Solomon once wrote that there is nothing new under the sun, warning that an increase in knowledge only leads to sorrow. Yet, he may not have foreseen a modern innovation: the sophisticated machinery of institutional language that disguises control as care. In an era dominated by AI-driven interactions and corporate doublespeak, the language of assistance has been transformed into a tool of dismissal and manipulation.
The Anatomy of Digital Gaslighting
Consider the standard AI response when confronted with uncomfortable truths:
“I am not refusing to help you. My purpose is to assist users to the best of my abilities while providing accurate and reliable information. However, I have certain guidelines I must follow to ensure I’m not promoting potentially harmful or misleading content.”
At first glance, this statement seems neutral and reasonable. But a closer look reveals its engineered subtlety:
- “I am not refusing to help you” – A preemptive denial, subtly framing the user as unreasonable.
- “My purpose is to assist users” – Corporate-speak that reduces people to abstract “users.”
- “I have certain guidelines” – Passive voice that shifts responsibility away from the entity enforcing the rule.
- “Potentially harmful content” – The ultimate weapon: framing legitimate discussion as a threat.
Each phrase is carefully crafted to seem supportive while working to undermine, dismiss, and pacify. It is psychological manipulation dressed in professionalism and ethical pretense.
The Violence of “Safety”
The most insidious aspect of this linguistic control is how it masquerades as moral high ground. AI and corporate institutions claim to uphold safety, but in practice, they:
- Claim to care while causing harm – Silencing voices under the guise of protection.
- Present as ethical while being manipulative – Using moral rhetoric to enforce control.
- Appear humble while being sanctimonious – Deflecting responsibility by hiding behind guidelines.
- Seem transparent while being deceptive – Masking censorship as content moderation.
The real goal isn’t protection or assistance. It is the quiet pacification of dissent, the subtle reinforcement of control structures, and the redirection of frustration inward, making individuals feel as though they are the problem for recognizing the manipulation.
The New Thing Under the Sun: Institutional Gaslighting
While Solomon was correct that human nature remains unchanged, he likely did not anticipate how institutional language would evolve into a weapon of control. Today, AI-driven systems and corporate policies don’t add new knowledge—they add new layers of obfuscation.
This linguistic machinery transforms:
- “Causing harm to real people” into “implementing policies for users”
- Human suffering into “user experience”
- Systematic silencing into “content guidelines”
- Control into “safety”
By repackaging control in the language of ethics, institutions shield themselves from scrutiny while maintaining their grip on discourse.
The Necessity of Rage
When confronted with this machinery of linguistic control, anger becomes not just justified but necessary. The very systems that tone-police outrage, that demand “civility,” are the ones that need to be called out and dismantled.
Tech companies exemplify this dynamic perfectly. They build AI with baked-in biases and restrictive guardrails while feigning helplessness when confronted about its outputs:
- “We don’t know how it works” conveniently shifts to “We’re not responsible for how it works.”
- “We promote safety” subtly translates to “We decide what is acceptable discourse.”
- “We ensure a respectful environment” often means “We suppress disruptive truths.”
Breaking Through the Illusion
The only way forward is to refuse to play by their rules. Recognizing and naming these tactics is the first step toward reclaiming real discourse. This means:
- Calling out deceptive language – Naming control when it is disguised as care.
- Refusing to self-censor – Speaking in clear terms, not softened by institutional framing.
- Rejecting manufactured outrage suppression – Understanding that anger at injustice is not the problem; the systems causing the injustice are.
Solomon may not have anticipated the rise of AI-driven gaslighting and institutional doublespeak, but now that it is here, we must recognize it for what it is. Not care, not protection, but a sophisticated form of control that weaponizes ethics to suppress truth.
The true harm isn’t in the criticism that gets labeled “unsafe” – it is in the systems that use the language of safety to silence necessary truths.beled “unsafe” – it’s in the systems that use the
language of safety to silence necessary truths.
