Soft digital repression: New challenges and strategies for resistance

Rezgar Akrawi

During the recent assault on Gaza, thousands of activists witnessed their posts deleted or their accounts restricted simply for documenting Israeli occupation crimes or expressing solidarity with the Palestinian people.

This is far from an isolated phenomenon. In India, the government issued emergency orders to block dozens of accounts during the farmers’ protests, while human rights organisations documented the suspension of accounts belonging to large numbers of journalists and activists merely for criticising government policies. Many felt helpless and furious, as their voices seemed to be deliberately pushed to the margins.

These cases offer a clear illustration of what can today be called ‘soft digital repression.’ This form of repression does not always manifest as direct blocking or public arrest. It operates through invisible algorithms and digital systems, reshaping the digital space in ways that determine what reaches audiences and what gets marginalised.

With the rapid expansion of artificial intelligence, these mechanisms have grown increasingly complex and far-reaching. This raises a pressing question: how does this system work, and how can it be confronted?

Digital control and voluntary self-surveillance

Large digital companies collect vast amounts of data systematically, using AI to analyse it and classify users according to behavioural patterns, intellectual orientations and political inclinations.

Through carefully designed algorithms, left-wing, progressive and human rights content can be restricted without any need for direct deletion.

From the user’s perspective, low engagement appears to stem from audience indifference, when in reality it may be the result of algorithmic mechanisms controlling the level of reach and visibility.

Many have experienced this firsthand: a significant post is written and reaches only a limited number of followers.

Numerous studies have examined the phenomenon of the filter bubble: users are gradually isolated within information environments that reinforce their pre-existing views while limiting their exposure to critical or alternative content.

The 2021 Facebook leaks revealed internal discussions concerning content management and the influence of algorithms on the public sphere.

The Brookings Institution has documented how digital platforms contribute to deepening political polarisation and entrenching ideological dominance.

Over time, many users begin practising what might be called ‘voluntary self-surveillance’, imposing restrictions on themselves out of fear of bans or declining reach.

This fear reshapes the nature of public discourse and gradually transforms the digital space into a more controlled environment, one that serves the interests of the forces dominating the digital infrastructure.

Digital frustration

Through the constant flow of content, algorithms contribute to generating a sense of helplessness and loss of hope in the possibility of change by repeatedly emphasising the failures of progressive experiments and presenting the existing capitalist order as the only viable option.

At the same time, individualism and personal success solutions are promoted as the primary path for addressing social problems, while consumer culture and individual achievement are presented as the practical alternative to collective action and political organisation.

The result is the isolation of individuals, the weakening of collective bonds, and the transformation of shared social concerns into personal responsibilities.

Digital arrest and digital assassination

When covert surveillance or frustration proves insufficient, the system reaches more explicit levels of digital exclusion.

Activists and journalists suddenly find their accounts suspended or blocked without prior warning, with these measures justified by generic phrases such as “violating community standards”, even though the targeted content is in many cases documentation of human rights violations or war crimes.

In other cases, the situation reaches what can only be described as ‘digital assassination’: the complete erasure of the digital presence of individuals or entire institutions.

The targeting of Palestinian content stands as one of the most contested examples, with human rights organisations and researchers having documented numerous instances of post deletions and account restrictions linked to coverage of violations, alongside a striking inconsistency in the application of content rules across different parties.

Alternatives for progressive forces

If soft digital repression seeks to limit the potential for resistance, organisation and free expression, then confronting it begins with reconsidering technology itself as an arena of social and political struggle.

This requires pushing for greater transparency and democratic oversight of large digital companies, and enacting legislation that protects privacy, criminalises political surveillance, and mandates disclosure of algorithmic decision-making mechanisms.

The response cannot be limited to legislation alone. There is also a need to build digital left-wing internationals and cross-border solidarity networks that expose digital violations and defend rights and freedoms in the online space.

Users and civil society institutions can also exert pressure on companies involved in developing or selling surveillance technologies used against activists, journalists and dissidents.

It is equally important to support free and open-source software, and to develop alternative platforms that are more transparent and subject to community oversight, so that technology is used to protect rights, expose violations and strengthen democratic participation.

Left-wing and progressive organisations should also develop their own digital tools, ranging from encryption and privacy protection technologies to awareness campaigns that expose the inner workings of algorithms and their political and social impact.

Technology between domination and liberation

If the recurring experiences of Palestinian content restrictions – alongside other cases that have targeted left-wing, progressive and human rights voices across different parts of the world – reveal an important dimension of the problem, they also confirm that alternatives are possible.

The issue is not about rejecting AI or digital technology. The question concerns who owns this technology, how it is governed, and in whose interest it operates.

Transforming AI into a tool that serves society and whose use is subject to democratic oversight can open new horizons for participation, organisation and solidarity.

The internet is not merely a global marketplace for advertising and data. It is a social, political and cultural space that can contribute to building new forms of collective action and struggle for social justice.

For this reason, the battle over technology remains part of the broader struggle against domination and exploitation, and for democracy, equality, freedom and a socialist alternative.

Returning the human being to the centre of digital decision-making remains a fundamental condition for building a future in which technology serves society rather than the accumulation of capital. – Globetrotter

Rezgar Akrawi is a writer and researcher focused on technology, AI, the digital revolution, and the development of contemporary leftist thought and practice in response to these transformations. He works as an expert in systems development and e-governance and is a theorist of the concept of the ‘electronic left’.

Support Aliran's work with an online donation. Scan this QR code using your mobile phone e-wallet or banking app: