Abundant Information, Broken Access

 

Why fixing how we access information matters — and how it can be done.

 

ABSTRACT

We have more information than any generation before us, yet we see less, choose less, and understand less.

This is not a problem of content, but of access. As browsing and searching are gradually replaced by preselected feeds, our ability to orient ourselves, learn, and adapt begins to erode. This article looks at how this shift happens, why it matters, and how access to information could be corrected without rejecting technology or platforms altogether.

 

ABUNDANT INFORMATION, BROKEN ACCESS

We have access to more information than ever before, yet we use it less and less effectively.
The way we access information helps or hinders our ability to use specifically human capacities. To understand what is at stake, I start from the role information has played in human development.

WHAT THIS ARTICLE IS NOT

This is not an anti-technology manifesto, nor does it propose simple solutions or recipes. Its goal is to offer a framework for understanding, allowing each reader to better judge which forms of access to information are helpful and which are limiting.

THE KEY ABILITY OF HOMO SAPIENS

Homo sapiens did not prevail as a species through strength or biological specialization, but through a unique ability: access to a large pool of cumulative, shared knowledge and the capacity to specialize locally only when the context requires it.

Anthropology describes this strategy as that of a generalist–specialist: broad orientation toward the world, combined with rapid, contextual adaptation. This ability explains why Homo sapiens was able to occupy extremely diverse environments and, ultimately, the entire planet. [Note 1]

WHY CIVILIZATION APPEARS LATE

This capacity existed long before the emergence of civilization. For hundreds of thousands of years, Homo sapiens remained at a relatively stable level of organization.
Cultural acceleration appears only when communities become large enough and connected enough for ideas, practices, and symbols to circulate between groups and combine, starting with examples such as Göbekli Tepe. [Note 2]

 THE CIRCULATION OF IDEAS AS THE ENGINE OF EVOLUTION

Civilization does not begin with an individual leap in intelligence, but with the connection of multiple communities into a functional network of knowledge.
When ideas can circulate, be combined, and transmitted further, progress accelerates. Without such a network, even a capable species remains stalled.

 FROM COMMUNITIES TO ACCESS TO INFORMATION

The mechanism that made human progress possible is being tested today.
When access to information is replaced by the delivery of preselected content, navigation disappears and adaptation is impaired. The discussion about access to information is, at its core, a discussion about whether this mechanism is enabled or blocked.

 MODES OF ACCESS TO INFORMATION: BROWSE, SEARCH, AND PUSH

In everyday life, we interact with information in different ways.

Browse. Sometimes we navigate through a palette of options—newspapers, websites, news lists—and choose what interests us. Browse means navigation, exposure to diversity, and the construction of a general mental map of the world. It is the mechanism through which we become generalists in the first place: we learn what exists, where things are, and how they relate to one another.

Search. At other times we are curious or have a clear need to find something specific, and we use a search engine or documentation. Search is intentional inquiry, depth, and specialization. It works well only when a general map already exists through browsing and is often triggered by browsing itself: we encounter a new topic and become curious. [Note 3]

Push. Increasingly, however, information is delivered to us directly, preselected, sometimes as a single item, without the possibility to choose or compare. This is the push mode.

 BROWSE AND SEARCH: LEARNING AND SPECIALIZATION

During learning—childhood, school, and beyond—we discover the world primarily through browsing. Education provides a foundation of knowledge and helps us become generalists before any specialization occurs. Only later does the need for search emerge, as we deepen a domain and specialize.

From an early age, however, we are also exposed to push mechanisms, especially through advertising. The difference is that in the past, advertisements had dedicated spaces and were easy to recognize. Today, campaign-backed content is often delivered as “news” or “raw information,” without clear separation.

 A PROBLEMATIC TREND

There is a clear trend in which browsing (generalization) and searching (specialization) are diminished or distorted, while push becomes omnipresent.
Convenience makes this form of access appealing, but the difference is not merely one of comfort—it directly affects our ability—it directly affects our ability to function as generalist–specialists.

When browsing and searching disappear, we end up living either inside a permanent advertisement or inside an increasingly narrow personal bubble.

 CLASSIC BROWSE IN PRESS AND TELEVISION

Print media and television once offered a broad and clear form of browsing. People were exposed to diverse topics and news, even if these were not part of their direct interests. You might have cared only about football, yet you would still learn that athletics or hockey existed. You were also exposed to international news, not just to what happened in your own country.

This form of browsing:

• expanded the general mental map,
• created shared reference points at community level,
• naturally broke individual bubbles.

 DISTORTED BROWSE IN TELEVISION AND NEWS WEBSITES

There is also a degraded form of browsing in some television channels and news websites, where selection is no longer made for general orientation but to support an agenda.
Topics are deliberately chosen or omitted, sometimes exaggerated or built from minor facts, and analysis is pre-directed toward predetermined conclusions.

Formally, a palette of options still seems to exist. In reality, browsing is steered, and access to genuine alternatives and competing interpretations is limited.

 DIMINISHED BROWSE: SOCIAL MEDIA

On social media, browsing still exists—but in a diminished form. We see lists of topics and can choose what to read, yet these lists are no longer built on relevance for a broad community. Instead, they are personalized based on our previous choices.

Instead of seeing what is important or relevant to many, we see what is deemed suitable for us.

As a result:

• we remain captive within our own choice-based bubbles [Note 4],
• access to community-level options is reduced,
• inspiration for search declines, because we see less from outside our bubble.

Another form of diminution is artificial popularity. Some items are promoted through paid mechanisms and appear as “popular,” even though that popularity is manufactured. In essence, this is advertising disguised as neutral news or information.

 ABSOLUTE PUSH

The least useful and most easily manipulated form is absolute push: situations in which a single item (for example, a video) is presented directly, without any real possibility of choice or comparison.

In this case:

• the option to choose approaches zero,
• the usefulness of information for the individual decreases,
• vulnerability to manipulation reaches its maximum.

Here, neither browsing nor searching truly exists. Something—or someone—has already done them on your behalf. Technically, search may still exist, but the motivation to use it almost entirely disappears.

 CONSEQUENCES: ARE WE LIVING INSIDE AN AD?

The disappearance and distortion of browse and search, together with the growing dominance of push, have real and cumulative consequences.

First, individuals can no longer fully use their cognitive capacities. Information that would be practically useful—for health, parenting, professional adaptation, or informed political decisions—is no longer visible. Access is no longer guided by real needs, but by what others decide to deliver.

Without genuine browsing and active searching, such information is not discovered—even if it exists.

Ultimately, our understanding of the world deteriorates: captive within an advertising-like feed decided by others, individuals no longer build a coherent mental map of reality.

 THE SLEEP OF REASON, TECHNOLOGIZED

When browsing and searching disappear and push becomes dominant, it is not only individual orientation that vanishes. Mechanisms of informational manipulation—especially political and ideological—begin to thrive.

We often complain about advertisements for products and services, but these are relatively well regulated and easy to recognize. Political and ideological manipulation, by contrast, is far less regulated and can take many forms.

In this context, information can be delivered as “news,” “analysis,” or “opinion” without being marked as promotion. Artificial public agendas can be constructed, critical moments in elections influenced, and political or ideological support obtained through financial investment—without transparency or accountability. This is no longer information, but perception engineering.

 WHAT CAN BE DONE

The problem is not the existence of browse, search, or push, but how they are used. A healthy information system uses all three—but in different roles.

• Browse must exist as a human orientation mechanism. It builds the general map and makes diversity visible. Without browse, curiosity does not arise and search is not triggered.
• Search must remain an intentional act. It enables specialization and depth, but functions properly only when orientation has already been established through browsing.
• Push can exist—but not without alternatives. It may be useful for entertainment, but becomes harmful when it eliminates choice and replaces browsing and searching.

 HOW THIS CAN BE DONE

Solutions do not require banning any mode of access but offering real and visible alternatives.

• Core principle: push is acceptable only if a visible browsing alternative exists.
  A platform may prioritize a single-item feed (for example, video), but it must clearly and accessibly offer a list-based alternative where users can see multiple options and choose what to consume.
• Access to a generic, non-personalized feed. A feed built on common criteria (public relevance, timeliness) pulls users out of bubbles and restores the orientation role of classic browsing. Personalization without an exit option becomes captivity.
• Browse by categories, not only personalized feeds. The ability to choose category-based feeds (Sports, World News, Economy) offers more focused browsing while preserving user control and option visibility.
• Visible and non-penalized search. Explicit search must remain easy to access and lead to relevant results. It should not be hidden in the interface, diverted into recommendations, or replaced by prepackaged answers that close exploration.

 A PRACTICAL “REVOLUTION”

No radical solutions are needed. It is enough for information systems not to block the basic mechanisms through which people orient themselves and specialize.
Choice must remain possible. Without it, access to information ceases to be a tool for adaptation and becomes merely a stream of stimuli.

  CONCLUSION

We are not facing a crisis of information, but a crisis of access.

When browsing and searching are diminished and push becomes dominant, people can no longer build a coherent mental map of the world they live in, nor can they make informed choices about what is useful to them. Choice and orientation are not matters of comfort—they are conditions for understanding, adaptation, and informed decision-making.

 

END NOTES

[1] Homo sapiens as a “generalist–specialist.” Recent research suggests that Homo sapiens occupied a distinct ecological niche compared to other hominin species, based on the combination of broad general orientation with local and temporary specializations, supported by cumulative knowledge and cultural transmission.

Source: Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology

https://www.shh.mpg.de/1021619/general-specialist-homo-sapiens

[2] Göbekli Tepe is frequently cited as an example of complex pre-agricultural community organization, suggesting the existence of social, symbolic, and cooperative networks before the emergence of agriculture.

Source: National Geographic

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/article/gobeki-tepe

[3] Information Foraging Theory describes how people explore information and decide when to deepen their inquiry, in a manner analogous to resource foraging in nature (Pirolli & Card). The theory highlights the role of exploration (browse, as defined in this article) in triggering intentional search (search, as defined in this article), directly corresponding to the access modes discussed here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_foraging

This model (from the current article) was developed independently, based on empirical observation of feed-based information systems and their societal effects.
Only after the model was articulated did I become aware of Information Foraging Theory, which partially overlaps in describing user behavior in browse and search contexts, but does not address push-based systems or their political and social implications.

[4] Filter Bubble / Selective Exposure. The filter bubble concept describes the effects of excessive personalization on information exposure, reducing access to alternative perspectives and fostering informational isolation (Eli Pariser). This phenomenon is closely linked to the algorithmic personalization mechanisms described here as “diminished browse.”