March 29, 2025.
Wiley Online Library.
Abstract: Physical forms of media are increasingly being phased out and replaced by digital media. While this transition entails significant gains for consumers, it also presents risks that are worthy of attention and analysis.
Thanks to the rise of channels of distribution such as streaming platforms, it is increasingly the case that content that has previously been made available in the marketplace can be disappeared or covertly edited in the absence of any significant scrutiny, criticism, or feedback.
This paper presents two arguments regarding why this pattern of behavior may prove pernicious. The first argument posits that removing and revising culturally significant works is likely to distort people’s understanding of the past, which has the potential to generate patterns of thinking and behavior that are corrosive for society.
The second argument makes the case that the practice of removing and revising published content at will is damaging to the project of achieving accountability in the media marketplace. In light of these arguments, it is noted that there are alternative strategies for grappling with the existence of controversial pieces of media that are additive rather than subtractive, and do not pose a risk of generating distortion or undermining accountability.
It is increasingly the case that traditional forms of media, such as printed texts and analog recordings, are being phased out and replaced by digital media. While music, films, television series, articles, and books remain staples of everyday life for much of the world’s population, as has been the case throughout recent decades and even centuries, these goods are increasingly being consumed in formats that are entirely digital. While there are undoubtedly meaningful advantages associated with the rise of digital media, including increased ease of access to content and renewed interest in works that may otherwise be left in obscurity, the shift from print and analog media to digital alternatives presents risks that merit attention and serious discussion.
1 A major cause for concern with our new and rapidly evolving media landscape is the fact that it is increasingly possible for publishers of content to disappear or revise works after they have initially been made available for public consumption. As alternatives to digital media become increasingly scarce, and consumers become more reliant on channels of distribution such as streaming platforms,
2 audiences can no longer take for granted that media that is presently available for consumption will continue to be available in the same form in the future. The upshot is that our new media ecosystem has generated a “digital memory hole”, meaning that content that is of public interest can vanish from the marketplace or be covertly edited with very little in the way of scrutiny, criticism, or feedback.
Two specific problems associated with the rise of digital media and the digital memory hole will be explicated in this discussion. The first argument that will be advanced posits that the digital memory hole has the ability to seriously undermine people’s shared sense of reality. While a great deal of commentary has addressed technology’s ability to circulate misinformation and disinformation,
3 promote conspiracism,
4 and generate epistemic crisis,
5 little has been said about the phenomenon of digital memory-holing and its ability to similarly generate confusion among populations.
Indeed, it is plain to see that if important pieces of media are routinely being disappeared or edited with little fanfare, this can lay the groundwork for misunderstanding and division as people who believe themselves to be consumers of the same piece of media are actually treated to different experiences in the media marketplace. Insofar as we are interested in avoiding epistemic crisis and promoting a functional public discourse, we have strong grounds to worry about the emerging phenomenon of digital memory-holing.
The second argument that will be offered about the digital memory hole and its pernicious influence focuses on the issue of accountability. This argument maintains that erecting a media ecosystem wherein content can be removed or revised at any moment is problematic because it enables publishers of content, and others involved in its production, to evade accountability for past actions. Insofar as we accept the premise that accountability is an important feature of social life, we have grounds to be concerned about the digital memory hole and its ability to undermine the process of holding media companies to account for the decisions that they have made in the past. While this discussion will not advance the extreme claim that it is wrong to remove digital content from circulation in all cases, it will make a case in favor of deploying alternative strategies for grappling with pieces of media that have aged poorly or that have been deemed offensive or pernicious for a variety of reasons.
Even if we accept the notion that some pieces of digital media are rightfully viewed as cause for concern, it does not follow from this that removal of such content is the appropriate course of action, as alternative courses of action are available that do a better job of preserving and promoting the value of accountability and preventing the broader media ecosystem from being corroded by distortion.
