With its appearance as a contemporary version of the Ancient Greek agora, the internet has made free expression an implicit part of our daily lives. However, the more we learn about the increasingly complex nature of algorithms and the intentions of those who have the power to dictate them, the more we realise that the digital world is not, by definition, a truly free space.
At the beginning of the 21st century, the internet promised a new era of freedom closely linked to the free flow of information. Geographical barriers appeared to be breaking down and the concept of a “global village” was becoming a reality. However, universal connectivity came with many undesirable caveats.
In many countries, governments control and limit access to information, censoring anything that does not conform to the official ideology. China’s “Great Firewall” is an example of how technologies created for freedom can easily be transformed into instruments of control.
Google has experienced this reality firsthand. When the company entered China in 2006, it seemed an inevitable economic decision: the world’s largest population, a booming digital economy, and a huge segment of users not yet connected. But entry came at a price. To operate, Google had to accept the government’s rules: self-censorship of search results. Searches for terms such as “democracy” or “human rights” yielded no relevant information, only officially approved responses. The company justified this compromise with a pragmatic calculation: it was better to have a “watered-down” Google for hundreds of millions of Chinese people than to have no Google at all. However, the company’s justification quickly proved unsustainable. After several years of tension, cyberattacks, and pressure from human rights organisations, Google moved its servers to Hong Kong in an attempt to offer Chinese users an “unfiltered” version. However, the move came too late. The company had already been defeated in the Chinese market, which is dominated by its competitor Baidu. Thus, Google’s “great ethical dilemma” became a lesson in the power of an authoritarian state to bring even the most powerful corporation to its knees.
While authoritarian regimes employ direct and brutal mechanisms, Western democracies employ more subtle methods of censorship through content moderation algorithms that favour certain voices over others. Numerous old sociological studies have discussed the existence of algorithmic radicalisation countless times, i.e. the radicalisation experienced by users of popular social networks (especially YouTube and Facebook), who, carried away by the networks’ recommendations, end up consuming increasingly extreme content and thus developing extremist political beliefs. The commercialisation of user attention—the currency underlying the economy of tech giants—is also a means of controlling how information circulates online. Algorithms simply generate chains of media content based on user interactions, likes, dislikes, and time spent on posts.
Even if we take only these aspects into account, we may wonder what chance authentic discourse, especially Christian discourse, has of penetrating this space where the meaning of “freedom” has been so distorted that it has become only a shadow of what this word should be. Can Christians still convey the truth authentically in a digital space full of content filters? What ethical limits should they respect when using technological platforms that are simultaneously used for both manipulation and truth? How can the gospel still find a place in a digital world marked by censorship and control?
The responsibility of Christians in the digital world
Google’s experience in China demonstrates that even an organisation whose mission is to “organise the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful” is susceptible to pressure to compromise. Christians face the same challenge, albeit in a much deeper sense: although they are not affected by direct censorship, they may still conform culturally through self-imposed censorship. Just as Google has opted for a weaker version of its search engine, Christians may also opt for a diluted version of their message when they indiscriminately accept the rules of the digital landscape. In the digital public space, Christians are called to use technology without becoming its prisoners and to communicate without losing their identity for the sake of integration.
In the digital environment, there is a temptation to sugar-coat the message to avoid exclusion or isolation. However, our responsibility is to keep the Gospel intact, even if it means being marginalised. “We must obey God rather than human beings!” (Acts 5:29) remains a relevant principle, whether the opposition takes the form of strict laws or platform algorithms. The Apostle Paul wrote to the church in Corinth with words that remain as relevant today as they were in the time of the early Christians: “Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, as those sent from God” (2 Corinthians 2:17). Christian discernment in the digital age involves two simultaneous exercises. The first is critical: we must understand how the mechanisms of the digital world work—its algorithms, censorship, and self-censorship—and be aware of how these shape not only what we see, but also what we say. The second is a spiritual exercise: constantly asking ourselves whether our online actions honour or compromise the truth of Christ.
The third form of censorship is indifference
Despite the constant flow of information, there are still gaps that algorithms cannot fill: our questions about meaning, good and evil, freedom, and truth. Even in a space saturated with all kinds of content, these questions persist like a background noise that neither censorship nor consumption can silence.
This is the paradoxical position of the Christian message. It is not a quick response to the challenges of the moment or a product of the marketplace of ideas; rather, it is a constant presence that remains even after the voices that promoted it disappear with the funding for the algorithms that promoted them. This message may go unnoticed by those who do not want to hear it. However, it is precisely because it is not aligned with the logic of profit or power that it remains unique.
The enmity of a friend
The unique nature of the Christian message depends entirely on its authenticity. Unfortunately, all too often today, inspiring biblical quotes, aspirational images, or emotionally impactful campaigns are used to hide artificial mechanisms designed to manipulate public perception. Bot farms—networks of automated accounts that amplify certain messages—have hijacked religious discourse for political propaganda.
A Facebook group that specialises in exposing viral fakes recently demonstrated how to increase the number of followers on social network pages by changing their name and theme whenever necessary.
How can we protect ourselves, our loved ones, and vulnerable people from such traps? Firstly, we must pay attention to the source. Messages that circulate without a clear author, context, or real community support should be viewed with caution.
Secondly, we should exercise critical discernment. Online popularity is not an indication of spiritual authenticity. Bot farms exploit the tendency to mistake scale for legitimacy.
Thirdly, we should return to real community. The digital space can be a starting point, but the test of faith is lived out in real relationships. Christianity reduced to a stream of images and slogans shared on social networks risks becoming purely superficial.
Christians do not need algorithms
Social media culture has an irresistible tendency to turn everything, including personal identity, into a brand. This subtly pushes us towards treating Christianity as a marketing product. However, the Christian mission cannot be reduced to virality, and the truth remains non-negotiable, even when much-desired visibility is the reward for negotiation.
But hasn’t it always been this way? Hasn’t Christianity always had to find its place in a world where truth and lies are easily confused? Therefore, the most important question we can ask ourselves today is the same one that Christians throughout history have asked: “Whom shall we believe?” Fortunately, the answer to this question has been clear since the time of the disciples: “Lord, to whom shall we go?” Simon Peter asked Jesus Christ. “You have the words of eternal life.”