Freedom of speech has not disappeared — it has changed its form. And it is not certain that it has changed for the better

Every year on May 3, the world marks World Press Freedom Day — a date meant to remind us of the value of independent journalism. But in 2026, this day increasingly sounds less like a celebration and more like a diagnosis.

Thirty years ago, when the very idea of global protection of freedom of speech was закреплена under the auspices of the United Nations and UNESCO, there was an almost naive belief: more information would automatically mean more freedom. History decided otherwise.

Today, we live in a world where there is more information than ever before — but less trust in it.

The development of the press since 1993 can be described as a slow, almost imperceptible shift: from the expansion of freedom to its complication, from openness to fragmentation and control.

In the 1990s, the press was indeed expanding. The collapse of ideological barriers led to an explosive growth of independent publications, particularly in post-socialist countries. Newspapers became arenas of politics, public debate, and, at times, chaos. Yet it was precisely within that chaos that a sense of freedom emerged.

Then the internet arrived — and changed everything.

Editorial offices ceased to be the gatekeepers of information. Their role as intermediaries — selecting, verifying, and structuring the news — began to erode. Information became instantaneous, endless, and increasingly difficult to manage. At the same time, the economic model of journalism collapsed: advertising moved to technological platforms, and with it went the financial independence of the media.

But the most significant shift came later.

In recent years, as noted by Reporters Without Borders, pressure on journalism has become more sophisticated. It is no longer only about direct bans or censorship. It is control through markets, through algorithms, through ownership. It is a world where freedom of speech formally exists, but its impact is limited by the structure of the media environment itself.

Information no longer unites — it divides. Audiences live in parallel realities where facts compete with interpretations, and sometimes with outright disinformation.

In Azerbaijan, this global transformation has taken on its own contours.

In the late 1990s, the country experienced a brief but notable period of media pluralism. The abolition of censorship in 1998 gave momentum to the development of the print press, which became the main channel for political and public debate. It was an era of bold headlines, sharp confrontations, and, despite economic hardship, genuine competition of ideas.

But that period proved to be transitional.

From the mid-2000s, the media environment began to contract gradually. Independent print outlets disappeared or moved online, where conditions proved less free than expected. The internet expanded access to information but did not guarantee independence.

By the 2020s, a system had emerged that can be described as managed. The main information flows are concentrated, while independent journalism has partially moved beyond the country’s borders. The print press has lost its influence, giving way to digital channels that also operate within a regulated environment.

This is not a unique situation — but it is a revealing one.

Azerbaijan, like many other countries, demonstrates that digitalisation does not in itself lead to freedom. It merely changes the instruments of control.

The future of the press, like its past, will not be linear.

On one side are platforms that are integrating journalism ever more deeply into their ecosystems. On the other are media organisations trying to survive through subscriptions, niche formats, and quality. Between them stand states that are increasingly regulating information flows.

And somewhere between these forces, journalism remains — no longer as a monolithic institution, but as a function.

A function of verification.
A function of interpretation.
A function of trust.

The problem is that trust has become the most scarce resource of all.

Freedom of speech has not disappeared. But it no longer guarantees that the truth will be heard.