HAVE WE BECOME DIGITAL HERDS?
Byung-Chul Han—one of the most widely read philosophers of our time. I hadn’t heard of him before, but I believe being contemporaries with a philosopher and truly understanding them is invaluable. In an interview, Han recounts the “radical” decision he made while gazing at the sky:
“THE SKY WAS SO BEAUTIFUL THAT I REALIZED I COULD NO LONGER GO ON LIVING WITHOUT REFLECTING ON THIS BEAUTY AND ITS MEANING.”
To understand life, he felt the need to change his own. His sharp critiques of the modern world’s crisis of knowledge and reality are shaped by this inner quest: “Knowledge is fleeting, but truth is permanent, it guides us.”
At Korea University, Han teaches a course on happiness, exploring its nature through tangible, hands-on experiences. He argues that happiness is not just a mental state but a way of being, illustrating this through activities like playing a musical instrument or touching the soil.
His philosophical journey, sparked by a moment of looking at the sky, leads to thought-provoking insights into the modern world’s crisis of knowledge, meaning, and truth. But Han doesn’t just critique the world we live in, he also offers a deep opportunity for reflection on how meaning and truth, widely believed to be lost, can be rebuilt.
In his book Infocracy, he critiques the perpetual and superficial nature of information flow. Similarly, in The Expulsion of the Other, he explores themes of isolation and herd mentality, while The Burnout Society leads us to Han’s perspective that happiness is no longer just a feeling—it is a profound reflection of the connections between body, mind, and environment.
All of this reinforces the idea that happiness is not just a personal emotion but a state of being, shaped by how we live with others in society. So, by embracing the concept of “make happy, be happy,” he connects this feeling to contributing to the well-being of those around us, defining it as a state that can only be achieved through action.
Byung-Chul Han defines infocracy as a modern regime of domination where individuals are manipulated through information and visibility, living under the illusion of freedom. In this system, visibility has become one of the most prized concepts of the modern world. People go to great lengths to establish their presence on social media, increase their follower count, and remain seen. Values such as “transparency” and “freedom of expression” serve as the ideological foundation of this pursuit.
Han harshly critiques this obsession with visibility, arguing that this perception of visibility and freedom forms the very basis of a new regime that turns individuals into objects of domination (oppression). His idea can be encapsulated as follows:
“The information regime creates an illusion of freedom in which individuals voluntarily expose themselves through visibility.”
Han argues that the perception of freedom fosters the illusion that individuals are acting of their own free will. However, they are merely components of a visibility cycle imposed by digital systems. At this point, he clarifies the issue further:
“The disciplinary society used to exert control over individuals from the outside. The information society, on the other hand, manipulates the individual’s internal desires—their need to be watched.”
To explain this, Han references Michel Foucault’s concept of the disciplinary society, where individuals are shaped by external rules and punishments, such as prisons with physical control mechanisms, schools with strict disciplinary codes, and factories with surveillance structures. In contrast, under the information regime, individuals believe they are pursuing their desires while remaining under a form of control. They become “performance objects” in a system where social media platforms manipulate their desires, not only harvesting data but also continuously pushing individuals to be more visible. Contrary to the portrayal of visibility as the individual’s need to “express themselves,” it ultimately transforms into a mechanism of control.
What makes visibility so enticing?
According to Han, this phenomenon reflects the existential pain, or rather the hunger, of the modern individual. For people, visibility is seen as a way to gain acknowledgment and find meaning. Yet, since this search for meaning is built on the speed and superficiality of the digital world, it never fully satisfies. The more visible people become, the lonelier and more unfulfilled they feel. This loneliness, in turn, drives them to share even more, generating more data in the process. Han describes this vicious cycle succinctly:
“Visibility is no longer a form of freedom; it is a tool of domination. Surveillance does not liberate the individual; it simply imprisons them in a different form.”
In the context Han presents, social media is not merely a communication platform but a system that forces individuals into perpetual content production. Every post, comment, and like is processed, repackaged, and sold back to the individual. In this cycle, people are both consumers and producers, while the system acts as the ultimate broker.
Conclusion
Visibility weakens social bonds by isolating individuals. Social media platforms trap individuals within their echo chambers, severing them from shared spaces of discussion. This not only creates a crisis on an individual level but also leads to the dissolution and fragmentation of societal ties.
In the digital age, the mechanisms of dominance over individuals operate through visibility. Even if an individual believes they are free, in reality, they have already submitted to the demands of the system. To put it bluntly, recognizing this illusion is the first step toward genuine freedom. To take this step, individuals must first distance themselves from the deceptions offered by the digital world and rethink their existence.
Truth is Eroded by the Speed of Information
Truth has always been a fundamental cornerstone for individuals in making sense of themselves and for societies in maintaining order. However, the digital age has radically transformed this once-immutable concept. Byung-Chul Han argues that in the digital world, information is in constant motion, and this relentless speed disrupts the stable and profound nature of truth. His observation is striking:
“Truth provides a stable foundation. However, information is a void in perpetual motion.”
In this era of ceaseless information flow, individuals tend to get swept away by the tide of information rather than seeking truth. This raises a question: Does this flow facilitate the pursuit of meaning, or does it make it even more elusive? For Han, the answer is clear: the digital age distances individuals from truth rather than bringing them closer to it.
To illustrate his argument, Han revisits Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. In Plato’s narrative, individuals in a cave perceive only the shadows cast on the wall and mistake them for reality. According to Han, the digital world, in turn, traps individuals in a “shadow reality” of constantly flowing information. In Plato’s allegory, breaking free from the chains is essential to attaining truth. In the digital age, however, these chains are no longer visible. They do not manifest as cold, hard iron but as soft, comforting velvet. Han describes this phenomenon as follows:
“Digital information is a product of an era where speed has severed its ties with truth. Instead of meaning, it demands attention.”
Prioritizing speed and visibility, this process weakens individuals’ capacity for critical thinking. Social media platforms guide users exclusively toward content that aligns with their existing beliefs. Algorithms prevent individuals from encountering opposing perspectives, leading to deep societal polarization. Han describes this as a “crisis of truth.”
Hannah Arendt once said: “Truth is the foundation of the public sphere and shared spaces of discussion. However, in the digital age, truth has been replaced by a system of visibility dictated by attention-grabbing information. The disappearance of truth marks the end of debate.” Building on this, Han argues that in a society where individuals are confined to their echo chambers, democracy loses its meaning.
The flow of information in the digital world distances individuals from critical thinking. The rapid spread of fake news compared to information forces individuals to live within the confines of perceived truth. Ultimately, this dulls their ability to seek genuine truth. Drawing from Nietzsche, Han asserts that truth itself is a human construct, yet in the digital age, even this construct has become a tool of manipulation. He argues that the metaphors that once shaped our understanding of truth have lost their significance, giving way to an information system centered solely on capturing attention.
For Han, overcoming the crisis of truth requires not just individual effort but a fundamental societal restructuring. Individuals must question the flow of information in the digital world and prioritize critical thinking—but this alone is not enough. Han emphasizes the necessity of reconstructing public spheres of discussion where truth is not just debated among individuals but negotiated within society.
A friend of mine (RIP) once said: “Nowadays, lies are crafted with such precision that truth is rendered powerless in the face of their manufactured reality.”
Democracy and Digitalization: The Challenges to Representation and Participation
Democracy is one of the most robust and rational systems of governance. It is founded on public participation and collective decision-making processes. However, Byung-Chul Han argues that the digital age has profoundly transformed democracy, posing a fundamental threat to its core principles. Han underscores that at its heart, democracy thrives on discussion and consensus. This consensus is made possible by a public sphere where citizens can express their ideas and find common ground. Yet, as discussed earlier, digitalization has created a mechanism that dismantles these public spaces and isolates individuals. Han describes this transformation as follows:
“Democracy is a regime built on debate and consensus. Yet, the information society disrupts discussion and isolates individuals.”
According to Han, social media platforms have fundamentally altered the culture of debate, which is the cornerstone of democracy. Algorithms now tailor content to reinforce individuals’ existing beliefs, limiting their exposure to differing viewpoints. This ultimately creates “echo chambers,” where individuals feel no need to question their views but instead seek validation. This dynamic replaces democratic discourse with greater polarization.
One of the most significant dangers posed by the digital world, as Han argues, is the manipulation of individuals through emotions rather than information. Algorithms prioritize emotional content to capture individuals’ attention and maximize their engagement with the platform. Strong emotions like anger, fear, and admiration take precedence, eroding the rational basis of democratic discourse and leaving individuals vulnerable to manipulation. Han captures this problem:
“The digital world reduces information to mere emotion. In a space dominated by emotions, truth and debate disappear.”
Does social media overshadow the people’s free will during elections?
Social media campaigns and micro-targeting strategies are now central to shaping individual thought and directly influencing election outcomes. As Han highlights, in this process, democracy is reduced to nothing more than a game of “perception management.” We should all reflect on the statement from Cambridge Analytica after Trump’s 2016 victory:
“We are proud that our revolutionary approach to data-driven communication played such a decisive role in the extraordinary victory of President-elect Donald Trump.”
In an era where data dominates the agenda for its influence, Han’s perspective may initially seem unconventional. He critiques data-driven algorithms and digital rationality as the primary tools threatening democracy.
Does the drive for speed and efficiency, under the banner of digital rationality, diminish individuals’ ability to think critically and engage in meaningful debates, ultimately aiming to transform society into a purely data-driven system?
Here enters “dataism.” This philosophy elevates data as the supreme authority, surpassing human intelligence and democratic processes. However, the algorithms guiding elections don’t focus on individual’s rational preferences but target emotional vulnerabilities. Han sees this as a carefully engineered process. Data-fed digital rationality not only reinforces individuals’ existing beliefs, trapping them in echo chambers but also fundamentally alters the culture of democratic debate.
Han states: “Data does not just influence individuals’ decisions; it also directs societies’ decision-making processes. However, this direction does not serve freedom but domination.”
Dataism reduces democracy to a mere exercise in data analysis. Algorithms don’t foster debate over opinions; they fine-tune them.
In the digital age, has freedom been transformed into an invisible form of domination, governed by the weight of data and algorithms?
For Han, the essence of democracy—the need for debate and consensus—has been supplanted by the dominance of data. The reality we experience today, the knowledge we acquire, and the arguments we form based on data may not reflect the truth.
Theoretically, power in democracies comes from the people’s will, but does this power now lie with the data companies in the digital age?
Big tech firms collect individual data, predict behaviors, and mold them accordingly. Han refers to this as “digital autocracy”:
“Data is a new form of power that fuels surveillance capitalism, rather than nurturing democracy.”
In this framework, Han argues that digitalization doesn’t fortify democracy but opens doors for authoritarian regimes. For democracy to thrive in the digital age, individuals must reclaim their capacity for critical thinking. But where are the public spaces in the digital world today? According to Han, these spaces must be rebuilt—not through individual efforts alone, but as a collective endeavor.
I believe it is essential to reconsider this issue from an earlier stage. A new logical framework is necessary to discern and identify truth, especially as AI makes truth easier to distort. The younger generation, in particular, can only develop healthy critical thinking skills and recognize the truth if they are taught how to use social media properly from an early age and learn to differentiate between “good” and “bad” data.
For example, consider a simple research question: What makes food healthy or unhealthy?
I asked Perplexity for you:
How are foods classified as healthy or unhealthy? Answer:
Foods are classified based on their content and effects on health. Healthy foods are generally evaluated according to the following criteria:
Nutritional Value: Foods rich in beneficial nutrients such as vitamins, minerals, protein, fiber, and healthy fats are considered healthy. Examples include vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, and nuts.
Naturalness and Processing Level: Fresh, unprocessed, or minimally processed foods are considered healthier. Home-cooked meals without additives are preferred.
Low Harmful Content: Foods with minimal sugar, salt, and trans fats are considered healthy, while highly processed foods are typically unhealthy.
Balance and Variety: It’s important to maintain a balanced intake of various food groups. A healthy diet includes vegetables, fruits, protein sources (meat, fish, eggs), dairy, and whole grains.
Unhealthy foods, on the other hand, tend to be high in calories but low in nutrients, containing excessive sugar, salt, or trans fats. Fast food, sugary drinks, and snacks fall into this category.
Then, I refined the question: How accurate is it to classify foods as healthy or unhealthy? Here’s the answer:
Classifying foods as strictly “healthy” or “unhealthy” may not always be the right approach. Here’s why:
Context and Quantity: Whether a food is healthy or unhealthy depends on the amount consumed and the context. For example, sugary foods can be harmful in excess but provide energy in moderation.
Individual Differences: Factors such as age, health status, metabolism, and lifestyle affect how food impacts a person. For instance, milk can be beneficial for some but harmful for those with lactose intolerance.
Cultural and Social Influences: Food choices are influenced not just by health considerations but also by cultural habits and personal preferences. Therefore, the perception of what is “healthy” varies among individuals.
Scientific Variability: Scientific findings change over time. Foods once considered unhealthy (such as eggs) are now recognized as beneficial.
In conclusion, instead of categorizing foods as entirely “healthy” or “unhealthy,” it is more appropriate to adopt a balanced and personalized approach.
I took it a step further and rephrased the question: Foods are categorized as healthy or unhealthy. However, it’s consumers who are either healthy or ill, not the foods themselves! So how should we categorize them? Here’s its answer:
Instead of categorizing foods as healthy or unhealthy, it would be more accurate to evaluate them based on individuals’ health conditions and needs. After all, the impact of food depends on factors such as personal immunity, genetic predisposition, and lifestyle. Here’s an alternative classification method:
Nutritional Value and Processing Level:
High-Nutritional-Value Foods: Natural and unprocessed products such as fresh vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and legumes.
Low-Nutritional-Value Foods: Processed products high in sugar, salt, or additives.
Personal Tolerance and Needs:
Special Dietary Requirements: Gluten-free foods for individuals with celiac disease or lactose-free products for those with lactose intolerance.
Generally Safe Foods for Consumption: Foods that are beneficial for most individuals, when consumed in moderation.
Immune-Supporting Properties:
Foods rich in probiotics, vitamins, and minerals that boost immunity (e.g., homemade yogurt, vegetables, and fruits).
This approach shifts the focus from labeling foods as “good” or “bad” to addressing individual health needs.
Well, well! The AI barked according to its owner! It even became the advocate of the very argument I was making. But let’s see what Han has to say:
“Democracy requires not only individuals but also societies to unite around truth. Where there is no truth, democracy cannot survive.”
So, our job is tough!
Digitalization and Social Isolation: The Herded Individual
Digitalization has become the most transformative force of modern society, permeating every aspect of our lives. Byung-Chul Han argues that this transformation is not only technological but also psychological and social, requiring deeper scrutiny. According to him, while the digital age creates the illusion of greater connectivity, it isolates individuals and pushes them toward herd-like behavior. Han’s take on this is as follows:
“Digitalization traps individuals in their echo chambers. In these chambers, they hear only themselves, leaving no room for other voices.”
According to Han, individuals no longer engage with real communities around them but rather interact with “simulated” networks on digital platforms. Although social media appears to offer boundless communication, this communication is often superficial, lacking depth, and one-directional. Isolated in their echo chambers, individuals encounter only content that reflects their views. This weakens their critical thinking capacity and assimilates them into a digital herd. And within this herd, your followers, or even those you follow, may not be real. Han states:
“The digital herd does not liberate the individual. On the contrary, it erodes their freedom and subjects them to an invisible form of domination.”
This process of herding not only suppresses the individual’s need for belonging but also undermines their search for meaning. Han argues that the digital world does not provide meaningful connections; instead, it offers instant gratification and shallow interactions. The individual constantly seeks validation from external eyes, losing their internal sense of meaning in the process.
Han asserts that the digital age not only isolates individuals but also keeps them under constant surveillance!
He highlights how surveillance capitalism tracks every step individuals take and exploits this data for commercial purposes. The core issue here, he argues, is that individuals are often unaware of being surveilled; they voluntarily become part of this system. Han describes the paradox of the digital world as follows:
“The digital world makes the individual both visible and lonely. This loneliness is the most invisible form of modern domination.”
When surveillance, loneliness, and herd mentality converge, the individual is reduced to nothing more than a cog in the system’s machinery. Social media algorithms shape emotions, behaviors, and even thoughts, causing individuals to lose their uniqueness and detach from social bonds.
Han draws attention to the broader societal consequences of digitalization. As traditional communities are replaced by digital networks, interpersonal connections weaken, leading to a crisis that is not only individual but also collective. He describes this crisis as “the atomization of society.” Atomized individuals remain trapped in their echo chambers, unable to create a shared space for discourse.
“Society is no longer a structure where individuals come together, but rather a sum of isolated individuals.”
According to Han, overcoming this isolation requires restructuring. If individuals can recognize the illusions presented by the digital world, not only individuals but entire communities can be rebuilt. Reestablishing social ties in the digital age must be more than just an individual effort—it must become a collective movement. To escape digital loneliness, individuals must rediscover their authenticity. Instead of forming shallow connections on social media, Han argues, people must cultivate real and meaningful relationships. Furthermore, instead of merely conforming to the digital herd, individuals must enhance their critical thinking capacity and question their existence.
Han’s suggestions are not just calls for personal change but rather a call for social restructuring. To emerge from the crisis created by digitalization, individuals must step out of their echo chambers and reclaim their pursuit of truth and meaning.
Political Dynamics of Infocracy and Digitalization
Regarding the impact of the digital world on democracy, Byung-Chul Han argues that one of the biggest casualties of this transformation is truth itself. “Truth is fixed, but digital information flows in constant motion and transience,” he observes, claiming that democracy has lost its foundation of informed, truth-based discourse.
Digitalization was initially hailed as a tool to strengthen democracy. However, in reality, has the rise of fake news eroded individuals’ ability to think critically, ultimately turning democracy into an illusion?
Data is no longer just an economic asset, but a political tool. Algorithms not only predict individuals’ preferences but also actively shape them.
Han states, “Democracy is the work of individuals united around truth. Making truth a public concern will be democracy’s salvation.”
The Truth Must Be Transformed and Reconstructed!
Byung-Chul Han examines how digitalization has fundamentally shifted both individual and societal relationships with truth. He argues that the digital world surrounds us with speed, superficiality, and illusions. Today, truth is no longer a foundation that gives meaning to life; instead, what grabs attention has taken precedence, turning truth into a quickly consumed commodity.
In Han’s view, the digital age operates on an attention economy that inherently sidelines truth. Truth does not demand attention; it requires inquiry and investigation. However, the digital realm prioritizes what is on the surface. This diminishes individuals’ ability to critically question and forces them into passive consumption of content. In this environment, truth is replaced by illusion, and individuals become mere recipients of whatever content is presented to them. Algorithms only reinforce this trend. For Han, democracy has already been lost. To restore it, individuals must slow down and deepen their understanding. Rebuilding social connections and reestablishing public spaces for meaningful debate are critical steps to regaining the true essence of democracy.
Han’s philosophy might leave readers wondering, “Are we truly living in such a bleak and crisis-ridden world?” And I believe this is a valid point. After all, if we view society’s digitalization as a paradigm shift—something I strongly believe it is—there’s no singular right or wrong way to approach and debate these issues. Years from now, another philosopher may challenge Han’s views, presenting a different perspective. This, in conclusion, is how scientific thought and the production of knowledge evolve.
Han is a contemporary philosopher deeply invested in understanding individuals, relationships, and systems in modern society. The accessibility and brevity of his books are, I believe, key factors that have contributed to his status as one of today’s most popular thinkers. Infocracy reminds me of Akan Abdula’s Öngörülemeyenler (Unpredictables), which I reviewed back in 2021 (*). Interestingly, it was written a year before Infocracy, and the ideas in both works are similar. Could it be that in our admiration for foreign thinkers, we overlook the value of our contributions?
(*) https://muratulker.com/y/dunyayi-algoritmalar-yonetiyor-ai-bireysel-ozgurlugu-yokediyor/
References
(1) https://www.kitapyurdu.com/kitap/enfokrasi-dijitallesme-ve-demokrasinin-krizi/
(2) https://www.kitapyurdu.com/kitap/surunun-icinde-dijital-dunyaya-bakislar-/
(3) https://www.kitapyurdu.com/kitap/yorgunluk-toplumu/
Note: This open-source article does not require copyright and can be quoted by citing the author.
