The rise of surveillance technologies and digital moderation has changed how people speak and share on social media. What once felt like open communication now carries invisible limits. Researchers from Arizona State University and the University of Michigan explored the dynamics behind this transformation. Their findings revealed how modern societies subtly teach their citizens to stay silent.
Simulations From A Mathematical Model Identified The Factors That Shape Modern Self-Censorship
Researchers model how populations and authorities interact over time. Their simulations revealed why people preemptively self-censor and how boldness, punishment, and surveillance determine the survival of dissent.
Modeling Free Dissent and Enforcement Response
Researchers Stephanie Forrest, a computer scientist at Arizona State University known for her work on complex systems and adaptive computation, together with Joshua J. Daymude, also from the same university, and Robert Axelrod, a University of Michigan political scientist renowned for modeling cooperation and conflict, conducted the study.
They developed a mathematical model that simulates how individuals and authorities interact over time and explain that self-censorship is driven by something deeper than simple fear. Their model illustrates how people actively calculate risk by weighing the value of expressing dissent against the potential costs, like social backlash or official punishment.
Note that the model captured the evolving decisions of individuals and authorities in controlled environments. This involved running simulations in which each individual weighed the risk of punishment against the desire to dissent, while the authority adapted surveillance and enforcement actions or policies to minimize dissent and control free speech.
Researchers found that three factors—boldness, surveillance, and punishment—shape the outcome of speech in a society. Specifically, when people are bold, dissent continues longer. When authorities increase monitoring or impose harsh penalties, silence spreads. The balance among these three elements determines how quickly free expression fades.
Important Insights About Self-Censorship
The findings collectively point to a phenomenon in which silence and dissent evolve together, influenced by boldness, monitoring levels, and how harshly an authority punishes those who speak out. Self-censorship follows rational patterns that are shaped by these factors. The following are the important findings and their respective details:
• Self-censorship as a Strategic Response
The researchers found that self-censorship is not only an emotional response but also a strategic choice. Individuals silence themselves to avoid punishment after weighing the personal cost of dissent against perceived threats. Silence essentially becomes a rational shield rather than a simple reaction to fear.
• Interplay of Boldness, Surveillance, and Punishment
Note that the model showed that individual boldness, combined with levels of surveillance and punishment severity, determines whether dissent survives. More surveillance and harsher enforcement push societies toward silence, while greater boldness can delay total compliance and keep some public dialogue alive.
• Punishment Structure Determines Suppression Speed
Uniform punishments, such as blanket bans or complete shutdowns, silence populations as fast as possible. Proportional punishments, where penalties increase gradually, allow small acts of dissent to persist. This particular difference shows how enforcement style influences suppression via the life span of free expression.
• Early Boldness Slows Suppression of Dissent
Populations that begin with higher boldness resist longer. The study specifically revealed that when individuals initially speak out together, authorities must spend more resources to enforce regulation and compliance. This dynamic explains why early courage can delay or complicate efforts to suppress opposing opinions.
• Escalating Monitoring Fosters Total Compliance
The researchers also simulated how authorities often tighten control gradually. They noted parallels to historical events like the Hundred Flowers Campaign in 1956 China, where early openness was followed by a harsh crackdown, eventually producing widespread silence through escalating surveillance.
• Ingrained Self-Censorship Becomes Difficult to Reverse
Once people silence themselves before punishment occurs, that habit spreads and becomes difficult to reverse or undo. The study specifically suggests that even if restrictions are lifted later, societies remain quiet because self-censorship turns into an enduring social behavior that is further reinforced by fear.
Relevance to Modern Technology and Implications
The researchers link the findings above to modern technology-driven environments. They argued that algorithmic moderation, facial recognition, and online surveillance have blurred boundaries between public and private spaces. These make people aware of being watched, encouraging them to self-censor even before any explicit action is taken.
Daymude explained that technology has transformed dissent by making people conscious of constant observation. Forrest further emphasized that the bold behavior demonstrated early by individuals can change how long suppression lasts. Axelrod helped relate the mathematical model to theories of cooperation, punishment, and social stability.
The findings essentially apply not only to authoritarian states but also to social media platforms that rely on algorithmic moderation. Users of these platforms may stay silent to avoid bans or negative attention. Moreover, once silence becomes normalized, the researchers said, it is much harder for open expression to return on social media platforms.
Nevertheless, based on the aforesaid, the study warns that protecting free dialogue requires more than laws or technology. It depends on collective willingness to speak despite risk. When surveillance expands and punishments harden, silence spreads. Once self-censorship takes hold, it becomes one of the most enduring forms of social control.
FURTHER READING AND REFERENCE
- Daymude, J. J., Axelrod, R., and Forrest, S. 2025. “Strategic Analysis of Dissent and Self-Censorship.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 122(45). DOI: 1073/pnas.2508028122