TikTok and The Politics of Censorship
Photo courtesy of the Associated Press
The fight over TikTok’s future in the United States isn’t just about national security or data privacy; it’s part of a larger battle about who controls public discourse in the digital age. Recent research from PubMed Central sheds light on how and why censorship—whether by individuals or governments—is implemented and the profound implications it has for free speech. The current TikTok ban highlights how those in power can use their authority to suppress dialogue and shape narratives, often under the guise of protecting the public.
The Study: Unpacking Online Censorship
A groundbreaking study published on PubMed Central explored how individuals censor opposing views online. The research revealed that people are more likely to delete or block comments that conflict with their beliefs, even when those comments are respectful and inoffensive. This behavior, called selective censorship, is driven by a deep connection between a person’s beliefs and their identity.
For instance, someone who strongly identifies with a cause like abortion rights or gun control may perceive opposing opinions as personal attacks, leading them to censor those viewpoints. The study also found that:
Censorship Goes Beyond Offensiveness: People removed opposing comments regardless of whether they were polite or inflammatory.
Identity Amplifies Censorship: When beliefs are deeply tied to one’s sense of self, the likelihood of censoring opposing views increases significantly.
Democratic Risks: This type of censorship, when scaled up, can distort public dialogue by limiting access to diverse viewpoints.
While the study focused on individual behavior, it underscores how similar dynamics play out when governments or corporations control information on larger platforms.
TikTok: A Test Case for Political Censorship
The TikTok ban is a real-world example of political censorship on a massive scale. Signed into law by President Joe Biden in April 2024 and enforced on January 19, 2025, the ban cited national security risks tied to TikTok’s Chinese ownership. Officials argued that TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, could be pressured by the Chinese government to misuse data or influence American users.
However, critics have raised questions about the true motivations behind the ban. TikTok has been a vital platform for grassroots organizing, cultural exchange, and political expression, particularly among younger Americans. By restricting access to the app, the government effectively limits a major avenue for public discourse.
Updates on the TikTok Ban
The TikTok saga has taken several dramatic turns:
Supreme Court Ruling: In late 2024, the Supreme Court upheld the ban, citing national security concerns as outweighing TikTok’s First Amendment claims. ByteDance’s efforts to block the decision failed.
Temporary Reprieve: On January 19, 2025, hours after TikTok went dark, President-elect Donald Trump announced plans to delay the ban for 90 days to allow ByteDance to negotiate a sale of TikTok’s U.S. operations. Trump proposed a “joint venture” that would give U.S. entities 50% ownership of the platform.
Challenges to Sale: ByteDance and experts have noted that separating TikTok’s U.S. operations from its global infrastructure would be highly complex, raising questions about the feasibility of such a sale.
Parallels Between the Study and the TikTok Ban
The study from PubMed Central offers a framework for understanding how and why censorship occurs, and the TikTok ban mirrors these behaviors on a national scale.
Selective Silencing: Just as individuals delete opposing comments, governments can suppress platforms that host dissenting voices or pose challenges to political narratives.
Identity Politics: Leaders often frame platforms like TikTok as threats to national identity or security, tapping into fears to justify censorship.
Distorted Dialogue: Banning TikTok could deepen ideological divisions, as users retreat into echo chambers on other platforms.
Why It Matters
Censorship, whether by individuals or governments, threatens the foundations of democracy. The TikTok ban sets a troubling precedent for restricting digital platforms, raising critical questions:
Who decides what’s a “threat”? Governments’ ability to censor platforms can easily be misused.
What’s next? If TikTok is banned today, other platforms could face similar scrutiny tomorrow.
How do we protect free speech? Balancing national security with open dialogue is a challenge that demands transparency and accountability.
Moving Forward
The PubMed study reminds us that censorship—whether motivated by personal identity or political agendas—stifles understanding and connection. As Americans grapple with the TikTok ban and its implications, it’s vital to advocate for policies that protect both security and free expression. The power to control information must be wielded carefully, with a commitment to fostering dialogue rather than silencing it.
