Who Holds the Power to Know? Epistemic Control from Print to Platform

How has knowledge been curated and controlled throughout history?
Who decides what is known, preserved, or forgotten?

These questions have shaped societies for centuries. Traditionally, knowledge was governed by institutions such as universities, publishers, libraries, and media organisations. These entities acted as gatekeepers, determining what counted as legitimate, what was disseminated, and what was left invisible.

This module offers a historical lens on the evolution of epistemic authority, preparing you to critically compare traditional systems of knowledge curation with today’s AI-driven algorithms. By the end of the module, you will be able to trace the shifts in control and visibility, and reflect on what is gained—and what might be lost—as authority migrates from human institutions to machine-driven systems

The authority to curate and disseminate knowledge has historically rested with institutions such as universities, publishers, and professional bodies, which upheld epistemic legitimacy through mechanisms like peer review, citation practices, and established academic protocols (Shoemaker & Vos, 2009).

In today’s digital age, however, this authority is increasingly contested. While algorithms—automated rules for ranking and sorting—have long existed in digital systems, a significant shift has emerged with the rise of AI-driven technologies. These systems do not simply follow fixed rules; they learn, predict, and optimise content based on engagement metrics, commercial incentives, and user behaviour—often at the expense of scholarly value (Pasquale, 2015; Gillespie, 2018).

As such, AI-powered platforms now function as invisible gatekeepers, deciding what knowledge becomes visible, what is sidelined, and what disappears altogether—often driven by opaque corporate objectives and patterns of interaction (Noble, 2018; Zuboff, 2019).

This raises pressing concerns within digital education. The foundational values of accuracy, equity, and credibility are increasingly shaped by infrastructures of visibility that prioritise virality over rigour. In this module, we explore the historical role of institutional authority in knowledge production and contrast it with the algorithmic systems that now determine what we know and how we come to know it.

Video Resource (Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

Religious institutions, universities, monarchies, and later, publishers and media organisations have long served as the key authorities in deciding what knowledge is created, shared, and preserved.

This video offers a concise overview of how knowledge dissemination and gatekeeping have evolved; from the feudal era’s scribes and scholars, through the rise of the printing press, to today’s internet platforms. It highlights the shifting mechanisms of control, authority, and access over time.

Put on your thinking cap:
How have the mechanisms of knowledge control changed from feudal times to the present digital age?
Reflect on the differences in who controls information, how legitimacy is determined, and what is prioritised in each era.

📜 Timeline of Knowledge Gatekeeping

Pre-Print Era
The Printing Revolution
The Rise of Scientific Journals and Universities
Mass Media and Public Knowledge
The Internet and Search Engines
AI-Driven Curation

This timeline highlights a critical transformation in how knowledge has been curated across history.

In earlier eras, traditional gatekeeping relied on human oversight, through editorial judgement, peer review, and institutional validation. What was published or taught was often rooted in expertise and filtered through rigorous evaluative processes.

By contrast, algorithmic gatekeeping in the digital age prioritises content based on data-driven engagement metrics—such as clicks, likes, and watch time. Content is selected, amplified, or buried not on the basis of scholarly merit, but on its potential to hold attention or drive traffic.

This shift raises important questions, especially in educational contexts. Expertise still matters, but only if it aligns with the logic of the platform. As a result, deeply informative resources may remain invisible, while sensational or entertaining content gains prominence.

Put on your thinking cap:
If AI now serves as the primary curator of knowledge, what are the consequences for knowledge integrity, accessibility, and long-term preservation?
Reflect on what may be lost—or gained—when algorithms take the place of human judgement in determining what is worth knowing.

🔍 Tracing Knowledge Gatekeepers

In this activity, you’ll explore the Internet Archive to examine historical materials that reflect how knowledge has been controlled, preserved, or erased throughout time.

Use the following search terms to guide your exploration:

"Epistemic authority" — Find historical books or papers that explore who holds the power to define what counts as knowledge.
"Censorship and knowledge" — Look for examples of banned books, silenced voices, or state-controlled information.
"Printing press revolution" — Discover early writings that reveal how the printing press disrupted traditional forms of gatekeeping.
"Disappearing knowledge" — Investigate cases where knowledge was erased, lost, or deliberately suppressed over time.

Choose one set of keywords and locate an interesting source (a book, document, or article).
Analyse your chosen source and respond to the following questions.

What is the title and year of the source you found?
Who created or published this work?
How does the source describe knowledge gatekeeping or censorship?
Is this document still relevant today? Why or why not?

Post your answers on the shared Padlet wall.

Readings & Reflections

How do today’s algorithms parallel historical gatekeepers in determining what is “useful” or “visible” knowledge?

"Gatekeeping: Who Defined 'Useful Knowledge' in Early Modern Times?"
Karel Davids — Open License: ResearchGate (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
"Open Access Is Not Forever: A Study of Vanished Open Access Journals"
Mikael Laakso, Lisa Matthias, and Najko Jahn — Open License: arXiv (CC BY 4.0)

Karel Davids (2015) reminds us that gatekeeping has always been socially and politically constructed. In early modern Europe, decisions over what constituted “useful knowledge” were shaped not by neutrality or universalism, but by institutions that privileged military, economic, or religious utility. These early forms of epistemic gatekeeping were embedded in elite power structures, shaping the boundaries between legitimate knowledge and marginal ideas. This historical perspective is important, as it shows that the authority to define and curate knowledge has never been neutral, even before the digital age.

Fast-forward to today, and we face a different but similarly structured challenge. As Laakso, Matthias, and Jahn (2021) demonstrate, even open-access digital knowledge is not immune to erasure. Hundreds of once-public journals have disappeared, calling into question the sustainability and preservation of knowledge in our supposedly open era. Their study shows that openness does not guarantee permanence, and that digital infrastructure requires active curation, maintenance, and institutional support.

At the same time, Zuboff (2019) argues that platform capitalism reshapes visibility around engagement, profitability, and behavioural prediction, not truth or utility. Algorithms increasingly determine what gets surfaced in search results, recommendations, and timelines, not based on educational or epistemic worth, but on what drives clicks, shares, and monetisation. Pasquale (2015) labels this the "black box society," where decision-making processes are proprietary and hidden, making algorithmic power unaccountable.

Together, these readings draw a stark picture: knowledge in the digital era is precariously situated between historic forms of institutional gatekeeping and new algorithmic mechanisms of control. The tools we use to access, filter, and share knowledge are now often commercially owned and algorithmically driven, reshaping what is preserved and what is forgotten.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse