Safespeak

I think something will change in the way we speak. And in a disturbing way: we'll move from speaking spontaneously to using language designed to survive constant surveillance.

Every conversation we have gets recorded. Every message, every video call, every meeting is transcribed, indexed, converted into permanent text. And I think people, aware of this, will start speaking differently.

Writing was born as a technology to prevent forgetting. Sumerian tablets recorded transactions because words disappeared with the wind. We wrote so that something would remain. Today, the paradox seems inverse: everything remains automatically. Every word you speak on a video call becomes "searchable" text. You no longer need to write to remember—the machine does it for you.

We could be building, conversation after conversation, something like the perfect panopticon. When you know your call is being recorded, you behave differently. You calibrate your words, moderate your tone, avoid spontaneity.

At first we're conscious of the recording. We speak more formally, avoid certain topics. It's uncomfortable. But over time, surveillance becomes naturalized. We forget we're being recorded. Or more precisely: we integrate surveillance into our natural way of communicating.

We don't stop being observed. We stop noticing that we're being observed.

It's a distributed, horizontal surveillance, where we're all simultaneously watchers and watched. The panopticon is everywhere and nowhere.

When everything is being recorded, when every conversation can become evidence, we seem to develop what we could call safespeak: a language designed to survive later scrutiny. Calculated ambiguity, constant disclaimers, stock phrases that don't compromise.

A language that is, by design, ambiguous, interpretable, deniable if necessary.

The price perhaps isn't measured in freedom of expression—we'll continue being free to say what we want—but in something more subtle: authenticity. When every conversation is potentially public, when every record is permanent, where's the space left for provisional thinking, for expressed doubt, for shared vulnerability?

We used to think writing would survive as cognitive prosthesis. That there was a fundamental difference between speaking and writing… and now the spoken word is also irrevocable.

The distinction between oral and written collapses when both are equally traceable.

Maybe we still write not to record what we already know, but to discover what we don't yet know that we know. But we do it knowing that even the discovery process gets documented.

If writing is going to survive only as a thinking exercise, then it should be real thinking, complex, contradictory.

I wonder how safespeak will affect our natural way of thinking. And if it will also affect our written texts.

Self-censoring not from fear of external consequences, but because we've already integrated surveillance into our inner voice.

–

Follow me on LinkedIn to stay updated on new posts.

–

Written with the help of an AI assistant for documentation and trained on my previous texts.