Suffering in the Prison of Collective Digital Memory

Existence is no longer a luxury in the digital media era. In previous times, existence began with conventional analogue media. Individuals with uniqueness—such as state officials, scientists who made beneficial discoveries, film stars skilled in their roles or with striking beauty, or athletes with stacks of championship medals—were featured as news topics.

Even when criminals or those accused of legal violations were covered by the media, the focus was on their misdeeds, not their personal existence. This served as a reminder to the public to avoid similar actions.

Under this system, an initially unknown individual could become exceptional through a selection process that filtered out the abundance of others. Consequently, the analogue media era also formed elite groups—those with the privilege of media exposure, limited to a select few.

Behind this, the selection process aimed to manage the limited space and time available to media, compared to the unlimited number of individuals seeking coverage. Thus, what was featured had to possess exceptional value, known as news value. Without it, coverage would only clutter the media.

The discussion of news value becomes intriguing because it lacks quantitative indicators; its formula depends on interpretation. As a result, in the analogue media era, interpreters wielded power. Newsroom leaders in print media, television programme producers, and film directors or casting decision-makers became figures of great authority. Those who lived in the analogue media era might easily recall some of these power holders.

In the digital media landscape, the notion of exceptionalism in news value has become irrelevant. With the requirement of being of age, having a mobile device, and an email address, anyone can access it. They can use it to announce their existence. The formula for truly existing, even becoming famous, is remarkably simple: consistency.

In other words, through persistent self-presentation via digital media uploads, someone will be remembered by the public. Rather than needing to be exceptional, even unappealing content, if consistent, enters the collective memory of the audience. At the very least, as a memory of its unattractiveness. As simple as that.

This collective memory of the public is stored in digital media, hence often called digital memory. It can be accessed by anyone without limitations of space or time. The memory system, previously reliant on analogue methods—archiving, documentation, museology—has advanced. Specifically, when the data forming the memory is converted to digital form.

Thus, it can be stored on digital media with unlimited capacity. This storage also enables real-time data transmission via the internet. An illustration is the use of search engines. If a certain memory is forgotten, access to related information can be requested. Human subjects, topics of discussion, or events in any space and time can be retrieved. In other words: they can be collectively remembered again.

Relevant to this discussion, Alice Bell in 2012, in “Memory in The Digital Age”, states approximately: the internet’s ability to store information with unlimited capacity enhances humanity’s collective social memory.

Furthermore, Bell characterises this digital collective social memory as: first, more things that were once temporary can now be stored online, intentionally or unintentionally. Second, memories become increasingly public, even social.

These two characteristics can be interpreted as: because collective memory is stored online, it can be accessed via any digital medium used by the public. Once accessed, the memory data is stored on the public’s devices. The memory only perishes if the last holder of it agrees to delete it.

Consequently, digital collective memory will be preserved forever, whether desired or not. Another consequence is that when memory storage can be accessed by anyone, it becomes the collective memory of the public. Then the question arises: what if the stored data is incorrect? And what if the memory concerns a mistake that has already been atoned for?

When George Santayana, in 1905, wrote in his book “The Life of Reason: The Phases of Human Progress”, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. This can be interpreted as: ignoring history—including past mistakes—will lead to their repetition.

And reality is indeed like that: what is certain from history is its repetition, due to forgetting its lessons. Conversely, in an individual’s digital collective social memory, the difficulty lies in forgetting.

Its online storage and unlimited access make collective memory almost eternal. This is certainly a curse for the individual who remains collectively remembered. Not only for atoned mistakes, but also for those never committed yet still recorded. The irony of digital memory.

Is there no right for the self to be forgotten from collective memory? The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), based on a 2014 European Court decision, includes the concept of the right to be forgotten. It states, “The data subject has the right to request the erasure of personal data concerning them from the controller without undue delay. And the controller is obliged to erase the personal data without undue delay”.

Regarding the right to be forgotten, one philosophical perspective states: