTES STOCKHOLM , JAKARTA , MARK BRINACONDI, MARK JENSEN, , A WOMAN NAMED LIZZY MILLARD, , ALL SHERIFFS DEPTS IN THREE COUNTIES LOOKED THE OTHER WAY--- I WAS A A LAB RAT... THIS DEPRESSES me...i must quit jail house snitches were imployed woman named ruby taylor, molla, brittany, teresa, a gang snitch coded named martin baaca all guards went along .....i hate this must go...thanks for your support...this started in NEVADA COUNTY, AND SACRAMENTO COUNTY COMPLIED----ALL BECAUSE MY GRAMPA DIED OF MESO,. I HAD A BABY WITH NO DOCTOR PRESENT...AL I WAS BEAT UP BY NEV CTY SHERIFF BECAUSE OF IT GOT UPSET MOVED TRHEN WAS SET UP!!! AND NOW RUINED AND HOMELESS AND CHILDLESS!!!

Stay Informed