This essay examines how social media platforms have become tools for political censorship and narrative control, analyzing high-profile cases like President Trump's ban from major platforms and COVID-19 content moderation. The analysis explores the tension between platform governance and free speech, discussing how censorship has led to the development of alternative platforms. The essay argues that while social media initially promised enhanced political engagement, it has largely become another mechanism for the political class to control public discourse.
Social media can promote political engagement but it can also be used as a control mechanism for influencing political narratives and silencing dissenters. For example, President Trump’s social media accounts were banned from Twitter and Facebook in an unprecedented move by the Big Tech companies to silence what they viewed as a major voice and factor in contributing to a counter-narrative (Oremus, 2022). Likewise, with the Covid lockdowns of 2020 and 2021, many voices were silenced on YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and other social media platforms for criticizing the prevailing political narrative, for criticizing Dr. Fauci, or for promoting an alternative view of how to treat Covid (Owen, 2020). All of this has led—perhaps not surprisingly—to President Trump developing a new social media platform of his own under a new company called Trump Media and Technology Group that aims to bring TRUTH Social to the market in February of 2022 in conjunction with the free speech advocate Rumble (Peters, 2022). Trump plans not only to offer the public a platform to rival Twitter’s but also to provide streaming so that alternative voices can share their information without fear that their content will be removed.
It could be said, therefore, that social media has increased political engagement and increased political discourse in general. For a while it appeared that anyone who ran afoul of online fact checkers was suspended or had content removed; but now it seems that a new space is opening up for dissenters, which should contribute to even more political engagement and discourse. Regardless of whether one agrees with Trump or those who have alternative theories on Covid, the government, the capital insurrection, or any other issue, the fact is that political engagement and discourse depends upon people with differing opinions and views being able to express their differences and debate one another publicly. Social media is the perfect place for that to happen.
At the same time, it is clear that the political class has not moved away from control to engagement, because it still seeks to control narratives by using social media influencers and big tech companies as arbiters of what can be seen as an approved posting and what should be condemned as un-factual. Google, YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook all have played a part in suppressing opinions that countered the official position of the state-approved narrative of Covid. When the political class does use social media for engagement, it is typically an exercise in shaping a narrative and thus controlling how an issue is presented or understood, regardless of which side of the political paradigm (right, left or center) one is discussing.
This means that things are basically the same as they were, with social media having become the latest way for the political class to assume control over stories, themes, and controversies. Whether Trump’s new social media site will do anything to enhance legitimate engagement or merely serve as a place where the right and alt-right attempt to control a narrative remains to be seen. There are of course alternative platforms such as Bitchute, where users can express views with less fear of being censored, but these are not as mainstream as YouTube or Twitter.
The question is to what degree will the political class permit controversial viewpoints to be aired in the public forum? If Gab can be removed from its hosting site, and accounts can be suspended from the major social media platforms, it stands to reason that the political class will not sit idly by while a new major platform is created that pledges to give voice to the politically oppressed. At the same time, many of those who are silenced are accused of spreading bad science, racism, or fascist remarks, and these accusations may or may not be valid—so understanding where and how to draw the line between free speech and censorship is something that still needs to be taken into consideration.
The fact that a sitting president was banned from social media, however, is sign enough that the political class wants control over the social media forums. Trump had millions of followers, and millions voted for him in 2016 and 2020. He still draws large crowds to his rallies, and many expect him to run for office again in 2024. With TRUTH Social to support his base, there will likely be a big struggle in the social media sphere regarding what is actually true and what is actually false, as people on both sides of the political aisle take to their respective social media platforms of preference to publicize their views or to criticize the views of others. The coming years will almost certainly be very interesting in terms of whether engagement and discourse flourish or whether they are curtailed and controlled in new ways.
You’re 85% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.