The Digital Babel: How Oligarchs Broke the Public Square and Destroyed Shared Reality
The public square did not disappear. It was privatized, fragmented, and rebuilt into algorithmic rooms where outrage spreads faster than truth.
Bits & Bytes — AI, science, and what comes next
The Digital Babel: How Platform Oligarchs Broke the Public Square
This is the third essay in a four-part series on the Great Fragmentation: the fragmentation of shared cultural sequence, common reality, and public belonging after 1999.
Part I: culture stopped arriving together.
Part II: the old gatekeepers hollowed out the shared room before the feeds moved in.
Part III: algorithmic information zones turned the public square into a digital Babel.
Part IV: fragmentation became bodily: loneliness, despair, addiction, and social atomization.
The public square did not disappear. It was privatized, fragmented, and rebuilt into algorithmic rooms where outrage spreads faster than truth and shared reality becomes harder to hold together.
In Genesis, the people of Babel build a tower toward heaven.
They build it to make a name for themselves, but also to keep themselves from being scattered. The tower is not only an act of pride. It is an act of coordination: one people, one language, one city, one project, one attempt to hold themselves together against dispersal.
God does not burn the city. He does not massacre the builders. He does not erase them from the earth. He does something stranger and, in some ways, more politically devastating: he confuses their language.
The punishment is disorganization.
The people can still speak, work, desire, build, remember, and dream. But they can no longer coordinate. Their shared project collapses because shared language collapses. Babel is not only a story about human arrogance. It is a story about collective power broken by making mutual understanding impossible.
That is why Babel is the right metaphor for the platform age.
The internet promised connection. The platforms delivered a new kind of scattering: not physical dispersal across the earth, but informational dispersal across incompatible realities. Everyone remained connected. Everyone kept speaking. Everyone could publish, react, and broadcast. But the shared language of public life began to break.
That is the Digital Babel: not a world where no one can speak, but a world where speech no longer reliably becomes shared meaning.
Social media had been sold as connection. In practice, the public square became a set of privately owned behavioral environments, each optimized to keep its occupants inside. The platforms did not merely host conversation. They shaped the conditions under which conversation became visible, viral, profitable, or invisible.
That is how the Great Fragmentation moved from culture into reality itself.
First, culture stopped arriving together. Then the old gatekeepers hollowed out the institutions that had once assembled the shared room. Now the platform age completed the turn: the public did not merely lose common cultural sequence. It began to lose common reality.
Once movies, music, television, and public arguments stopped arriving together, the same break moved into news, politics, evidence, and civic life. Everyone could publish, react, and broadcast. Fewer people inhabited the same informational world.
That is the central difference between pluralism and fragmentation. A pluralistic society contains many voices inside a shared civic frame. A fragmented society contains many voices inside incompatible frames. The first can produce argument. The second produces babble.
“For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.”
— Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (1995)
The difference is felt in ordinary life. One person arrives at dinner with a newspaper story. Another arrives with a clip. Another arrives with a rumor from a group chat. Another arrives already certain the first two have been deceived.
The platform age did not invent that danger. It industrialized it.
The old public square was not simply destroyed by the internet. It was divided, privatized, optimized, and sold back to the public as freedom. The ancient logic was divide and conquer. The modern innovation was to turn divide and conquer into a business model.
This created a collective-action problem at civilizational scale. Political science, sociology, and economics all describe versions of the same dilemma: people can share interests, grievances, and dangers, yet still fail to act together when coordination becomes too costly, trust collapses, incentives misalign, or common knowledge disappears. A public does not become powerful merely because its members can speak. It becomes powerful when enough people can recognize the same reality, name the same problem, and believe that others recognize it too.
The platform order did not require old-fashioned censorship to weaken public power. Its incentives pointed toward something more efficient: a public that could speak constantly while understanding less together. A divided public was easier to monetize. An enraged public was easier to retain. A confused public was easier for concentrated power to govern around.
The internet was sold, at least in its most hopeful form, as a democratic expansion of the public square. It would let people find one another. It would let outsiders speak without waiting for permission. It would make information abundant. It would make institutions more accountable. It would weaken old monopolies over visibility. It would let communities form across distance. It would give ordinary people the tools of publication, documentation, organization, and memory.
Some of that promise was real.
Families stayed connected. Dissidents documented abuse. Artists found audiences. Marginalized people found one another. Independent writers built readerships. Citizens recorded violence, corruption, neglect, and hypocrisy. Archives opened. Expertise traveled. Subcultures flourished. Institutions that had once depended on silence or scarcity became easier to challenge.
But the public square was not rebuilt.
It was privatized.
The oligarchs who bought it wired explosive incentives into it.
The platform model did not treat the commons as something to preserve. It treated the digital commons as property: something to enclose, optimize, monetize, defend, and extract from. A commons has to be tended. It has to be made legible, usable, trustworthy, and durable. It has to support the conditions under which people can understand one another and act together. But the platform model had a different logic. It did not ask how public life could be sustained. It asked how attention could be captured, ranked, priced, controlled, and converted into power.
Their interests did not align with the public square.
The public needed facts, trust, shared reality, and institutions capable of turning information into collective action. The owners needed something else: attention, dependency, behavioral data, advertising inventory, political leverage, and protection for their property. Those goals sometimes overlapped by accident. They did not align by design.
The public brought speech, attention, relationships, creativity, reporting, memory, grief, humor, outrage, and political life into these systems. The platform business model increasingly converted those human energies into data, advertising value, prediction, market power, lobbying power, and leverage. The companies did not need to hate the public square to weaken it. They only needed to treat it as an extractive surface rather than a civic one.
They did not cultivate the public square.
They strip-mined it.
That is why independent journalism became such an obstacle to the platform order.
Journalism creates public knowledge that does not fully belong to the platform. It verifies, contextualizes, investigates, embarrasses, exposes, slows down, and remembers. It insists that there is a reality outside the feed. For privately ranked information systems, that is structurally inconvenient. The press competes with the platform’s preferred condition: a public dependent on privately ranked information streams mediated by systems the public cannot inspect and cannot govern.
The hostility is not theoretical. In 2007, Valleywag, a Gawker-owned Silicon Valley gossip site, published a post outing Peter Thiel as gay. Years later, Thiel secretly funded Hulk Hogan’s privacy lawsuit against Gawker after the site published excerpts from Hogan’s sex tape. The case ended with a $140 million verdict, pushed Gawker into bankruptcy, and became a warning sign for the press: a billionaire with a personal grievance could use private wealth not merely to answer coverage, but to destroy the institution that published it.
Thiel presented the campaign as a fight against invasive and destructive media practices. That privacy argument had real force; Gawker’s publication of sexual material without consent was indefensible to many readers and legally ruinous. But the larger precedent was chilling. The case showed how private wealth could be used to fund asymmetric legal warfare against a media outlet until the outlet no longer existed.
That pattern did not remain isolated. Thiel later became one of the investors in Rumble, a video platform marketed as an alternative to incumbent platforms and widely associated with the right-wing “free speech” media ecosystem. Rumble announced in 2021 that Narya Capital, Peter Thiel, and Colt Ventures had invested in the company; Axios later described Rumble as a preferred YouTube alternative among Trump-supporting conservatives.
That matters because the attack on journalism and the construction of alternative information systems can function as parts of the same structural dynamic. One weakens institutions that verify public reality. The other builds channels where reaction, grievance, ideological loyalty, and distrust of legacy institutions circulate with fewer institutional constraints.
That does not prove a single command structure or a unified master plan. It shows something more ordinary and more durable: aligned incentives. The press verifies, slows down, contextualizes, and embarrasses power. Reaction platforms accelerate, personalize, and monetize distrust of that verification layer.
This is often sold as “free speech.” But the deeper effect can be anti-civic. A platform that floods the public sphere with suspicion, outrage, tribal certainty, and permanent reaction does not merely compete with the press. It weakens the shared factual ground that journalism exists to defend.
At social scale, the effect begins to resemble a permanent information war. Keep the population angry. Keep it suspicious. Keep it disoriented. Keep it fighting itself. A public that cannot agree on reality cannot coordinate against concentrated power.
The platform economy did not invent that logic.
It made it profitable.
Over time, that incentive structure does not merely polarize a society. It fragments the shared reality required for collective action itself.
That is what epistemic collapse means in practice: the collapse of enough shared reality for a public to act together at all. It becomes difficult to organize even a neighborhood meeting when the neighbors no longer agree on what happened, what counts as a neighborhood problem, which dangers are real, or whether their chosen sources are even describing the same world.
A public cannot solve problems it can no longer name together. That is the deeper damage: the systems that obscure reality can also teach people to see factual journalism as alien, subversive, dangerous, or hostile to freedom itself. And if a society can no longer agree on what its problems are, who its neighbors are, or whether its neighbors are even living in the same reality, how can it possibly hope to solve anything together?
“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.” Philip K. Dick, “How to Build a Universe That Doesn’t Fall Apart Two Days Later” (1978)
American politics has repeatedly found ways to turn small, private, or intimate questions of identity and consent into national referendums on moral decline. In the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, gay people and same-sex marriage were made to carry that burden. As open hostility toward gay people became less publicly acceptable, the panic migrated. Transgender people became the next usable enemy.
The cruelty is not incidental. It is functional. A society under economic pressure can be redirected away from wages, housing, health care, debt, childcare, taxation, deregulation, and corporate power by being told that its real crisis is cultural contamination. The argument is simple because it has to be: these people are dangerous; the people who defend them are dangerous too; therefore half the country is not merely wrong, but evil.
That kind of politics does not solve material problems. It converts private life into public threat. It takes questions that often belong to families, doctors, adults, children, communities, and individual conscience, then turns them into a national ritual of suspicion. Gay people did not appear in the 1990s. Transgender people did not appear in the 2010s. Human variation in sexuality and gender expression has appeared across history, culture, anthropology, psychology, and ordinary human life. What changes is not the existence of such people. What changes is their usefulness as political targets.
That is why the target can change while the structure remains the same. Once a public has been scattered into incompatible realities, almost any emotionally charged subject can be turned into a weapon of misdirection. The point is not always to win an argument over the issue. Often, the point is to keep it useful: to hold attention sideways while power moves elsewhere.
In recent American politics, few examples have been more revealing than the fixation on transgender people. Transgender Americans make up roughly 1 percent of the population, yet they have been turned into a recurring national panic, election after election. In 2024, Republican campaigns and allied groups spent heavily on anti-trans advertising; The Guardian reported in October 2024 that Republicans had spent more than $65 million on ads targeting transgender people.
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
― Isaac Asimov, “A Cult of Ignorance,” Newsweek (1980)
The spending figure cannot explain the whole strategy. It shows something narrower and still revealing: a small minority became the object of enormous paid political attention. The evidence supports the scale and direction of the messaging; the interpretation concerns what that messaging did inside a fragmented attention system.
Musk made the pattern personal. His estranged daughter, Vivian Jenna Wilson, is transgender; in 2024, Musk said in an interview that he had “lost” her and described her as “dead, killed by the woke mind virus.” Wilson later disputed his account and publicly criticized his treatment of her. The public record can establish the statements and the dispute over them. It cannot, by itself, establish the private psychology behind them. The point is not to psychoanalyze Musk from a distance. The point is that a private family rupture became entangled with one of the world’s largest personal media platforms, a billionaire’s political identity, and a broader campaign against transgender rights.
That is the Babel effect in its cruelest form. A tiny, vulnerable minority is inflated into a civilizational threat. Cable networks, campaign consultants, influencers, and platform algorithms repeat the panic until it feels omnipresent. The audience is fed a steady diet of fear: bathrooms, classrooms, sports teams, doctors, pronouns, children, strangers. The actual scale of the issue disappears. The emotional scale becomes enormous.
“People have the right to call themselves whatever they like. That doesn't bother me. It's other people doing the calling that bothers me.” ― Octavia E. Butler, Parable of the Sower (1993)
Meanwhile, larger transfers of money and power can continue above the fight. While ordinary people are encouraged to see one another as existential enemies, tax policy, deregulation, institutional hollowing, and upward wealth transfer can proceed with less unified resistance. The point is not that rights debates are unimportant. They are important precisely because real people are harmed. The point is that bad-faith demagogues can weaponize those debates to make the public fight sideways while wealth and power keep moving upward.
That is why the Digital Babel is not only misinformation. It is also misdirection. In a fragmented attention system, a marginal population can be inflated into a national obsession while larger structures of power move with less scrutiny. The result is not only false belief. It is displaced attention.
Bits & Bytes — Premium Access
Understanding the future is not passive. It requires access before the rest of the world has language for what is coming.
Bits & Bytes is where that access begins.
This is analysis before the future hardens into consensus — a place to see artificial intelligence, science, technology, platforms, markets, institutions, and human behavior as they are reshaping the world in real time.
If you’re reading this, you’re early. And early matters.
Membership unlocks:
• Early access before publication
• Deeper analysis before narratives solidify
• Founder-level access to the expanding
History of the Present ecosystem
• Bits & Bytes — AI, science, technology, and what comes next
• History of the Present — the forces actually shaping the world
• Scandal — power, corruption, and institutional failure
• Thoughts & Ideas — reflections from The Intellectualist editor-in-chief Brian Daitzman on technology, civilization, democracy, and the future.
We are also building a private layer for members: small curated events, direct access, private briefings, and priority invitations as the platform expands.
The first 1,000 members will be permanently recognized as founders, with priority access, expanding benefits, and locked-in founder status.
This is being built in real time.
Know earlier. Understand deeper. See what comes next.
Join now: 33% off your first year. First 1,000 founders only.
