If you are reading this, congratulations. You are part of a shrinking segment of the population.
According to the cover story in this month’s issue of The Atlantic, which warns that we are entering not so much an illiterate but “post-literate” era, fewer than 16 percent of Americans queried in 2023 for a Time Use survey reported reading for pleasure.
The 2025 Canadian Leisure and Reading study estimates that that number is closer to one quarter of Canadians. Still, the trajectory is clear: fewer of us are spending sustained time with the written word. Engaging with books, magazines, newspapers, eBooks, even websites, is in rapid decline.
The Atlantic article’s author, Rose Horowitch, claims that people instead are bombarded nowadays with an “explosion of textual fragments” — texts, emails, social media captions, threads. And of course, video — in the form of television, YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, and the like — has been supplanting reading for decades. In other words, fewer of us are “on the same page,” as the old saying goes, with wide-ranging implications.
This doesn’t mean that we behave more individualistically. Far from it. Mass control is arguably easier in a moment when we are splintered into ever-smaller media niches, cobbling together information from modular combinations of more or less authoritative sources and forms.

Alexander R. Galloway’s book Protocol: How Control Exists after Decentralization, was written in 2004, at the dawn of social media as we now know it. We thought of social networks at that time as community configurations that were built and maintained largely through real-world connections.
In the ensuing 22 years, that notion has shifted significantly as we increasingly measure our social circles by our friend and follower counts on digital profiles and social apps. Galloway contended that the protocological character of computer code would replace the requisite for state force: “Protocol is to control societies as the panopticon is to disciplinary societies,” Galloway claimed.
Galloway wrote his book in the tradition of Gilles Deleuze’s “Postscript on the Societies of Control.” The personal computer, Deleuze argued, had ushered in a new generation of Control society to follow the Foucauldian Disciplinary society. Older institutions like school, church, prison, hospital, and factory, were being substituted by digital simulations of these that at first appeared to express new freedoms but ultimately represented mechanisms of control that were “equal to the harshest of confinements.” We now know that algorithms are digital gateways that restrain us unless we pay our way out with some form of capital: labour; credit; currency; desire.
The circulation of information and the way we collectively behave based upon that information began to be conceived of differently in the wake of the 21st century’s digital social networks. Groups started to arrange and act less like humans and more like viruses. Clay Shirky, who now holds the post of Vice Provost for A.I. and Technology in Education at New York University, wrote in his 2008 book Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing without Organizations, that with the rise of newly powerful online social networks, people were “willing and even eager to come together and affect the world.” Digital social tools, Shirky maintained, “remove the obstacles” to collective action.
Whether that action, or the obstacles to it, are detrimental or beneficial is irrelevant to its protocological formation. Freedom or bondage are understood contrarily when protocol rather than physical force is authority’s governing mechanism. Individuals and groups behave fundamentally differently when the fear of physical violence is abstracted. We might, for instance, carefully watch our words in a public space when we could get punched in the nose for saying something offensive. But that same offensive remark is effectively managed online because of the algorithmic regulation of protocological code. Friction produces engagement.

It is interesting to observe anecdotally that real-world social organization seems to have attained new levels of efficiency and effectiveness in the years since digital tools “removed the obstacles” to collective conduct. It is as if protocol has trained us en masse to behave all the more orderly offline, too.
I noticed this phenomenon this week at the Orchestre Metropolitain’s annual outdoor concert held in Montreal each summer. In previous years, I have observed far more chaos from the crowd of fifty or so thousand people that congregate at the foot of Parc Mont Royal. This year, it almost appeared as though people acted like bits of data defragmenting on a hard drive, self-organizing and compartmentalizing discretely like some unseen social algorithm governed them. It was possibly the most orderly case of crowd control that I had ever seen.
Maybe this could be put down to the type of mass activity — unity around classical music rather than, say, a sporting event that tends to divide its audiences. Maybe Yannick Nézet-Séguin’s baton has the power to conduct not only the orchestra but its listeners as well. But this is magical thinking. What I actually believe is that mass control has gone viral in protocol’s wake. Fear of state discipline has not been removed like some obstacle to collective action. Rather, protocological discipline has shored up and reinforced it.
“We have created an infinity of variety at the information level,” wrote William S. Burroughs in The Third Mind, “sufficient to keep so-called scientists busy forever exploring the ‘richness of nature.’” Burroughs’s “routines,” living on the border of science-fiction and revelation, were the inspiration behind Deleuze’s conception of Control society. Burroughs also imagined technical code as a virus, a “word virus” that when released would infect every individual imperceptibly. “Universal literacy with a concomitant control of word and image,” Burroughs noted, “is now the instrument of control.”
Our digital social tools, which train us to envision ourselves as immaterial, and that encourage us to read less deeply, less collectively, paradoxically fortify our social corporeality with explosions of textual shards embedding into our consciousness like shrapnel from a cluster bomb, virally infecting us and making us mutually susceptible to the subtlest forms of social control.
The post-literate age lives and dies by the word.◼︎
Cover image: Yannick Nézet-Séguin by Tam Photography for Orchestre Metropolitain.






















You must be logged in to post a comment.