Whether the reinstatement of TikTok with President Trump’s name attached constitutes propaganda is a rhetorical question. Trump formerly crusaded against the app and then, not 24 hours after its disappearance, was hailed for facilitating its return in a highly contradictory turn of events.
TikTok was reportedly made re-available in the United States due to “President Trump’s efforts” — Trump being only president-elect at the time of this message — a subtle and premature seizure of social power. The whole proceeding reeks of a thinly veiled tactic for Trump to garner youth support and solidify his control over the media. He also added TikTok’s CEO, Shou Zi Chew, to the front row of supporters in his inauguration crowd, among other industry staples.
There is a clear danger in this politically-motivated appeal to a younger, highly impressionable crowd, but politicians puppeteering mass media poses a more pressing concern. The involvement of political figures on these platforms is not unique to TikTok’s current situation — social media has always been a prominent forum for campaigns. However, the new danger posed by the partnership between Chew and Trump lies in its comprehensiveness.
Trump is no longer using the social media site to produce original videos and further his campaign goals; he may now be in a position to censor the totality of what content will be available to the American public. If such a complete information monopoly is granted to Trump, or anyone for that matter, we face a threat to free speech.
While no concrete findings have directly linked Trump and censorship, it is widely noted that content moderation may already be occurring. Most prominently, users have reported limited search results and the removal of comments using phrases that were allowed before the app’s brief darkness — including words related to current activism movements and political discourse, like “Free Palestine.” Regardless of its relation to Trump, this content moderation is deeply concerning, as it casts a shadow over the essence of free expression that social media platforms like TikTok are intended to promote.
If any one entity gains the power to suppress certain viewpoints while amplifying others, the democratic foundation of the United States is undermined. The manipulation of content not only affects the type of information available to the public, but it also stifles the diversity of thought that is vital for healthy political discourse.
Moreover, this isn’t just a matter of Trump wielding his influence over TikTok; it’s about the broader implications for the future of social media platforms. Once the precedent is set that the government can dictate what content stays or goes, the slippery slope becomes difficult to reverse. The ability to filter or censor content in the name of national security or political correctness can quickly morph into a tool for silencing dissent or suppressing movements that challenge the status quo.
What makes this issue even more troubling is the relative lack of transparency that surrounds social media algorithms and moderation policies. The processes by which content is removed or manipulated are not always transparent to users, making it even harder to hold those in charge accountable. When it isn’t even explicit who’s calling the shots behind the scenes, it becomes nearly impossible for the public to understand the scope of censorship, let alone protest it effectively.
Thus, while the reinstatement of TikTok under Trump’s influence may seem like a minor political victory at first glance, it signals a much larger issue. If we are to safeguard our democratic ideals, we must ensure that no one, president or corporation, has the unchecked power to control the flow of information, manipulate the content we see or determine the narrative of public discourse.
Our right to free speech is not just a constitutional guarantee, but also the cornerstone of the open exchange of ideas upon which our society stands. Without it, the very foundation of democracy is at risk.
