"Censorship is the child of fear and the father of ignorance" (Anderson 144). Across history, during prominent events such as World War I and the Cold War, governments have, for good or ill, purposely censored information, breeding ignorance. They discussed censorship frequently to maintain political power, especially when there is an internal or external threat to their values: a common reason for past and current censorship. With their population unaware of a wide range of perspectives, it was easier for governments to change the narrative. Now, amid the transition to digitalized information, institutions can track and control what citizens have access to, meaning censorship, digital censorship in particular, is more prevalent than ever before. Many authors inspired by their experiences during the Cold War wrote books predicting a future of censorship. Among these is Fahrenheit 451, a 1950s dystopian novel written by Ray Bradbury about an American society where books are banned and burnt by 'firemen'. In Fahrenheit 451, the interactions between Montag and Captain Beatty demonstrate that Ray Bradbury rejects digital censorship because it renders citizens ignorant and builds a sense of false happiness, which then leads them to self-censor. 

Through Beatty's description to Montag of how the government in Fahrenheit 451 prevents deep thinking, it is clear that increased censorship limits the range of information. Beatty explains to Montag that the government prevents the citizens from challenging the social norm by "cram[ming] [citizens] full of non-combustible data" and "chock[ing] them so damned full of 'facts' they feel stuffed, but absolutely 'brilliant' with information" (Bradbury 43). Bradbury's use of the word "facts" represents the government giving information that limits the citizens' predisposition for inquiry, cultivating their ignorance. It prevents them from deep thinking because memorizing facts does not require analysis and emphasizes useless trivia but disregards individual thought. It satiates citizens' urge to probe for more information because the facts give them a sense of "motion without moving" (Bradbury 43). They believe they are advancing their critical-thinking skills, when in reality, they are stuck in place. Similarly, in an article on Computerworld, a technology-based publication, regarding religious beliefs on the internet, it is expressed that the lack of information caused by digital censorship results in ignorant people coming to misinformed solutions. An instance of this occurred in 2010 when the US Congress wanted "to prevent terrorists from using the web to recruit and carry out missions by taking down all [J]ihadist-related websites" (Richet). However, there was a misunderstanding in the difference between "Jihad" and "Jihadists." The main definition of Jihad is the "fulfilment of a personal goal - overcoming wrongdoing in oneself" (Bowker). People engaged in Jihad see themselves trying to overcome a personal struggle. However, Jihadists are extremists who "see violent struggle as necessary" and deal with Muslims' external threats through violence. Muslims engaged in Jihad do not call themselves "Jihadists," but rather "deviants," as they believe the name "Jihadists" is "wrongly associating a noble religious concept with illegitimate violence" ("What is Jihadism?."). Because of the misinterpretation, Congress also intended to take down deviant-related sites. With the influence of mass media and its misuse of the terms, citizens lack a nuanced understanding of the differences between Jihad and Jihadists. This can cause citizens to make misinformed conclusions about Jihad. Although Congress did not follow through with their plan, the intent was still there. However, under the authority of other arbiters, the plan may have been executed, resulting in media and government-enforced censorship and produce ignorance in citizens. Similarly, in the book, because the government feeds citizens with useless information, it manipulates them into thinking they are smart, even though they are ignorant of more pressing issues such as education and politics. Because of the emphasis placed on the harmful effects of the government's methods in the book, it is demonstrated that Bradbury opposes digital censorship.

In addition, censorship also results in a false sense of happiness, shown through how Beatty manipulates Montag by giving Montag a sense of purpose and undermining the source of Montag's realization, Clarisse, Montag's next-door neighbor. After Montag contemplates his conversation with Clarisse, he realizes that he is unhappy with the censoring of knowledge and calls in sick to the fire station. Beatty gathers that Montag has the "itch," representing the curiosity and desire to read, and visits Montag at his house (Bradbury 44). In order to discourage Montag, Beatty fabricates a history of book burning, saying how book burning was established in 1790, and the first fireman was Benjamin Franklin (Bradbury 24). This false narrative attempts to give Montag a sense that he is part of a lineage of firemen serving a noble purpose for society instead of an emerging destructive group. Beatty ends his lecture by telling Montag, "[t]he important thing for you to remember, Montag, is we're the Happiness Boys, the Dixie Duo, you and I and the others…." (Bradbury 44). Both the "Happiness Boys" and the "Dixie Duo" were a group of two performers, and Beatty mentions them to convince Montag that they have a purpose as protectors of happiness. Montag is vulnerable because of his confusion and emerging realization of unhappiness. Beatty takes advantage of this by 'supporting' him, but in reality, manipulating him into thinking he is happy. Beatty tries to conceal the unpleasant state of society and classifies Clarisse, the person who caused Montag's self-realization, as an "odd duck" and "time bomb" (Bradbury 43). However, despite Beatty's attempts, he fails to stray Montag away from his self-doubt as Montag realizes he is "so damned unhappy" and "mad" (Bradbury 46). Bradbury portrays the lecture as a way to show Montag's growth and his self-realization. Beatty's negative influence on Montag is portrayed through his attempts to lead Montag away from his character development. Similarly, during the COVID-19 pandemic, many governments enforced digital censorship to give their citizens a flawed outlook of their country's COVID-19 control. As shown in a Human Rights Watch article by Kenneth Roth regarding how authoritarians exploit the COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Egyptian government downplayed the virus, with the risk of devastating their citizens' health. "Egypt's President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi…expelled a Guardian correspondent and 'warned' a New York Times journalist" for writing articles that questioned Egypt's official recording of the number of coronavirus cases (Roth). Although the ignorance created in their citizens results in a false sense of happiness over their country's Covid-19 control, it could become a severe danger to their national health over time. This scenario follows from the concept of "ignorance is bliss"; Egyptian citizens are only happy due to their ignorance which may cause them to place themselves in dangerous situations, risking their lives. Like the Egyptian government, Beatty distorts reality to keep Montag from questioning his 'happiness.' As Beatty mentions, "the Devil can quote scripture for his purposes" (Bradbury 103). If books are removed from existence, "the Devil" can no longer utilize them, causing everyone to be 'happy'. However, in both cases, they will ultimately result in the affected group inflicting harm upon themselves, showing the dangers of false happiness. Through Montag's character development, it demonstrates that Bradbury is against the Egyptian government's actions which would similarly result in false happiness.

Ultimately, censorship, which results in ignorance and false happiness, leads citizens to subconsciously self-censor. When Beatty explains the causation of book burning to Montag, he describes that it started to appease the citizens. For example, if "[c]olored people do not like Little Black Sambo," they would "[b]urn it" (Bradbury 43). If someone writes a book about how tobacco is harmful, it will cause the "cigarette people" to "weep," thus the government would "burn the book" (Bradbury 43). Over time, the stigma for intellectuals increased, and it became the norm to bully them. For example, Beatty tells Montag that the boy who was "exceptionally 'bright'" was consequently the boy that students "selected for beatings and tortures after hours" (Bradbury 42). Although the government first established the book burnings, it evolved so that citizens shunned them as well. Even if firemen were no longer present, the citizen's self-censorship would keep intellectuals from appearing. Bradbury criticizes this behavior because it causes ignorance and a false sense of happiness. To better understand how the government in Fahrenheit 451 gained control over its citizens, they are also pertinent to understand the phenomenon of echo chambers and how it is present on social media. An example of this is shown through a Wired article written in 2020 by Christopher Seneca, New York City-based US diplomat and free-lance writer. Seneca implies that what might have started as censorship enforced by larger corporations eventually shifted to users enforcing it on themselves, for example, by liking certain posts or following certain people. However, social media users often do not realize that these subconscious behaviors cause them to fall into echo chambers. These echo chambers, where people only encounter opinions that "reflect and reinforce their own," can cause "misinformation" and "distort a person's perspective" ("Digital Media Literacy: What is An Echo Chamber?"). Thus, Seneca raises the view that "' [i]f the companies and algorithms are not [regulating falling into echo chambers] for us… it is up to us to regulate ourselves'" (Seneca). However, Seneca's argument only applies to those who rely on social media as a news platform, such as the younger generation. Despite this, it is beneficial for all citizens to be aware of methods of preventing echo chambers. Thus, Seneca provides several ways in his article, such as "lik[ing] everything" or "follow[ing] prestig[ious] publications across the political spectrum" to aid everyday citizens in becoming aware of and accessing impartial instead of biased information (Seneca). These methods ensure that the algorithm cannot limit the information users receive as they appear to have various perspectives and interests. Although echo chambers are most evident on social media platforms, they can also exist within communities. For example, the world of Fahrenheit 451 represents an echo chamber. Like the environment on social media, everyone reiterates the same opinions and receives instant gratification from their unanimity. This unanimity strengthens citizens' opposition against intellectuals, increasing their self-censorship as they start to shun intellectuals themselves. However, Bradbury disapproves of this behavior and instead wants citizens to become more open-minded and aware of their behavior, similar to how Seneca believes users should act on social media platforms. Thus, Bradbury condones digital echo chambers and self-censorship. 

Overall, Bradbury's depictions of the dialogue between Montag and Captain Beatty show his opposition towards digital censorship because it results in ignorance and a false sense of happiness. He emphasizes how, even though organizations initially cause censorship, ultimately, it is the people themselves who continue to enforce it. Looking at Fahrenheit 451, many of Bradbury's predictions accurately represent the world's absorption with technology. Hence, the decline of deep thinking in citizens is a valid danger. Montag, the main character, is a typical citizen in a society with strict suppression of information who challenges his role in society. Beatty, the antagonist, advocates for the current structure of society and manipulates Montag by neglecting Montag's questioning and self-doubt. Through the interactions between these two characters, it is clear that Bradbury is warning future generations about the dangers of losing their analytical thinking and diverse perspectives to censorship. Although, according to Fahrenheit 451, the future sounds dire, many programs, such as Stanford's Civic Online Reasoning (COR) program, aim to teach students about how to analyze and utilize deep thinking to aid them in an age of digital censorship (Breakstone). However, despite these programs, the dangers of censorship remain present. Thus, it is helpful to use Fahrenheit 451 as a cautionary tale on acting in a society similar to Fahrenheit 451's. In order to prevent oneself from succumbing to the dangers of censorship, "[d] on't look to be saved in any one thing, person, machine or library. Do your own bit of saving, and if you drown, at least die knowing you were headed for shore" (Bradbury 59).