Redefining Lost Media - Forgotten Content vs. Present Day Censorship.
- Jono
- Mar 21, 2023
- 8 min read
Updated: Apr 6, 2023
Explore the age-old debate surrounding lost media, as we investigate the causes, effects, and implications of censorship in the digital age.
Key Takeaways
Lost media refers to creative works that are missing, censored, or unavailable to the public due to political or cultural forces as well as accidental events or natural disasters.
Examples include popular culture, where censorship led to the controversies surrounding Stanley Kubrick's film "Eyes Wide Shut" and the removal of 24 minutes of ‘lost media’ footage.
Censorship today is dictated by broadcasters, distributors, and government authorities, often leading to silencing opposition and problematic cultural movements, thus sparking debates about who has the right to decide what is or isn't allowed.
Lost media and censorship ultimately leads to the oppression of ideas, lack of freedom for self-expression, and challenges to democracy and human rights.
Strategies to challenge unjust censorship include reaching a critical mass of public support for change, mass-media production to combat algorithmic censorship, blockchain technology for decentralisation and transparency, and supporting alternative platforms that promote freedom of speech.
What is Lost Media?
“Lost media are pieces of media that are nonexistent, missing, or unavailable to the general public.” - Wikipedia
Lost media, also known as deleted media, refers to any form of creative work — such as books, films, television shows, and music— that has been censored or destroyed by cultural or political forces. From the book burnings of the Spanish Inquisition, to the banning of The Simpsons in Venezuela, China and North Korea, ‘lost media’ disappears from public awareness for a variety of reasons. The masses may consider media too controversial or blasphemous, whereas authorities and rulers may deem media too transgressive and a threat in need of censorship. Alternatively, media may simply be lost due to technical glitches or other accidental events.
Lost media also encompasses any artistic creation that has gradually lost its acclaim and no longer holds the esteemed position it once enjoyed. Physical artworks suffering a similar fate are usually referred to as ‘lost works’.
Censorship in Popular Culture: Eyes Wide Shut - 'The Missing Footage' Case Study
A noteworthy case of lost media in popular culture is the controversy surrounding Stanley Kubrick's film "Eyes Wide Shut." The film, released in 1999, features provocative themes and explicit content, which led to significant debate and censorship.
The original cut of the film included an additional 24 minutes of footage, with further edits being made by Warner Brothers studio on the shortened version to secure an R rating in the United States. These excised scenes were rumoured to contain even more controversial material, further exploring the themes of sexuality, power, and most notably secret societies. The removal of this footage not only sparked discussions about artistic integrity but also fuelled speculation about the reasons behind the censorship, with some suggesting that the removed scenes may have exposed sensitive information about global elites. In this case, the censorship of "Eyes Wide Shut" raises questions about the role of artistic expression and the potential influence of external forces on creative works.
You can find plenty of videos discussing the film online; here's a balanced and somewhat cautious video exploring the topic:
The missing 24 minutes of film merely hints at the broader issue of how lost media, deleted media and withheld information in general, can censor ideas and hinder investigations into the truth. Consider YouTube’s self-censorship as an example.
Upon watching the above video, you might notice that YouTube has concealed the dislike counter in an attempt to 'discourage trolls'; a decision which was made in September of 2021. But why is this significant? The video currently displays a respectable 2600 likes, but would your opinion of the content change if you were aware that a further 1600 people had disliked the video at the time of writing this article?
Equipped with the knowledge that 40% of people disagreed with the perspective shown in the video, would you perhaps question and scrutinise what you’d seen more than you otherwise would have? Undoubtedly, forming your own opinion is crucial. However, considering both negative and positive aspects and examining diverse perspectives are essential for developing a well-informed viewpoint, right?
If you were wondering how we could see dislikes, download this Chrome extension:
Additionally, take a moment to browse the YouTube comments. Observe the variety of ideas, critiques, and debates surrounding Kubrick's lost media. Imagine if the video's publisher had deleted the comments as many mainstream media companies do today, you (the viewer), would be left with a video that appears to have a consensus of agreement (2.6K likes with no visible dislikes) and no available discussion about the content presented to suggest otherwise...
Your perspective would be manipulated by the ‘lost’ comments and ‘dislikes’ related to a video discussing lost media! You get the point.
How can the public be truly informed if there are deliberate efforts by some to restrict the information from which they can learn? How are we supposed to grow and develop as individuals if the opportunity to discern between right, wrong, and the 'grey' is withheld from us, as if we are incapable of understanding or taking responsibility for our own opinions?
Who Decides What is Allowed and What is Not?
Censorship, especially during the digital age, is a subjective issue, with different people having contrasting opinions on what should be allowed on social media. The spread of what is commonly referred to as ‘misinformation’ or ‘fake news’ regularly results in online echo-chambers of reaffirming beliefs and the comfort of shared enemies such as: Left vs. Right, Men vs. Women, White People vs. People of Colour, and so on. Ultimately, decisions surrounding censorship of media lies with the respective broadcasters, distributors and government authorities, who generally adhere to predetermined standards and regulations in an attempt to avoid presenting content that may be seen as controversial or offensive. Unfortunately for them, what one group deems as harmless, another may deem inappropriate, which in turn can lead to censorship debates over certain pieces of media and discussions on who has the right to decide on behalf of us all.
Ponder for a moment, who has the right to tell you what you can and cannot think, read or discuss?
I’d argue no one is, regardless of how unpleasant or potentially harmful ‘they’ believe it may be—although, this shouldn’t be confused with actions without consequences... If sunlight is indeed the best disinfectant, your opinion could become the target that requires ‘cleansing’ by the light, but is that necessarily a bad thing? Aren't we meant to be challenged by others, to engage in debates and learn from diverse perspectives that consequently reshape our understanding of each other’s and our own subjective realities? After all, a consensus can only be reached if all opposing viewpoints are heard; it is essential to recognise that an individual's perception of reality, shaped by their unique human experience, may diverge from the commonly accepted objective truths many of us don’t think to question. Therefore, only by considering and entertaining such ideas can we discern their legitimacy, and develop our ever-changing understanding of reality.
How Does Censorship Affect Society?
Some may argue that ignorance is bliss, as exemplified by the iconic red vs blue pill ultimatum depicted in the Matrix. This idea leaves many questioning whether or not being exposed to an overwhelming storm of information is in their best interests, or whether or not information is best kept drip-fed to the masses, for those who care in the first place to listen…
Many quite rightly view censorship as a form of control by authoritative figures; censorship often leads to the oppression of ideas, voices and a lack of freedom for many to express themselves, as content is often deemed inappropriate even if it carries an important cultural or political message. The justification for this is often aligned with the idea of serving the ‘greater good’, or of course, more understandably, to prevent erroneous information from spreading and undermining due process. However, when certain pieces of media are censored, people are often left without the context they need in order to make informed decisions, which in turn can lead to reaffirmed beliefs that ‘this must be the truth, otherwise ‘they’ would never have censored it’. This can lead to accusations that the government or other powerful supranational organisations, are attempting to control information and opinions which ultimately leads to a challenge of democracy and human rights. But could that be the case?
100% Yes.
TikTok creatives are already creating and using new words to describe topics that would otherwise get their account banned or content blocked. Simple examples include ‘suicide’, which is commonly replaced with the ‘new-speak’ term: ‘un-alived’. Similarly, discussing divergent ideas on particular topics, such as medicine and healthcare (especially since the COVID-19 pandemic), can lead to a variety of consequences, ranging from limitations on post-reach, outright account-bans, or having platform verification stripped from credentialed individuals, all in a bid to punish or de-legitimise voices for expressing non-conforming ideology.
Taking Action - Steps for Challenging Unjust Censorship
Despite the fatalistic acceptance that ‘they’ cannot be beaten, and therefore, there’s nothing that can be done to safeguard lost media and challenge censorship, recent developments would suggest otherwise. From the rise of platforms like Rumble, to parliament back-benchers blocking iterations of the Online Safety Bill, that would have otherwise enabled Ofcom to enforce ‘duty of care’ on ‘harmful, rather than ‘illegal’ content, democratic countries especially have the capacity to enact change to censorship laws.
To instil change, a movement must reach what is referred to as ‘critical mass’. Political scientist Erica Chenoweth and sociologist Maria J. Stephan, in their book "Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict" (2011), analysed various nonviolent and violent resistance movements from 1900 to 2006. They observed that every single nonviolent campaign succeeded when it amassed an active and sustained participation of just 3.5% of the population (critical mass).
It's crucial to recognise that the 3.5% figure is not a fixed rule but an empirical observation derived from the cases studied. Still, it appears there's more hope than you may have otherwise assumed…
Another promising strategy to defend freedom of speech comes in the form of blockchain technology, here are some ways blockchain can help combat censorship:
Decentralised storage: Blockchain allows for the distribution of data across a network of computers and ensures that no single point of failure exists.
Immutability: It is nearly impossible to alter or delete information once it is recorded on the blockchain without the consensus of the network.
Transparency and verifiability: Blockchain's public nature allows anyone to view and verify transactions or data stored on it, making it difficult for acts of suppression or censorship to go unnoticed.
Encrypted communication: Blockchain technology can facilitate secure, encrypted communication channels resistant to surveillance and censorship.
Decentralised platforms and applications: Blockchain technology can be used to build decentralised applications and platforms, including social media platforms like Odysee, that are not controlled by any single entity.
Learn more about Odysee here:
As you can see, the future is not as bleak as many would have you believe, but that doesn’t mean we should be naive to the dangers of exposing, offending and simply speaking your mind. With the right tactics and some determination, it's possible to challenge existing censorship rules and bring greater freedom of expression to all.
As you may have realised, our mission is to make the term ‘lost media’ a historic term without relevance in the present day.
We intend to ironically replace the common association of the term ‘lost media’ with our company, which will pave the way to safeguarding all media from censorship, through mass-scale content production, platform independence, and monetised content funnels that can fund the continuation of this media machine.
Long story short, lost media may be gone forever, but our Lost Media is here to stay.
Thank you for taking the time to read this and let me know what you think in the comments (I promise not to delete them even if I disagree with them!😉)...
Comments