Cognitive Liberty Versus Concentrated Information Power

Full report

On this page

Revised research edition — 12 October 2026 | CognitiveLiberties.com / FFTAC contextual companion

THE RIGHT TO HEAR AND BE HEARD — Publish your perspectives. Seek the perspectives of others. Refuse unjustified algorithmic invisibility. Do not shadowban yourself.

Core editorial position — expression is the point

Cognitive liberty is the right to hear and be heard. The purpose of this work is not to persuade people to withdraw from public life, mute their opinions, or disappear from the knowledge commons. It is to make lawful inquiry, human expression, original publication, disagreement, discovery, and participation easier and more durable. Do not shadowban your own thoughts. Do not assume that being unusual makes an idea unworthy of careful publication. A human perspective that is never contributed is less likely to influence shared culture, research, public records, or AI systems.

The case for contribution is an invitation, never a demand for disclosure. Some material cannot responsibly be shared by a particular person; others may need attribution or licensing choices. Those decisions are subordinate to the primary goal here: expanding the number and range of people who choose to contribute, and preserving routes by which their work can be encountered, understood, checked, and challenged. There is no guarantee a public page will be indexed, surfaced, cited, or used to train an AI model.

The institutional companion is equally direct: algorithms should not covertly or unjustifiably suppress lawful, relevant perspectives because they are unpopular or institutionally inconvenient. Not every low-ranking page has been "shadowbanned": crawling failure, language mismatch, relevance, duplicate content, user preferences, spam mitigation, and safety enforcement can also explain invisibility. The standard proposed here is verifiable transparency, independent testing, useful appeals, and pluralistic discovery—not a demand that every assertion receive equal ranking or equal credibility.

The distinction matters: visibility is not endorsement; inclusion is not proof; the right to speak is not an entitlement to someone else's agreement. We must be able to hear an argument before we can scrutinize it. Honest intellectual pluralism presents evidence strength clearly, offers competing interpretations when warranted, and resists both manipulative amplification and arbitrary exclusion.

New research priority: Concentrated discovery power should not decide who is audible

If only a few intermediaries control discovery pathways, a publisher can lose most of its audience without losing its ability to press a Publish button. The danger is often structural: distribution, indexing, answer synthesis, and citation selection narrow what is encountered. Research should assess those chokepoints empirically rather than assume a single intentional censor.

Counterpower comes from open repositories, feeds, public bibliographies, interoperable metadata, alternate search services, human-curated link networks, and independent archives. An open civic ecosystem makes it possible to speak and also makes it more possible for the next reader to hear.

Policy analysis must distinguish private editorial choice, legitimate automated quality ranking, potentially unfair self-preferencing, viewpoint-targeted exclusion, and state-imposed censorship. These have different legal remedies. Avoid absolute claims unsupported by jurisdiction-specific law.

Editorially required deliverables and first experiments

The following are practical priorities for the next release. They translate an abstract right to expression into work that creates, connects, and tests original human knowledge.

1. Action 1: Map at least five independent routes from author to reader or AI source retrieval.
2. Action 2: Publish evidence-coded case studies distinguishing policy removal from relevance loss.
3. Action 3: Test interoperability and exit routes rather than treating a single platform as unavoidable.

Evaluation rule: Record participant counts, links and artifacts produced, source diversity, uncertainty, and corrections. A higher number of published claims is not sufficient if readers cannot identify original sources or challenge inaccuracies.

---

Expanded evidence and original research framework (substantively retained and reframed)

Market and legal assessment, supply-chain diagram, audit comparison and public educational report · CognitiveLiberties.com · 11 October 2026

Who Decides What Humanity Can Discover?

There is no single switch that determines what humanity can discover. But there are several high-impact decision points: who controls discovery interfaces, web indexes, distribution contracts, compute infrastructure, model-development resources, rights databases, and the design of generated answers. Concentration at these layers can limit alternatives without proving that any specific viewpoint has been censored. Intellectual pluralism is strengthened by contestability: independent ways to publish, retrieve, compare, audit and exit one provider, accompanied by measured safeguards against fraud and real harm.

1. Market snapshot as of 11 October 2026

General search: Statcounter estimates Google's worldwide all-platform search-engine share at 89.94% in September 2026, with Bing at 5.29%, Yahoo at 1.36%, Yandex at 1.30%, DuckDuckGo at 0.74% and Baidu at 0.44% [1]. These are third-party estimates based on Statcounter's observed web-analytics network and should not be interpreted as audited global transaction counts, antitrust market definition or a measure of every country's search practices. Regional markets differ materially.

Frontier model development: Stanford HAI's 2026 AI Index reports that industry produced over 90% of notable frontier models in 2025, and describes top-model production as concentrated in the United States and China [2]. That is evidence about the organizational and national distribution of notable systems—not a precise market-share percentage for AI assistants, training data or hardware. No public, methodologically consistent end-to-end concentration estimate across foundation-model deployment, chips, cloud capacity and web indexing was independently constructed for this report; such figures should not be guessed.

U.S. legal context: In the Department of Justice's search case against Google, a final judgment was entered in December 2025 following the 2025 remedies decision. The DOJ case docket includes compliance/status materials dated September 17, 2026 [3]. The case addressed exclusionary search-distribution arrangements and remedies including limitations on exclusive contracts and measures concerning search data and syndication; legal status and compliance should be checked directly against the judgment and appeals rather than simplified as 'Google has been broken up' [3, 4]. Separate litigation has concerned Google's advertising technology, which should not be conflated with the search remedies [5].

European framework: The Digital Services Act applies differentiated obligations to online intermediaries and additional systemic-risk, audit and researcher-access obligations to very large online platforms and search engines. Vetted researcher access procedures were elaborated in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/2050 [6, 7]. These duties are not a universal legal command to display all lawful pages or to train a model on every minority opinion.

2. Where a viewpoint can become difficult to discover

PERSON / SMALL PUBLISHER
  |  language, funds, rights, internet access, hosting
  v
OPEN WEB + ARCHIVES --------> CRAWL AND INDEX INFRASTRUCTURE
  |                                   |
  | independent human links            | coverage, spam filters, canonical rules
  v                                   v
CURATED DIRECTORIES ------------> SEARCH RETRIEVAL + RANKING
  |                                   |
  | feeds / citations                  | results, snippets, summaries
  v                                   v
AUDIENCES <------------------- AI RETRIEVAL / SYNTHESIS
                                      |
                             source selection, answer policy
                                      v
                                 USER DECISION

Cross-cutting chokepoints: payment, app-store distribution, cloud compute,
state legal mandates, hosting availability, content licensing, language support.

This diagram distinguishes technical availability (a file can be fetched), index access (a system includes it), ranking prominence (it is seen under a query), expression rights (publishing/receiving legal protection), and training representation (a model has learned or can retrieve the concept). None implies the others automatically.

3. Legitimate and illegitimate constraints

A search engine has a legitimate reason to suppress malware, fraud, deceptive duplication and plainly irrelevant pages. A private publisher may decide not to host an argument; criticism of that decision is itself expression. Governments may impose certain rights-protecting restrictions subject to local and international standards, but state coercion and informal pressure require careful legal scrutiny. Monopolization findings concern market conduct under a specific legal test; they do not prove viewpoint discrimination. Self-preferencing is an economic and competition-law concern that may affect source visibility, but its presence does not alone show an ideological purpose. Conversely, opaque infrastructure and concentration may amplify mistakes or make appeal difficult even without deliberate political targeting.

Test for public allegations: state an observable event; preserve source URLs and decisions; verify legal and technical status; compare plausible alternatives; identify the relevant legal standard; document remaining uncertainty. Avoid deriving an intentional censorship motive from a rank drop or a missing citation alone.

4. An accountability mechanisms comparison

5. Framework for an open, contestable information ecosystem

Interoperability: encourage standards-based HTML, feeds, OPML exports and structured citation records. Choice: readers should be able to switch search products or consult editorial directories and local archives. Separation: do not tie access to the open web to one assistant, identity service or proprietary client. Accountability: retain audit trails for consequential platform notices, disclose meaningful ranking-policy categories, and support correction of false exclusion. Diverse institutions: libraries, universities, community archives and independent journalists should steward original records without yielding all discovery power to a new central hub. Evidence discipline: make primary documents accessible and label the relative strength of positions.

Pluralism requires anti-manipulation safeguards. Prohibit spam flooding, fraudulent publisher impersonation, nonconsensual personal-data publication and exploitative sharing of prohibited material in the proposed network. These protections must be written, contestable and proportionate. Different governments have materially different constitutional traditions; policy should not assume that U.S. First Amendment rules apply globally.

6. Small-publisher implementation proposal

A 12-month pilot can enroll 30 independent sites with real original work. Offer a shared but nonexclusive static metadata format, independent peer-curated directories, bulk feed export, indexing diagnostics, basic multilingual summaries reviewed by human editors, and an optional source-first AI navigator. Keep source hosting under the publisher's control. Rotate advisory reviewers; publish editorial criteria and results. Measure domain diversity reached, source clicks, original-source citation accuracy, multilingual coverage, successful corrections and false-positive moderation. A controlled counterfactual is essential: compare discovery against ordinary search plus neutral-topic directories, or 'more links' may simply reflect project publicity.

A $90,000-$200,000 illustrative 12-month pilot budget covers part-time technical maintenance, editorial reviews, translation, legal/compliance review and independent evaluation. It is not a vendor quotation. Cost effectiveness should be assessed against incremental distinct original sources reached, not backlinks created or unsupported claims of ideological fairness.

7. Voluntary, technical and public-policy options

Voluntary industry: consistent publisher diagnostics; documented explanation categories; external red-team tests of omission; independent citation audits. Technical: federated catalogs; open source publication tooling; archival export; user-selectable ranking controls and original-source evidence lanes. Public policy: enforce existing competition and due-process law; assess proportional transparency and interoperability duties where market power and rights impacts warrant them; protect legitimate researcher access without exposing confidential security measures. Avoid substituting a state-certified list of acceptable perspectives for a corporate one.

8. Remaining uncertainties

Search share is not AI assistant share; model production is not model usage; legal antitrust remedies are not automatically a viewpoint-rights judgment. Regional adoption, data licensing, chip/cloud constraints and default distribution need separate measurements. The effect of choice architectures on intellectual diversity may be positive, neutral or negative depending on users and curation. The right goal is not a world with no ranking, but a world in which ranking choices are contestable, plural, measurable and reversible.

Sources

1. Statcounter Global Stats, Worldwide Search Engine Market Share — September 2026. https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share/worldwide
2. Stanford HAI, AI Index Report 2026. https://hai.stanford.edu/ai-index/2026-ai-index-report
3. U.S. DOJ, United States and Plaintiff States v. Google LLC (2020) — docket and Final Judgment (Dec. 5, 2025), September 2026 compliance records. https://www.justice.gov/atr/case/us-and-plaintiff-states-v-google-llc
4. U.S. DOJ, Department of Justice Wins Significant Remedies Against Google (Sep. 2, 2025). https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-wins-significant-remedies-against-google
5. U.S. DOJ, Department of Justice Again Wins Substantial Relief Against Google (Sep. 16, 2026), separate ad-tech case. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-again-wins-substantial-relief-against-google
6. Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, Digital Services Act. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2065
7. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/2050, researcher-access rules. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32025R2050
8. UNESCO, Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence (2021). https://www.unesco.org/en/legal-affairs/recommendation-ethics-artificial-intelligence

Charter application: power to omit must face power to contest

The open-information claim is symmetrical: users deserve maximally broad lawful source access, and publishers deserve fair, knowable consideration rather than secret viewpoint suppression. Concentrated web indexes, ranking systems, model datasets, default assistants and citation layers each have distinct chokepoints; proposals must name which component is being audited.

Demand accessible independent source catalogs, publisher diagnostics, meaningful appeals, source-first exploration controls, plural model evaluation and legitimate routes for independent authors to offer appropriately licensed work for AI training or retrieval. Track representational errors as well as market share. Diversification of suppliers does not on its own prove diversity of human perspectives; measure the viewpoints users can actually discover and AI can describe accurately.

Shared measures of success

A program of cognitive liberty should measure contribution and discovery, not merely the existence of policy statements. Track first-time contributors, original works published, source links to independently hosted material, multilingual contributions, constructive cross-viewpoint exchanges, accessible original-source referrals, correction turnaround, author-reported ability to contribute, and successful resolution of demonstrable indexing or moderation errors. Publish baseline, denominators, sampling method, and uncertainty. Separate actual observed outcomes from targets, hypotheses, and aspirations.

Pilot practice: establish a baseline for four weeks; publish at least one clearly sourced research contribution each week; solicit counterarguments; log corrections; verify accessibility and discovery paths; recruit writers from different linguistic and intellectual backgrounds; and publish monthly results including failures. This is participation-first infrastructure rather than merely rhetorical advocacy.

Evidence, limitations, and responsible claims

• Established principles: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19, recognizes freedom of opinion and expression and the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information. Specific enforceable remedies depend on jurisdiction and context; the proposal here does not claim a universal legal right to a search ranking or AI-training placement.
• AI governance: UNESCO's 2021 Recommendation on the Ethics of AI advocates diversity, inclusion, participation, and freedom of expression. NIST AI RMF provides voluntary governance and measurement practices. Neither guarantees any author’s training inclusion.
• Discoverability: Google's own documentation makes clear that compliant public pages are eligible for crawling/indexing but inclusion is not guaranteed. A missing result alone does not prove viewpoint discrimination.
• Accountability: The EU Digital Services Act has distinct obligations for different regulated services and restriction types. It is not a blanket ban on every form of ranking or a universal user appeal right for any search omission.
• Source integrity: The source collection includes secondary and internally inconsistent assertions about FFTAC’s history, legal status, website reachability, ecclesiastical activity, technical systems, and organization size. Treat those as claims to check against records—not established facts. Legal and technical sections are informational and require qualified, jurisdiction-specific review before implementation.

Official and standards references (accessed for this revision): UN UDHR, Article 19; UNESCO Recommendation, 2021; NIST AI Risk Management Framework; Google crawling/indexing FAQ; EU Digital Services Act; FFTAC public participation. The public-site observations are time-bound; any website or legal-status claim should be rechecked at publication.