When Silence Is Engineered: Mediatron 2.0 and the Politics of Visibility

The Auditorium at Jyoti Nivas College (Autonomous), Bengaluru, hummed with quiet anticipation as students, academics, journalists, and media professionals gathered for Mediatron 2.0, the National Media Symposium organised by the Department of Journalism, Centre for Media Studies. What unfolded was not merely an academic event, but an unsettling exploration of how dissent is managed, muted, and made invisible in the digital age.

The keynote address by Dr. Madri Kakoti, Associate Professor at the University of Lucknow, set the tone for the evening. Rejecting the safety of a conventional lecture, she chose instead to speak through experience, reflection, and metaphor. Her voice carried both restraint and urgency as she recalled an FIR filed against her in April 2020 under sedition charges for questioning injustice. Quoting a mentor, she said, “Ladaai bahut lambi hai aur dushman bahut bada hai,” reminding the audience that resistance is not always loud it is often careful, strategic, and exhausting. This personal moment became the emotional anchor of her argument: dissent survives not by visibility, but sometimes by erasure.

Rather than naming India directly, Dr. Kakoti turned to Oceania, the fictional totalitarian state from George Orwell’s 1984. She urged the audience to reflect on how Oceania controlled society not through constant violence, but through surveillance, conformity, and selective visibility. What once felt dystopian, she argued, now mirrors reality in many democracies, where repression is subtle, legal, and algorithmic.

In what she described as “Akhand Oceania,” dissent is not crushed openly but quietly undermined. Influencers are rewarded with government contracts for promoting agreeable narratives, while corporations treat creators as assets rather than voices. Although freedom of speech is constitutionally guaranteed, it becomes fragile when laws designed for national security are used against journalists, whistleblowers, and activists. Beyond the courtroom, digital tools trolling, doxing, and algorithmic suppression create an atmosphere of fear that leads individuals to silence themselves.

Dr. Kakoti framed this as lawfare, the strategic use of legal systems to intimidate and exhaust critics. Unlike outright bans, lawfare works slowly, draining emotional, financial, and psychological resources. To explain how such control operates structurally, she invoked Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon and Michel Foucault’s ideas on power and discipline. In today’s digital world, she noted, surveillance is no longer architectural but algorithmic. Every click, payment, and movement produces data, feeding systems that watch, predict, and regulate behaviour.

Media organisations, she explained, are deeply entangled within this system. Corporate news outlets dependent on government advertising and regulatory approvals often practise self-censorship. Independent media, on the other hand, struggle with financial instability and algorithmic invisibility. Investigative journalism becomes dangerous, while sensational content often targeting marginalised communities remains profitable. Technology giants such as Google, Meta, and X are not neutral platforms; their algorithms prioritise engagement over truth, amplifying outrage and suppressing nuance. When state power converges with platform governance, censorship no longer requires force it becomes automated.

Dr. Kakoti described this condition as algorithmic authoritarianism, where visibility itself becomes the primary tool of control. Journalists need not be banned if no one sees their work. Activists need not be arrested if their messages never reach an audience. Silence, she argued, is engineered.

The panel discussion that followed shifted the lens from institutions to individuals. Moderated by Dr. Rupa Philip, Associate Professor at Jyoti Nivas College, the conversation explored how surveillance has become embedded in everyday life. The panel emphasised that monitoring is no longer imposed it is often welcomed. People willingly grant access to cameras, microphones, location data, and personal information, rarely questioning permissions or terms. This voluntary participation, they noted, strengthens the very systems that govern visibility and control.

Panelists reflected on how constant observation reshapes behaviour and identity. Drawing again on the Panopticon, they explained that when people believe they are always being watched by governments, platforms, employers, or even peers they regulate themselves. Authentic expression gives way to performance; privacy dissolves into caution.

The rise of peer-to-peer surveillance emerged as a pressing concern. Social media, vlogging, and live-streaming have normalised recording others, often without consent. Individuals appear in videos, reels, and public recordings without knowing how or where they will be circulated, creating a culture of exposure that feels both ordinary and invasive.

The discussion also highlighted surveillance capitalism, where human behaviour itself becomes a commodity. Algorithms track, predict, and monetise actions, subtly shaping preferences and reinforcing conformity. Control, the panel stressed, is woven into routines scrolling feeds, app notifications, digital rewards making resistance increasingly difficult.

• As the session drew to a close, the applause felt reflective rather than celebratory. Mediatron 2.0 offered more than theory; it posed an uncomfortable question to its audience. In a world where systems are designed to entertain, reward, and monitor simultaneously, how does one remain unseen yet unbroken? For many students, the symposium was both unsettling and illuminating a reminder that in the digital age, silence is not accidental, and visibility is never neutral.