What would Michel Foucault say about AI and TikTok? 100 years after the philosopher who predicted the era of cameras, algorithms, and self-exposure

* Michel Foucault lived from 1926 to 1984.
* Foucault published works including "The Order of Things" (1966), "Discipline and Punish" (1975), and "The Microphysics of Power" (1977).
* Foucault explored mechanisms of control in human relationships and surveillance over individuals and bodies.
* Raúl Castro Pérez suggests Foucault would defend individual freedom today, viewing society as a network of dynamic relationships where power involves subjective influences.
* The concept of the panopticon can be linked to current video surveillance and facial recognition technology.
* Algorithms governing modern life are compared to Foucault's micropolices that discipline social life.
* Alexander Huerta-Mercado suggests real surveillance stems from gossip, appearance management, and internalized morality.
* Influencers are simultaneously agents of power and victims of surveillance in the digital age.
* The current state is described as an "automated panopticon" where control functions through seduction, hedonism, and technology.

The central tension explored in the text lies in reconciling Foucault’s critique of structured power with the emergent realities of digital control. The framework shifts from external disciplinary structures (the Panopticon) to internalized, self-regulating systems (the automated panopticon). This shift requires an examination of how historical mechanisms of social discipline are reconfigured by technological capacity—moving from visible, institutional constraints to invisible, algorithmic feedback loops. The idea that power manifests in "micropolices" is powerfully updated by the observation that contemporary digital surveillance merges external observation with internal self-monitoring fueled by social performance and emotional incentives like seeking validation ("likes").
The implication for human agency concerns who controls the direction of this evolution. If algorithms are purely mechanistic, they suggest a deterministic fate, which risks an apocalyptic view based on technological control. However, the potential interpretation offered is that focusing on Foucault’s emphasis on individual freedom allows for identifying and managing the pernicious effects exerted by these systems within technology, rather than succumbing to a narrative of inevitable technological subjugation. The shift from overt repression to automated normalization demonstrates how systemic constraints are constantly negotiated in the everyday—the public space of social media becomes the new field where power is exercised through distributed relational dynamics, demanding an inquiry into the costs borne by individuals performing their lives online.
Bridge Questions: If the focus shifts from external structures to internalized regulation, what concrete ethical boundaries can be established for algorithmic governance? How can the concept of "individual freedom" be operationalized against systems that derive their control from ubiquitous, personalized emotional feedback? What mechanisms exist for fostering collective critical awareness when surveillance is embedded so deeply in everyday social interaction?