The technology of language is designed to fool the receiver. That's its primary goal. Read any substantial text on language post western functional linguistics like Deacon's The Symbolic Species. In his view "language is a virus or a parasite"
Once language became a strategy of cybernetic and then cog-sci regimes (which is what all computer science is modeled from), the basic principle of control-deception in language became electronic through its perceptions of socialization, which comp sci totally mistakes as information (see above) and then control, accelerated and now automated. The entire point of computer science operating socialization is completely off the rails mindblowingly simple-minded and damaging to us. Algorithms a/b tested to succeed are in essence, suicidal to the survival of our species. We're not optimized to horizontalize communication of this type: arbitrary metaphors and symbols. Language wasn't built for speed, horizontalization or decentralization.
Now read the above again. To call Donna Haraway the great theorist/historian of cyborg studies and the development of science into cog science pseudo in any way reveals you have never grasped anything deep and resonant about human computer interaction.
I'm afraid I'm not convinced. In particular, there's an obvious objection to your first claim: if language were primarily designed to fool people, then it would be useless, because other people would ignore it. As for the rest, it still isn't clear what you are saying. For example: "the basic principle of control-deception in language became electronic through its perceptions of socialization". Sorry, whose perceptions? The principle's perceptions? Language's perceptions?
It seems you can't explain your ideas clearly. Maybe they just aren't clear ideas.
You're wasting your time wasting my time if you pretend you can't find the it in that sentence, one my 14 year old freshman son identified in 2 seconds. That means you're either a moron, or you play very stupid games.
That language is deception primarily can be factual along with 99% of its users remaining unable to detect that deception, and it's not even fully contradictory. What kind of scientist can't hold near contradictory processes in their working memory to reach correlational theoretic statements, certainly none that I know.
If you don't know the animal world of signals heavily discounts arbitrary forms from roles in survival, I don't know what to tell you. Go back to undergrad and start all over again.
The amount of work about language being too indirect to be valid, stable signals and thus deceptive is rather vast, and you pretending it will vanish with that little narrative shuffle "peoplw will ignore it" means you must be either doubly moronic, have no idea about the human capacity for self-deception in signals, mythological thought, or spend your days playing defensive games in debates you just can't win.
I count over 300 papers discussing the deceptive nature of language, beginning with Aristotle.
..at some point a direct contact must occur between knowledge and reality. If we
succeed in freeing ourselves from all these interpretations – if we above all succeed in removing the veil of words, which conceals the truth, the true essence of things, then at one stroke we shall find ourselves face to face with the original perceptions..
Ernst Cassirer The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms
