Digital platforms and the politics of preserving orthodoxy

By Bhabani Shankar Nayak* 

The digital revolution has not only created a post-truth society shaped by an industry of manipulation, misinformation, and deepfakes; it has also fundamentally transformed the global scam economy, affecting millions of people worldwide. Criminals increasingly exploit digital platforms and technologies to defraud unsuspecting individuals. According to the Global Anti-Scam Alliance (GASA), people lost more than US$1.03 trillion to digital scams, while the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has described the rapid growth of online fraud and cybercrime as a "scamdemic."

Yet digital deception extends far beyond financial fraud. The technology-driven digital revolution has produced what may be called a techno-traditionalist paradox: people increasingly use advanced technologies and digital platforms not to challenge inherited orthodoxies but to preserve and promote reactionary ideas and practices in the name of religion, tradition, and culture. Rather than expanding critical consciousness, these technological developments often reinforce social conformity, obstructing progressive social, political, and economic transformation.

The paradox is striking. Criminal organisations and terrorist groups exploit encrypted messaging applications and sophisticated digital technologies for illicit activities. At the same time, religious conservatives employ social media, artificial intelligence, and immersive digital technologies to generate hyper-realistic religious symbols, avatars, and virtual experiences designed to attract younger generations. Governments deploy digital technologies to monitor and regulate citizens, while religious institutions increasingly use YouTube and other audiovisual platforms to conduct prayers, rituals, and ceremonies that once required the physical presence of priests, imams, rabbis, or other religious authorities. Digital technologies thus reproduce sacred spaces in virtual form, extending rather than diminishing the influence of religious orthodoxy.

Contemporary theories of "multiple modernities" and "digital modernity" often celebrate the coexistence of technological progress with diverse cultural traditions. Yet such frameworks frequently overlook how digital capitalism accommodates and even strengthens reactionary social relations in the name of cultural pluralism, religious tolerance, and moral relativism. This accommodation fosters a culture of compliance that serves the requirements of capitalism while discouraging transformative social change. The relativism celebrated as cultural sensitivity often becomes a justification for preserving hierarchical social relations rather than challenging them.

Technology undoubtedly increases the productive power of labour. However, it does not necessarily foster scientific consciousness or critical awareness among those whose labour sustains technological development. Although technological innovation was expected to promote emancipatory social change, the digital revolution—through its endless cycle of updates, disruptions, and innovations—has increasingly reproduced and commercialised reactionary traditions, religious beliefs, and cultural practices that remain compatible with patriarchy, feudal social relations, and capitalist accumulation.

Platforms such as YouTube have not simply displaced the authority of priests, rabbis, imams, and other religious gatekeepers; they have transformed religious practice into a digitally mediated and monetised experience. This is not necessarily a democratisation of religion, nor does it carry an inherently emancipatory potential. Rather, digital platforms facilitate religious performance while extracting rents through advertising, subscriptions, data collection, and algorithmic engagement. Religion becomes another commodity within the platform economy, where spiritual engagement generates commercial value.

The contradictions are visible in everyday digital life. A religious sermon or online prayer session may be interrupted by advertisements for pharmaceutical products, consumer goods, or luxury lifestyles. The libidinal economy of capitalism and the promise of religious salvation coexist seamlessly within the same digital ecosystem. This convergence is not merely accidental. It reflects a digital political economy in which platforms commodify both desire and devotion while reinforcing existing social hierarchies.

Like traditional religious institutions, digital platforms increasingly shape consciousness by reproducing established cultural and religious practices rather than encouraging critical reflection. The algorithmic logic of the digital revolution has not dismantled reactionary traditions in the way that earlier phases of industrialisation weakened certain forms of patriarchal authority and inherited social hierarchies. Instead, algorithms frequently amplify emotionally charged religious, cultural, and ideological content because it generates greater engagement and higher advertising revenues.

Neither digital technologies nor religious interventions have substantially improved the material conditions of working people. The digital revolution has failed to bridge the widening social and economic divide between rich and poor. Instead, the emergence of AI-powered religious chatbots and virtual spiritual assistants signals a new phase in which artificial intelligence serves theological as well as commercial purposes. These systems promise spiritual guidance while simultaneously generating revenue through subscriptions, data extraction, and user engagement. Within this digital ecosystem, "like," "subscribe," and "share" increasingly acquire the status of quasi-religious obligations.

Digital deception has therefore expanded beyond financial fraud into the social, cultural, religious, and spiritual lives of ordinary people. As rent-seeking digital capitalism penetrates ever deeper into everyday life, it commodifies both material needs and spiritual aspirations. Countering this trend requires a fundamentally different digital future—one grounded in scientific inquiry, secular and pluralistic knowledge traditions, democratic governance, and collective ownership of digital infrastructures. Such an alternative would challenge the rent-seeking logic of platform capitalism while ensuring that technological innovation serves the public good rather than commercial and ideological domination.

If AI-driven technological development—and indeed any knowledge tradition—ceases to question established power and instead promotes conformity, it loses its emancipatory and democratic potential. Knowledge then becomes an instrument of domination rather than liberation. Reclaiming artificial intelligence, digital technologies, and knowledge production for the benefit of society is therefore essential if technology is to contribute to peace, equality, and shared prosperity rather than to new forms of digital deception and ideological control.

---

*Academic based in UK