Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 34 references

Un avenir commun au sein de la soci\'et\'e num\'erique

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Algorithmic platforms, by filtering what users see, steer society toward 'anthropy' — an entropy-like homogenization of desires and knowledge.

desk verdict A well-written master's thesis that synthesizes Stiegler, Jameson, and Ostrom but never earns its entropy analogy; better suited for a humanities journal than for physics.hist-ph. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.01014 v1 pith:PNUCBS4X submitted 2025-08-31 physics.hist-ph physics.soc-ph

Miguel Vanvlasselaer This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.hist-phphysics.soc-ph
keywords algorithmicplatformsanthropyentropyanalogyBernardStieglerproletarianizationfilterbubblespostmodernitydigitalcommons
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Facebook, YouTube, and Google's recommendation engines are not neutral filters. By inserting themselves between users and data, they learn users' desires and technical know-how, then feed back content that reproduces those desires in standardized form. The thesis argues that this is a natural, entropy-like drift: just as physical systems move toward disorder, the network-user system moves toward 'anthropy,' a homogenized state of copied tastes and captured knowledge. Against this drift, the paper points to Wikipedia and arXiv, collaborative platforms that create knowledge without algorithmic mediation, and sketches an Ostrom-inspired digital commons economy that could restore diversity and collective authorship.

What carries the argument

The central object is 'anthropie' (anthropy), defined by analogy to thermodynamic entropy as a measure of the homogenization of desires, knowledge, and cultural forms in a social system; its counterpart is 'neguanthropie' (neguanthropy), the diversity-producing, opening force of collective non-algorithmic knowledge. The mechanism that drives the argument is the algorithmic platform understood as a closed, self-replicating system: it imposes calculability on knowledge, turns skills into duplicable information, feeds users content that maximizes engagement, and thereby produces copies of the same. The analogy with entropy — via Schrödinger's negentropy and Stiegler's reworking of it — is what

What would settle it

Take two large comparable user cohorts, one served by algorithmic recommendation feeds and one by non-algorithmic or random feeds, and measure diversity over a fixed period — entropy of consumed content categories, lexical diversity of user-generated text, and overlap of preferences across users. If the algorithmic cohort does not show a systematic decline in these diversity metrics, or if the non-algorithmic cohort shows equal decline, the central claim that algorithms drive a natural, entropy-like homogenization would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that algorithmic suggestion platforms function as selective gates in the information system: they capture human desire and technical knowledge, reduce it to calculable, duplicable information, and thereby push society toward a condition Bernard Stiegler calls 'anthropie' — a social analogue of thermodynamic entropy in which desires and cultural forms come to resemble copies of the same. Homogenization is presented not as an accident of bad design but as the statistical tendency of a closed algorithmic system, in explicit analogy to the second law. The corollary is that open, non-algorithmically mediated collaboration — exemplified by Wikipedia and arXiv, and gove

Load-bearing premise

The thesis rests on the unproven premise that the statistical reasoning behind thermodynamic entropy increase carries over to social systems, so that a 'natural tendency' toward homogenization can be asserted without an independent measure of anthropy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim is right, recommendation engines are not neutral sorting tools: their engagement-optimizing logic systematically narrows cultural and intellectual diversity.
  • The 'proletarianization' thesis implies that when expertise is captured in opaque algorithms, workers and citizens lose the capability to reproduce, judge, or redirect that expertise.
  • Postmodern cultural fragmentation is presented as a precondition: the dissolution of grand narratives made desire and knowledge available for commercial capture, so reversing capture requires new collective narratives or governance.
  • Wikipedia and arXiv show a workable alternative: shared, transparent, collaboratively governed knowledge production can resist algorithmic homogenization without rejecting digital technology.
  • A digital commons economy governed by Ostrom-style rules would, if generalized, shift the balance of power from private platforms to user communities.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The entropy analogy yields a test the paper does not run: if 'anthropy' is real, measurable diversity of content consumed and produced by heavy algorithmic-platform users (e.g., topic entropy, linguistic variety, preference overlap) should decline relative to less-mediated cohorts.
  • The same framework can be extended to generative AI: large language models trained on and redistributing homogenized text may accelerate anthropy; tracking output diversity over successive model generations would test that extension.
  • The commons examples imply a design principle implicit in the thesis: platform governance matters more than platform technology, so the countermeasure against entropy is institutional (ownership, transparent rules, participation) rather than technical.
  • A formal link between anthropy and information-theoretic entropy (e.g., Shannon entropy of content streams) is a natural next step the paper leaves open.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This French-language Master's thesis argues that algorithmic platforms (Facebook, YouTube, Google, etc.) interpose themselves between users and data, capture desires and technical knowledge, and push the 'réseau-internautes' system toward a state that Bernard Stiegler calls 'anthropie'—a social analogue of thermodynamic entropy. The thesis develops a diagnostic of 'disruption,' traces the cultural preconditions of the platform economy through Fredric Jameson's account of postmodernism, and concludes with a proposal for digital commons inspired by Elinor Ostrom, citing Wikipedia and arXiv as positive counterexamples.

Significance. The paper offers a wide-ranging philosophical synthesis and a constructive normative proposal for governing digital commons. It is honest about several limitations, including a footnote acknowledging that Schrödinger's 'neguentropy' is physically incorrect, and a passage admitting that no evolution law has been assigned to 'anthropy.' However, the central physical analogy is not developed analytically: 'anthropie' lacks an operational definition, the claimed statistical argument is never given, and the monotonic increase of 'anthropy' is simply postulated. Consequently, the load-bearing assertion that algorithmic systems increase social entropy remains metaphorical rather than demonstrated. The paper's value lies in its critical framework and its concrete examples, not in any quantitative or falsifiable result.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2, 'La disruption comme production d'entropie et captation des savoirs'] The manuscript explicitly states 'à ce stade, aucune loi d'évolution n'a été assignée à l'anthropie' and then bridges the gap with 'par des arguments statistiques analogues à ceux produits dans le cas de l'augmentation de l'entropie, on peut postuler comme tendance naturelle l'augmentation de l'anthropie.' No state space, probability measure, or observable is defined, and the alleged statistical analogy is asserted rather than derived. Since the increase of 'anthropy' is the central claim of the thesis, this is a load-bearing gap: the author must either provide a formal model or explicitly retreat to a purely heuristic metaphor.
  2. [§4.2, definition of 'anthropie' and of algorithms] The text defines 'anthropie' as the process by which humans impose a standardized mark ('l'homme impose une marque standardisée'), and later says an algorithm, as a closed system, 'ne peut que créer des copies de l'information.' The conclusion that algorithmic platforms increase 'anthropy' then follows by definition, making the argument circular. An independent characterization, with testable consequences, is needed for the claim to be substantive.
  3. [§6, 'Les communs numériques' and the abstract] Wikipedia and arXiv are presented as successful counterexamples to the alleged 'tendance naturelle' of increasing anthropy. If the tendency is lawlike, the existence of these counterexamples requires specification of the conditions under which conscious, non-algorithmic collaboration can reverse it. Without such scope conditions, the counterexamples undermine the lawlike claim rather than illustrating it.
  4. [§4.1, 'La disruption dans le monde des idées'] The empirical support from Park, Leahey, and Funk's CD index is immediately qualified by the cited critique of Peteso et al., who argue that the observed decline in disruptiveness is an artifact of citation inflation. The text does not adjudicate this dispute, yet the CD index is used as evidence for a real decline in scientific disruptiveness. This weakens the empirical grounding of the 'disruption as entropy' diagnosis.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title and genre] The manuscript is explicitly a 'Mémoire de Master' and not a standard research article. The personal reflections in Chapter 1 and Chapter 3, while sometimes engaging, are out of place in a journal submission and should be removed or moved to a preface.
  2. [Terminology] 'Anthropie' and 'néguanthropie' appear in the Abstract before being defined in §4.2. Please introduce and define these terms at first use, and note explicitly that they are used analogically.
  3. [References] The reference style is inconsistent: several footnotes contain raw URLs, some in-text citations (e.g., [11], [22]) are not clearly resolved in the bibliography available to the reader, and the bibliography formatting should be unified.
  4. [Language and style] There are numerous typographical errors and inconsistent use of 'nous' and 'je', despite the explanation in §1.4. A careful language revision is needed.
  5. [Footnotes] The long footnote 5 correctly observes that Schrödinger's negentropy is physically untenable, but this acknowledgment undercuts the later use of negentropy as a social principle. The paper should reconcile these two positions explicitly.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

Central 'anthropie increase' claim is true by definition: anthropy is defined as standardization, algorithms are defined as copy-only closed systems, so algorithmic homogenization is already contained in the premises.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.2, 'La disruption comme production d'entropie et captation des savoirs' (pp. 52–54)]
    "l'anthropie, ou l'anthropisation, est le processus par lequel l'homme impose une marque standardisée à un zone en friche, en en faisant une zone commerciale, un champs en monoculture, ou encore en standardisant la musique... Un algorithme, en tant qu'il est une suite de commandes qui ne peut que créer des copies de l'information, est un tel exemple de système fermé."

    Anthropy is defined as the imposition of standardized marks / homogenization. Algorithms are defined as closed systems that can only copy information. The paper's central conclusion then follows immediately: 'l'évolution algorithmique fait tendre le système réseau-internautes vers l'homogénéisation des désirs, vers une configuration ne contenant que des copies du même.' Since homogenization just is anthropy by the earlier definition, the predicted increase in anthropy is not an empirical or statistical consequence; it is the content of the definitions. The paper itself concedes that 'aucune loi d'évolution n'a été assignée à l'anthropie' and replaces the missing derivation with 'on peut postuler comme tendance naturelle l'augmentation de l'anthropie.' Thus the load-bearing result reduces t

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing claim is that algorithmic platforms drive social systems toward Stiegler's 'anthropie'. Tracing the argument chain: (1) anthropy is defined as the human process of imposing standardized marks (monoculture, commercial zones, standardized music); (2) an algorithm is defined as a closed system 'qui ne peut que créer des copies de l'information'; (3) the paper concludes that algorithmic evolution makes the network-user system tend toward homogenization, i.e., 'des copies du même'. Step (3) is entailed by (1)+(2) by construction: if homogenization is what 'anthropie' means, and algorithms are by definition homogenizing copy-machines, then 'algorithms increase anthropy' is a tautology. No independent social state space, probability distribution, or statistical argument is supplied; the paper explicitly states that no evolution law has been assigned to anthropy and that its increase is merely 'postulé' by analogy to thermodynamics. The Wikipedia/arXiv counterexamples cited by the author further show that the alleged 'natural tendency' is not lawlike. I do not count Stiegler citations as circular (they are external, not self-citations), and the thesis contains independent descriptive material on filter bubbles and platform capitalism; but the central entropy/anthropy 'prediction' reduces to its definitions, so the circularity score is high.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central argument rests on a metaphorical extension of thermodynamics to society, on Stiegler's claims taken as premises, and on an unexamined transfer of Ostrom's commons principles to digital goods. No numeric parameters are fitted, but the entire thesis depends on these untested conceptual axioms.

assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Social systems can be modeled with a thermodynamic-like entropy ('anthropy') that tends to increase.
    Section 4.2 'La disruption comme production d'entropie' postulates an analogy with the second law, with no quantitative definition of anthropy.
  • domain assumption Algorithmic platforms systematically capture desires and knowledge (Stiegler's proletarianization).
    Chapter 3 'Captation de la libido par le marché' and Chapter 4 take Stiegler's diagnosis as given rather than testing it against empirical evidence.
  • domain assumption Collective conscious cooperation can generate 'néguanthropie'.
    The final chapter asserts Wikipedia and arXiv as examples of néguanthropy without presenting metrics for their effect on cultural diversity or cognitive capacity.
  • domain assumption Ostrom's eight principles for natural resource commons transfer directly to digital information commons.
    Chapter 6 'La charte des communs' applies Ostrom's framework to digital information without discussing differences between rival and non-rival goods, or the absence of resource depletion in digital information.
invented entities (1)
  • anthropie / néguanthropie
    purpose: To frame algorithmic standardization as a physical-like law of social entropy.
    These concepts are borrowed from Stiegler (Section 4.2). The paper provides no measurable definition, no operationalization, and no falsifiable prediction, so they function as purely metaphorical placeholders.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Un avenir commun au sein de la soci\'et\'e num\'erique." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PNUCBS4X

@misc{pith2026250901014,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Un avenir commun au sein de la soci\'et\'e num\'erique},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PNUCBS4X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.01014}
}
read the original abstract

Today, data and information have become overabundant resources within a global network of machines that exchange signals at speeds approaching that of light. In this highly saturated environment, communication has emerged as the most central form of interaction, supported by a rapidly evolving technical infrastructure. These new communication tools have created an overwhelming surplus of information so much so that no human could process it all. In response, platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Google use algorithms to filter and suggest content. These algorithms act as sorting mechanisms, reducing the informational noise and presenting users with content tailored to their habits and preferences. However, by placing themselves between users and data, these platforms gain control over what users see and, in doing so, shape their preferences and behaviors. In physical terms, we might say they function like selective filters or control gates in an information system directing flows and creating feedback loops. Over time, this can lead to a kind of informational inertia, where users become increasingly shaped by algorithmic influence and lose the ability to form independent judgments. This process reflects a broader trend that Bernard Stiegler describes as a new kind of proletarianization where individuals lose the knowledge and skills that are absorbed and automated by digital systems. Borrowing from physics, we study this as a shift toward higher entropy. However, platforms like Wikipedia and arXiv demonstrate how digital tools can support collective knowledge without leading to cognitive degradation. Inspired by Elinor Ostrom work on commons, we propose a model for a digital commons economy where information is shared and governed collaboratively, helping to restore a balance between entropy and organization in our digital environments.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    professionnaliser

    https ://www.youtube.com/watch ?v=pfJnDTPRhIk 6.2. LA CHARTE DES COMMUNS 91 directement s’opposer : dans certains cas, le syst` eme emploie des personnes (leur octroie un salaire), pour les empˆ echer de travailler (de modifier le monde et de produire de la n´ eguanthropie). Pour lui, c’est d’ailleurs l’une des motivations de la recherche absolue du plein...

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    par del` a le bien et le mal

    https ://www.youtube.com/watch ?v=n8hheWxVP5I 5.1. LE POSTMODERNISME ET LA CULTURE DU CAPITALISME TARDIF 81 cela devan¸ caient ` a tour de rˆ ole leur concurrent. Alors que le grand public avait vu, au moyen de la t´ el´ evision, les figures publiques populaires, des stars aux politiciens, se mettre, eux-mˆ emes, ainsi que leur famille, en sc` ene, les m´...

    work page 1991

  3. [3]

    https ://mediate.com/mediation-in-the-age-of-digital-distraction/ ?utm source=chatgpt.com 6.2. LA CHARTE DES COMMUNS 93 En guise d’exemple, nous ´ etudierons deux cas concrets de sources d’informations fiables, celui de l’encyclop´ edie en ligne,wikip´ edia, et la plateforme de publication d’articles en preprint, l’ archive, ou arXiv, la plateforme de mis...

    work page 2001

  4. [4]

    https ://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiabilit%C3%A9 de Wikip%C3%A9dia

    work page

  5. [5]

    LES COMMUNS NUM ´ERIQUES journal de publication

    https ://fr.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia/D%C3%A9couvrir Wikip%C3%A9dia/Principes fondateurs 94 CHAPITRE 6. LES COMMUNS NUM ´ERIQUES journal de publication. Le journal en question invite des autres scientifiques ` a donner un avis critique et professionnel, b´ en´ evolement, sur ledit article et, finalement, une fois l’article publi´ e dans le journal...

    work page 1991

  6. [6]

    pollu- tion

    https ://info.arxiv.org/about/principles.html. 6.2. LA CHARTE DES COMMUNS 95 — Troisi` eme principe des communs : il faut ´ etablir un syst` eme permettant aux individus de par- ticiper r´ eguli` erement ` a la d´ efinition et ` a la modification des r` egles (faisceau de droits accord´ es aux personnes concern´ ees).Dans le cas de Wikip´ edia, la flexibi...

    work page

  7. [7]

    La d´ emocratiedes cr´ edules

    G´ erald Bronner. La d´ emocratiedes cr´ edules. PUF, 2013

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Le Nouvel Esprit du capitalisme

    Luc Boltanski et Eve Chiapello. Le Nouvel Esprit du capitalisme. Gallimard, 1999

    work page 1999

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Dialectique de la raison

    Theodor Adorno et Max Horkheimer. Dialectique de la raison. 1944

    1944

  2. [10]

    La religion dans la d´ emocratie: parcours de la la ¨ ıcit´ e

    Michel Gauchet. La religion dans la d´ emocratie: parcours de la la ¨ ıcit´ e. Gallimard, 2001

    2001

  3. [11]

    Effects of screen exposure on young children’s cognitive development : A review

    Bahia Guellai, Eszter Somogyi, Rana Esseily, and Adrien Chopin. Effects of screen exposure on young children’s cognitive development : A review. Front. Psychol., Sec. Human Developmental Psychology, 17 August 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    2024 Bad Bot Report

    Imperva. 2024 Bad Bot Report. 2025. https ://www.imperva.com/resources/resource-library/reports/2024-bad- bot-report/, Consult´ e en Juin 2025

    2024

  5. [13]

    Le postmodernisme ou La logique culturelle du capitalisme tardif

    Fredrick Jameson. Le postmodernisme ou La logique culturelle du capitalisme tardif. 2011

    2011

  6. [14]

    Progr` eset innovation : quels liens ? Cairn, 2019

    Etienne Klein. Progr` eset innovation : quels liens ? Cairn, 2019

    2019

  7. [15]

    Your Brain on ChatGPT : Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task

    Nataliya Kosmyna, Eugene Hauptmann, Ye Tong Yuan, Jessica Situ, Xian- Hao Liao, Ashly Vivian Beresnitzky, Iris Braunstein, and Pattie Maes. Your Brain on ChatGPT : Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task. June 2025

    2025

  8. [16]

    Micha¨ el Lain´ e.L’` erede la post-v´ erit´ e: Comment les algorithmes changent notre rapport ` ala r´ ealit´ e. 2025

    2025

  9. [17]

    Plaire et toucher

    Gilles Lipovetsky. Plaire et toucher. Gallimard, 2017

    2017

  10. [18]

    Adverse physiological and psychological effects of screen time on children and adolescents : Literature review and case study, volume 164

    Gadi Lissak. Adverse physiological and psychological effects of screen time on children and adolescents : Literature review and case study, volume 164. 2018

    2018

  11. [19]

    Minuit, 1979

    Jean-Fran¸ cois Lyotard.La condition postmoderne. Minuit, 1979

    1979

  12. [20]

    Il ´ etaitune fois le web 2.0

    Brian Myles. Il ´ etaitune fois le web 2.0. 2024. https ://www.ledevoir.com/opinion/editoriaux/827872/il-etait-fois- web-2-0, Consult´ e en Juin 2025

    2024

  13. [21]

    Les marchands de doute

    Erik Conway Naomi Oreskes. Les marchands de doute. Edition Le Pommier, 2010

    2010

  14. [22]

    Governing the commons : The evolution of institutions for collective action

    Elinor Ostrom. Governing the commons : The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge university press, 1990

    1990

  15. [23]

    The filter bubble : what the internet is hiding from you

    Eli Pariser. The filter bubble : what the internet is hiding from you. The Pinguin Press, 2011

    2011

  16. [24]

    Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time, volume

    Michael Park, Erin Leahey, and Russell J Funk. Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time, volume

  17. [25]

    La publicit´ e,une histoire, des pratiques

    Myriam Tsikounas. La publicit´ e,une histoire, des pratiques. 2010

    2010

  18. [26]

    The disruption index is biased by citation inflation, volume 5

    Alexander Michael Petersen, Felber Arroyave, and Fabio Pammolli. The disruption index is biased by citation inflation, volume 5. MIT Press 255 Main Street, 9th Floor, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142, USA . . ., 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    A Content Analysis of Web Sites Promoting Smoking Culture and Lifestyle, volume 30

    Kurt Ribisl, Rebecca Lee, Lisa Henriksen, and Harry Haladjian. A Content Analysis of Web Sites Promoting Smoking Culture and Lifestyle, volume 30. 03 2003. 105 106 BIBLIOGRAPHIE

    2003

  20. [28]

    Qu’est-ce que la vie ? 1944

    Erwin Schrodinger. Qu’est-ce que la vie ? 1944

    1944

  21. [29]

    Youtube traffic source analysis

    Monique Souzam. Youtube traffic source analysis. 2023. https ://github.com/moniquesouzam/YouTube-Traffic- Source-Analysis ?utm source, Consult´ e en Juin 2025

    2023

  22. [30]

    La technique et le temps ; le temps du cin´ emaet le mal-ˆ etre

    Bernard Stiegler. La technique et le temps ; le temps du cin´ emaet le mal-ˆ etre. 2001

    2001

  23. [31]

    Dans la disruption : comment ne pas devenir fou ? Babel, les liens qui lib` erent, 2016

    Bernard Stiegler. Dans la disruption : comment ne pas devenir fou ? Babel, les liens qui lib` erent, 2016

    2016

  24. [33]

    Comment comprendre les communs : Elinor Ostrom, la propri´ et´ eet la nouvelle ´ economie institutionnelle

    Olivier Weinstein. Comment comprendre les communs : Elinor Ostrom, la propri´ et´ eet la nouvelle ´ economie institutionnelle. Revue de la r´ egulation [En ligne], 14 — 2e semestre / Autumn 2013, mis en ligne le 13 f´ evrier 2014, consult´ e le 08 juillet 2025., 2014. http ://...

    2013 doi

  25. [34]

    Biais de confirmation

    Wikip´ edia. Biais de confirmation. 2025. https ://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biais de confirmation, Consult´ e en Juin 2025

    2025

  26. [613]

    Nature Publishing Group UK London, 2023

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.