Media Revolutions from Gutenberg to TikTok
What the 19th-century press explosion reveals about today’s AI-driven content economy.
Paris, 19 November 1823. At sunrise, rue des Fossés-Montmartre awakes slowly. On this narrow street behind the Palais-Royal, the presses at Didot’s printing house begin to roll. The smell of ink, hot lead, and damp paper drifts through open windows. Apprentices carry fresh broadsheets out to the sidewalk. Just around the corner, on rue du Croissant, editors and writers gather in the smoky back room of the Café de Paris, a known hangout for journalists and literary fixers. Cigarette smoke mixes with a strong coffee smell. By breakfast, the noise builds. Discussions heat up over the day’s headlines.
Young men in waistcoats shout out the morning’s editions: Le Journal des Débats, Le Constitutionnel, La Quotidienne, Le Corsaire-Satan. Jules Janin tears into reputations with a few lines of ink. Raoul Nathan, part writer, part politician, makes speeches in salons while editors rewrite them to fit the agenda.
Each paper claims to tell the truth. Each shapes its story for its readers or its backers. Some are aligned with the Doctrinaires, others with the Legitimists or Bonapartists.
Critics take bribes. Reviews are traded. Reputations are made or ruined over coffee and brandy.
In early 19th-century France, a media revolution was already underway. Long before social media algorithms began sorting truth from fiction by engagement metrics, a similarly chaotic transformation took place. The sudden explosion of newspapers, feuilletons, and pamphlets during the Restoration and July Monarchy reshaped the public sphere and destabilized the relationship between information, influence, and power.
In his book Lost Illusions (“Illusions Perdues”), French writer Balzac captures this turmoil fictionally, but the backdrop he drew upon was real: an explosion of press activity, driven by a convergence of economic incentives, liberalisation policies, new printing technologies, and an emerging culture of celebrity and scandal.
A look back at this historical period, reminded me how History rhythms, and what we can learn from it, at the age of algorithmically amplified, distorted and manipulated truth and the proliferation of unverified, biais, ideologically driven AI generated content.
The First Content Revolution: France, 1820s–1840s
Between 1814 and 1830, the number of newspapers in Paris tripled. By 1848, over 200 political newspapers were circulating in the capital. The July Monarchy’s relative freedom of the press (after the strict Napoleonic controls) combined with declining printing costs created a fertile environment for entrepreneurial journalism. Even with recurring censorship attempts, especially under Charles X, publishers found loopholes. Cheap pamphlets, gossip sheets, and “literary criticism” masquerading as political satire became widespread.
The new press was born of technology and ambition. Steam-powered rotary presses could print thousands of copies in hours. Paper, once a luxury, had become cheap. Literacy was rising fast, fuelled by education reforms and the restless aspirations of an expanding bourgeoisie. Suddenly, anyone with a printer, an opinion, and a little capital could launch a newspaper.
It was the first attention economy.
Low barriers to entry meant competition was ferocious. Success demanded visibility, not accuracy. Scandal sold better than policy. Mockery travelled faster than truth. Editors learned quickly that outrage was a business model. Fact-checking was impractical. Columns mixed politics and theatre, rumour and poetry, literature and attack. Journalists were part celebrity, part mercenary, part propagandist. Reviews could be bought, reputations destroyed, alliances traded for front-page space.
The term “public opinion” began to take on the modern form: not the collective wisdom of an informed citizenry, but the manipulated outcome of competing information interests.
How We Got Here: From Gutenberg to the Guizot Law
The chaos of 1830s Paris didn’t emerge from nowhere. It was the culmination of nearly four centuries of transformation across printing technology, literacy, political upheaval, and the economics of communication.
It begins with the Gutenberg press, introduced in the 1450s. By removing the manual bottleneck of hand-copied manuscripts, Gutenberg collapsed the cost and time to reproduce information. Within 50 years, over 20 million books were circulating in Europe. Power changed hands.
The press helped catalyze the Reformation, enabling the spread of ideas that challenged ecclesiastical authority. The result was fragmentation. Competing truths began to multiply. Heresies spread faster than institutions could respond. The Church’s monopoly on interpretation eroded.
By the 17th and 18th centuries, pamphlet culture had become the engine of underground political discourse. In France, thousands of anonymous leaflets and libelles circulated in salons and cafés, combining scandal, ideology, and misinformation. These were the precursors to today’s viral posts: cheaply produced, emotionally charged, and designed to provoke.
These anonymous texts were read aloud in salons and cafés, copied by hand, reprinted without permission or attribution, and adapted for new audiences.
What they lacked in accuracy, they made up for in speed and impact. They were the viral posts of their day—unfiltered, emotional, and often untraceable.
Anonymity served multiple purposes: it protected writers from censorship and arrest, it allowed political actors to manipulate public opinion from behind the scenes, and it gave space to slander, fabrication, and personal vendettas with little fear of consequence. Robert Darnton estimates that up to 90% of pamphlets circulating in the 1780s bore no author’s name.
Anonymity also amplified participation, and made truth harder to locate. The public sphere became louder, but not clearer.
The Enlightenment elevated the idea of the reader as a citizen; but the infrastructure of reason couldn’t keep pace with the velocity of printed opinion. By the time of the French Revolution, literacy had grown, especially in urban centers, but editorial accountability had not. Napoleon briefly imposed control, but the desire for open expression was entrenched.
Then, in 1833, France passed the Guizot Law, mandating primary education for boys in every commune. Literacy surged. A new generation of readers entered the public sphere just as printing costs were falling and partisan publishers were multiplying.
By the 1830s, the stage was set: mass literacy, low-cost content, fragile institutions, and an unregulated attention economy.
What emerged was the first true content crisis at scale.
Stabilizing Forces: What Emerged from the Chaos
The 19th-century French media didn’t implode into permanent disinformation. Over time, several stabilizing forces took hold:
Institutionalization of journalism: By the late 19th century, journalism began to professionalize. Norms around verification, editorial independence, and journalistic integrity slowly emerged; often pushed by elite publications wanting to differentiate themselves from sensationalist rivals.
Media consolidation: Many short-lived, partisan publications died out, replaced by more stable and well-capitalized newspapers that operated across broader readerships. With scale came new responsibilities and reputational risk.
Legal frameworks: Laws on press freedom, defamation, and libel evolved. While not always fair or neutral, they created boundaries. They also increased the cost of publishing false or harmful content.
New institutions of public discourse: Political parties, universities, salons, and intellectual societies began playing a mediating role between information and action. Fact-based analysis gained some institutional champions.
Public education: Literacy campaigns and expanding public education created a broader base of citizens with the cognitive tools to engage with information critically. Literacy alone didn’t guarantee discernment but it was a necessary precondition.
In short, the press ecosystem matured. It remained imperfect, politically biased, and occasionally corrupt. But it became more resilient.
France entered the Third Republic with a media system that, for all its flaws, was more capable of informing rather than purely manipulating.
Echoes in the Age of Generative AI and TikTok
Today’s generative content landscape mirrors the early 19th-century upheaval but on (algorithmic) steroids!
We are witnessing:
The mass democratization of content creation, where anyone with or without expertise can instantly produce, remix, or distribute information at scale, using tools that were once the preserve of institutions.
The return of anonymity as a structural force. Like the pamphleteers of pre-Revolutionary France, today’s content creators often operate behind pseudonyms, burner accounts, or synthetic profiles. From comment threads to generative avatars, anonymity amplifies voice but dissolves accountability, enabling distortion to scale faster than verification.
The industrialization of manipulation, as engagement-optimized algorithms push content not for its accuracy but for its emotional trigger value. Visibility is now governed by virality, not veracity.
The erosion of institutional trust, with traditional gatekeepers (media outlets, public institutions, scientific bodies) struggling to assert credibility in a fractured and accelerated information ecosystem.
A fully financialized attention economy, where outrage, fear, and division outperform nuance. Emotion monetizes. Precision does not.
What was once done with ink and pamphlets is now achieved with LLMs, filters, and coordinated bot networks. Deepfakes, astroturfed grassroots movements, and micro-targeted narratives create a reality where public discourse fragments into unreconcilable bubbles. The sheer velocity and scale of generative media outpace traditional corrective mechanisms.
As noted in my previous article Winning the Battle for Trust When Truth is Fragmented trust has been decimated across every institution, from the media to the UN. Over 50% of the most-viewed TikToks on mental health contain misinformation. Deepfake fraud has spiked over 1,700%. Meanwhile, AI-powered platforms offer mass personalization but also mass manipulation.
Balzac’s corrupt journalist duels with today’s algorithmic recommender systems: both reward distortion.
What’s Different This Time?
Despite the clear parallels, the 21st-century information crisis diverges from the 19th-century in critical ways:
Speed and scale: AI and global platforms operate in real-time, with reach orders of magnitude beyond anything in Balzac’s era.
Lack of editorial gatekeepers: Anyone can now generate, distribute, and amplify content with little friction or cost.
Algorithmic opacity: The criteria by which content spreads is now largely invisible and unaccountable.
Cognitive overload: The volume of stimuli surpasses human attention capacity. Disinformation is not just plausible it is just inevitable in such an environment.
Weakening of democratic buffers: Institutional trust, political cohesion, and public education systems have eroded rather than matured.
Most importantly: we are no longer passive readers. We are active vectors. Each share, like, or repost becomes an act of amplification.
In this sense, we are all micro-publishers without training, guardrails, or accountability.
Learning From the Past: Toward Resilience Today
Fact is, Balzac’s Paris didn’t collapse under the weight of fake news. Nor must we. But solutions require structural (not just individual) change. Drawing on historical precedents, I believe we can outline possible directions. Here are some ideas for discussion and further reflection:
Re-legitimize media institutions through integrity and transparency: Just as journalism slowly earned credibility, platforms today must be pushed to adopt verifiable standards of truthfulness, editorial accountability, and explainable algorithms.
Strengthen information literacy: 19th-century public education laid the groundwork for informed citizenship. Today, we need critical digital literacy at every age and socioeconomic level; not just for students, but for voters, employees, and leaders.
Reintroduce friction on both content and identity: The current architecture rewards speed and anonymity. To counter this, platforms could slow virality with deliberate design: time delays before reposting, fact-check prompts, or content traceability. In parallel, anonymous or unverified accounts should face reduced amplification. Visibility should reflect transparency of authorship, or reputation systems. This adds friction not to speech itself, but to its unchecked propagation. Not all speech must be verified but not all speech deserves equal algorithmic reach.
Fund independent fact-checking and public interest media: Just as 19th-century elites supported serious newspapers to counter tabloid excess, we now need public-private funding coalitions for non-profit investigative journalism and civic platforms.
Legislate for algorithmic accountability: New laws must demand explainability, transparency, and governance of recommendation engines, especially when they mediate political or health-related content.
Rethink sovereignty in media infrastructure: In the 19th century, sovereign governments set the terms of public discourse. Today, that role has been ceded to private platforms. Regulatory frameworks like the EU’s DSA or DMA are a start, but insufficient unless accompanied by architectural sovereignty (owning critical infrastructure, AI models, and moderation levers).
Conclusion: The Battle Is Not New, But It Is Now Global
We are not the first generation to panic about the collapse of truth. The French press in Balzac’s time felt equally destabilizing. But through institutional maturation, civic investment, and legal recalibration, a fragile equilibrium was reached.
This time, the stakes are higher. The tools are more powerful. And the consequences (eg. geopolitical, societal, and cognitive) are global.
But history offers both warning and wisdom: disinformation is a structural feature of information revolutions.
The answer is not panic, but design.
If we want truth to survive, we must build systems (technical, legal, and social) that make it resilient.
Not by going back to the past, but by learning from it.
Thanks for reading!
Damien
I am a Senior Technology Advisor who works at the intersection of AI, business transformation, and geopolitics through RebootUp (consulting) and KoncentriK (publication): what I call Technopolitics. I help leaders turn emerging tech into business impact while navigating today’s strategic and systemic risks. Get in touch to know more damien.kopp@rebootup.com
This is a fascinating topic. Indeed, there is a call to action across all levels of society that you highlight pretty clearly. The additional complexity is that these action layers are intertwined to a formidable extent. Introducing friction? Great idea in my opinion, but it goes against business interests. Relegitimising media institutions? Ditto, but it goes against political interests.
Hopeless situation? Hopefully not. The gigantic task ahead of us is a rather simple one: to align incentives between nations, regulatory bodies, platforms, businesses, media institutions, political leaders and the general public.