Secrets confer status online

In discussions about classified information, it is often less about what is said, but more about how it is said. A study from the Swedish Defence University shows how people signal access to secret information without revealing it, and how this creates clear hierarchies and status within groups.

How do people talk about things that must not be said? That question lies at the heart of a new scientific article by David Bergman, affiliated researcher at the Swedish Defence University.

The study examines the so-called secrecy paradox, signalling that one has access to exclusive knowledge while concealing its content in order to preserve its value. The findings show how this paradox shapes communication within an online community.

Communication organised into hierarchies

The analysis is based on an extended discussion on a Swedish online forum about an alleged secret government bunker (intended as a refuge for the Swedish government in the event of war). The results show that communication is quickly organised into clear hierarchies. A small number of users control the flow of information, while the majority take on a more passive role. Almost half of all posts were written by the 20 most active participants, demonstrating how concentrated control over information is.

At the same time, distinct ways of communicating emerge. Participants hint that they possess important knowledge without disclosing it. They refer to private messages, use vague phrasing, and signal who is “in the know” and who remains outside.

“The key point is not the secret itself, but how people demonstrate that they have access to it”, says David Bergman.

Status based on claimed access to valuable information

The study identifies six recurring modes of communication, such as hinting at knowledge and controlling who is allowed access to information. Together, these patterns construct a social order in which status is linked to access to - or claimed access to - secrets.

One clear finding is that this type of communication becomes self-reinforcing. The more valuable the information is perceived to be, the stronger the incentive not to reveal it fully. As a result, discussions can continue for a long time without reaching any clear conclusion.

“The paradox is that if someone actually reveals everything, both the secret and the value of knowing it disappear”, says David Bergman.

The study shows that secrets are not only about concealing information. They also function as a social tool for creating status, belonging, and power.

Exclusive communication in digital environments

This knowledge can be used to better understand communication in environments where confidentiality is central, such as defence, security, and intelligence contexts. It may also help analyse the spread of information in digital environments, where insinuation and exclusivity are often used to build credibility.

“By understanding how people use secrets in communication, we can also become better at interpreting what is actually happening in such environments”, says David Bergman.