Tik, Tok... Boom! The Political Weaponisation of Social Media

Image: Trump's TikTok ban deadline is extended by 75-days as buyers place their bids

When politics and social media are on a collision course, the truth is the first casualty. 

As misinformation surges and social media increasingly becomes a battleground for ideological influence, it is important to question not only who controls these conversations, but who stands to benefit from them? Donald J. Trump  – the man who declared TikTok a “national emergency” during his first term as President, is now fighting to keep the app from going dark. His resistance to banning TikTok despite his long-held vendetta against China raises questions about whether his determination to save the app in the U.S. is a means to spread his agenda. Is this a sudden change of heart or a carefully crafted and drawn out political maneuver?

Meta's role within the Trump administration

On November 5, 2024, Donald J. Trump and JD Vance were elected into office as President and Vice President of the United States – a decision whose long-term consequences are gradually becoming more apparent, and infiltrating our daily lives and perspectives. Fittingly, following Mark Zuckerberg’s meeting with President Trump in November, Meta implemented a series of modifications across its social media platforms, effectively discontinuing the use of third-party fact-checkers and easing their free speech policies – drawing derision from Biden’s administration and fact-checking establishments. These modifications include constraints on media discussion surrounding social issues such as gender, sexuality, and immigration, endowing the users with the responsibility to provide accurate information. These users can now be discriminatory towards people regarding their race, sexual orientation, and religion, with Meta citing political discourse on transgender rights as their reasoning. Furthermore, Zuckerberg advocated for more political content on people’s feeds – a notion he had previously discouraged. He stated in the video that premiered these changes, “It’s time to get back to our roots around free expression”. Roots that condone racism. Roots that encourage discrimination. Roots that harm people. The loosening of such restrictions and the decrease in Meta’s policing of online conversations will unequivocally lead to an increased spread of misinformation and an increase in online harassment; thus raising concerns by LGBTQ advocacy groups regarding the safety of those being targeted. For instance, two employees who reviewed the documents about these changes found the training materials to be contradictory, as the text “white people have mental illness” was prohibited on Facebook, yet “gay people have mental illness” was permitted. This leak led to Meta locking their training materials and policy drafts. Meta usually adjusts the policies that govern its platforms – such as Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Threads – by consulting with employees, civic leaders, and other stakeholders. While commonly these changes,  understandably, take months to implement – statements from Meta employees reported that Zuckerberg transformed this recent initiative into a fast-tracked, six-week process, allegedly catching even those on his policy and integrity teams off guard. This decision supposedly left the workplace divided on their sentiments about working for such a corporation, yet gained praise from Trump’s administration. Meta’s hateful conduct that places their social media in the eye of the political landscape for now is being reflected, both online and offline. According to Janelle Gale, the Vice President of Human Resources at Meta, Meta plans to “focus on how to apply fair and consistent practices that mitigate bias for all, no matter your background”. The irony of this is that Meta then stripped the position of ‘Chief Diversity Officer’, a role that encompassed the representation of women and minorities within the company. As reported by The New York Times, the offices in Silicon Valley, Texas, and New York then proceeded to remove the tampons and sanitary pads in the men’s bathrooms that were present as a provision for non-binary and transgender people who prefer to use the men’s bathroom. Additionally, the employees were informed that Meta would discontinue their work on diversity and equity, highlighted through deterring the prioritisation of minority-owned companies when hiring vendors. Joel Kaplan, a Republican lobbyist and an individual who stands accused of compromising online safety to appease political figures, plays a pivotal role in the remaking of Meta’s policies, posing as one of the close advisors to Zuckerberg amidst this process, and Meta’s President of Global Affairs. This casts doubt on the motive behind Meta’s swift, yet dual efforts “coincidentally” aligning with the Trump administration’s political agenda – a motive Meta has declined to comment on. Zuckerberg stated that while these decisions were not being made to satisfy the Republican party, the election did impact his perspective on how he wants to run the company moving forward. Ultimately, the evidence remains overwhelming and stands as a stark symbol of what the future holds for social media and its users. 

The Future of TikTok and its Potential Acquisition

Needless to say, time is a cruel mistress – or timing, in this case. With TikTok’s days being numbered as another 75-day extension on the previous ban has been imposed, Trump’s reversal on his stance to once ban the app continues to be particularly intriguing. TikTok is a leading social media platform owned by ByteDance, a Beijing-based company with predominantly Chinese founders and investors. The decision to ban the app stems from concerns raised by the U.S. government surrounding the app undermining national security and allegedly collecting user data for the government of People’s Republic of China – a claim that has been tirelessly denied by Shou Zi Chew, CEO of TikTok. Notably, Trump’s political vendetta against China is not novel. The dissension first emerged after the imposition of tariffs on Chinese goods in 2018 by the Trump administration – inciting the infamous trade war between the U.S. and China. This, compounded by Trump’s persistent anti-Chinese and racist rhetoric, particularly the incessant blame placed on China for the COVID-19 pandemic, further escalated tensions. For this reason, the genuineness behind Trump’s mission to keep TikTok operational in the U.S. provokes skepticism. Such a “change of heart” from Donald Trump on China coincides with Meta’s updated policies, alongside speculative rumors surrounding Meta’s potential acquisition of TikTok. This begs the question, are we heading down a path where freedom of speech – though protected under the Constitution – may be endangered by dominating corporations? Historically, it has been observed how companies, especially those spearheading social media outlets, use their platforms to spread bias. A prominent instance is Elon Musk, the CEO of X (formerly Twitter), drastically scaling back content moderation and reinstating previously banned figures that are infamous for pushing far right narratives. Additionally, his involvement in disseminating deceptive ads about the Democratic Party during the U.S. presidential election has been a focal point of discussion. According to Le Monde, these ads came from a Republican Political Action Committee (PAC), ‘Building America's Future’ that was funded by Elon Musk. With over $300,000 being invested in one week – this accounted for over three times the amount the IRA spent on their Facebook ads in 2016. And yet, it just so happens that this individual is a senior advisor to Donald Trump and currently heads his Department of Government Efficiency. While Meta’s acquisition remains speculative, how “convenient” would it be if these rumours came to life and Meta implemented these modifications on TikTok; thus creating a Republican ideology-driven monopoly on all dominating social media platforms – hence leading to the political weaponisation of social media. 

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana, The Life of Reason

If there’s anything history has taught us, it is that the power mongering giants at Silicon Valley will not prioritise neutrality over political alignment. As these platforms evolve from once spaces of open dialogue to tools in a power play to shift the rhetoric to portraying the Republican Party in a domineering light, the bare concept of freedom of expression hangs in the balance. With Meta’s restriction on digital discourse, followed by the uncertainty of TikTok’s future – the line between corporate power and political influence has never been blurrier. 

Unfortunately, it's simple – it is a matter of waiting. Waiting for the downfall of digital freedom augmented by political weaponisation, that will mark a watershed moment in our history.