SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
tiktok
Today's Social Media Are No Longer Safe for Journalism
This existential moment calls for a global social media platform for independent news media.
Mar 21, 2025
Hannah Arendt, the German-American political theorist who studied totalitarian regimes, noted in 1974 that “The moment we no longer have a free press, anything can happen. What makes it possible for a totalitarian or any other dictatorship to rule is that people are not informed; how can you have an opinion if you are not informed?”
Fifty years later, we have nearly reached that moment. This is existential for all independent (i.e., not allied with a political party or authoritarian regime) news organizations and their ability to reach audiences in the social media space.
Social media like Twitter (now X) and Facebook became important environments for the news media to enter two decades ago because they are where millions of people congregate online. For journalism organizations, the goal has been to post interesting stories and get referrals—those users who click through to the news site and boost web page views.
Yet, that relationship has fallen apart. Ultimately, tech companies are not interested in helping journalism or aiding civil discourse. The annual Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism digital news report for 2025 notes “big falls in referral traffic to news sites from Facebook (67%) and Twitter (50%) over the last two years.”
The even bigger problem for independent news media is that most social media platforms are increasingly antithetical to freedom of the press.
There are millions of people in the social media space, and journalism shouldn’t leave them behind.
Since Elon Musk bought Twitter for $44 billion in 2022 and turned it into X, it’s become the disinformation-drenched social platform of the Donald Trump administration. This year, genuflecting to Trump, Meta (corporate parent of Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and WhatsApp) announced it would drop its independent fact-checking program in the U.S. in favor of an anemic, crowd-sourced “community notes” system, which has already been a failure at X. Another popular news platform, TikTok, has serious disinformation problems, security liabilities and an uncertain future.
Several news organizations around the globe decided they won’t take it anymore. NPR stopped posting on X in 2023, after the platform insisted on designating it as “U.S. state-affiliated media.” More recently, The Guardian announced it would stop posting on X, concluding it is “a toxic media platform.” Dagens Nyheter, the Swedish newspaper of record, Le Monde, the French newspaper of record, and La Vanguardia, the leading newspaper in Barcelona, quit X, too. The European Federation of Journalists, representing about 320,000 journalists, did the same. “We cannot continue to participate in feeding the social network of a man who proclaims the death of the media and therefore of journalists,” EFJ president Maja Sever wrote.
But, simply quitting X only eliminates the worst option and settles for the slightly less bad options that remain.
It doesn’t have to be this way.
There are millions of people in the social media space, and journalism shouldn’t leave them behind. For example, 54% of Americans get their news often or sometimes from social media. Adults 18-29 are the heaviest users of social media platforms. They deserve a social media platform that respects and informs them.
That’s why legitimate news media should band together and regain the autonomy they ceded to third-party social media. Independent news organizations–large and small–should cooperatively create and control their own social media platform that amplifies news and public information, encourages links to member news organizations, and excludes misinformation and disinformation.
Journalism has been so beaten down by big tech that it’s hard to imagine a different way of doing things.
The model for this is something almost as old as modern journalism, too: The Associated Press, an international cooperative nonprofit news agency. As the AP tells its founding story, “In 1846, five New York City newspapers funded a pony express route through Alabama to bring news of the Mexican War north faster than the U.S. Post Office could deliver it.” The problem with social media is similar–if it’s not working, work collectively to build another way. And, like the AP, it could be a global cooperative.
Journalism has been so beaten down by big tech that it’s hard to imagine a different way of doing things. But, a news-controlled social media platform could develop features that would demonstrate the multimedia ability of news organizations and enable the audience to create social connections in new and entertaining ways. Users could adjust their feeds to focus on local, regional, national, or international news, or whatever mix and topics makes sense to them, so all legitimate news organizations of any size get to be part of the platform.
Which news organizations and journalists could be part of such a social media cooperative?
Reporters Without Borders, the international journalism nonprofit, already has a powerful statement for fostering global information spaces for the common good, where “information can only be regarded as reliable when freely gathered, processed and disseminated according to the principles of commitment to truth, plurality of viewpoints and rational methods of establishment and verification of facts.” This would enable a broad range of journalism organizations to participate, and draw a bright line to exclude media propagating disinformation.
The challenge of creating a social media space for journalism is bigger than any single news organization can handle.
From a business perspective, journalism organizations, not third-party social media, would retain analytic data and any advertising revenue. The social media app could be free for any person with a subscription to any member news organization (e.g., a local newspaper, a national magazine of opinion, or digital news site), or with a nominal subscription fee, to provide built-in authentication and help prevent bot accounts. There are also strong global standards for content moderation through the International Fact-Checking Network, which was formed in 2015 and has a nonpartisan code of principles and more than 170 fact-checking groups around the world.
What would such a social media platform cost to create?
Clearly, $44 billion is too much. Bluesky, which has gained favor as an X alternative in recent months, offers a case for comparison. It started internally with just a handful of workers at then-Twitter in 2019. In the past two years, it’s received $23 million in seed funding to get it where it is today.
Bluesky may be the current favorite of many journalists, and has many advantages over other social media platforms, but its worthy purpose to encourage a less toxic space for public conversation does not primarily serve the goals of globally disseminating independent journalism.
Collectively building a nonprofit, cooperative global news-based social media platform would put verified news back in the center of public discourse.
The challenge of creating a social media space for journalism is bigger than any single news organization can handle. There has been talk for several years about Europe having its own social media platform to highlight democracy, diversity, solidarity, and privacy, and to avoid “foreign information manipulations and interference” from platforms based in the U.S. that have fallen into Trump’s power orbit and China-based platforms as well.
But, a nongovernmental platform, with a consortium of democracy-minded news organizations, may be most resistant to nationalisms and authoritarianism. The project could be built on an open-source structure like ActivityPub (the infrastructure behind Mastodon) or the AT Protocol (behind Bluesky), which would give more power to users.
Collectively building a nonprofit, cooperative global news-based social media platform would put verified news back in the center of public discourse. The alternative is the independent press’s passive acceptance of whatever social media ecosystems Silicon Valley plutocrats or authoritarian governments decide to make, which is bad news for a free press.Keep ReadingShow Less
Democrats Set Up Trump to 'Save' TikTok After His Effort to Ban It
"The Democratic Party setting up Trump to play the part of the zoomer savior after Trump got this all rolling in the first place is... the sort of self-inflicted wound that only the Democratic Party could accomplish."
Jan 19, 2025
After starting Sunday with a Truth Social post declaring "SAVE TIKTOK!" U.S. President-elect Donald Trump announced plans for an executive order delaying a nationwide ban on the global video-sharing platform—which some political observers framed as a "win" for the Republican that was made possible by Democrats in Washington, D.C.
Trump actually kicked off efforts to force TikTok's Chinese parent company ByteDance to divest with an August 2020 executive order, citing national security concerns. Three months later, he lost an election to Democratic President Joe Biden, who ultimately reversed the order. However, Biden then signed the legislation currently impeding the platform's availability in the United States.
"Congratulations, Democrats," said Nina Turner, a former Democratic congressional candidate from Ohio, as the platform began informing U.S. users that it was no longer available late Saturday. "This could've been avoided had you listened to progressives last year when this bill was being forced through Congress."
U.S. Reps. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) and Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) last March
led a bipartisan coalition that introduced a bill targeting TikTok's parent company—the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act—in the House of Representatives, where it swiftly approved in a 352-65 vote.
A version of the bill—which forces ByteDance to sell TikTok to a non-Chinese company or face a U.S. ban—ultimately passed both chambers with bipartisan support as a rider to a $95 billion military assistance package for Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel, as it waged a genocidal war against Palestinians in Gaza. Biden signed it in April.
The resulting legal battle reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which on Friday unanimously upheld the law, "giving the executive branch unprecedented power to silence speech it doesn't like, increasing the danger that sweeping invocations of 'national security' will trump our constitutional rights," in the words of ACLU National Security Project deputy director Patrick Toomey.
The court's decision meant TikTok would "go dark" on Sunday without action from Biden, who declined to give ByteDance a 90-day extension to sell or accept the ban, despite pressure from First Amendment advocates like the ACLU, the platform's 170 million American users—including content creators and small businesses facing financial impacts—and some lawmakers.
In a Friday statement, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre
pointed to Trump's Monday inauguration, saying that "given the sheer fact of timing, this administration recognizes that actions to implement the law simply must fall to the next administration."
Late Saturday, TikTok users in the United States began seeing a pop-up message that the platform was unavailable, stating: "A law banning TikTok has been enacted in the U.S. Unfortunately, that means you can't use TikTok for now. We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office. Please stay tuned!"
In response to former Obama administration staffer and podcaster Tommy Vietor calling TikTok's message an advertisement from the Chinese Communist Party, leftist political commentator Hasan Piker highlighted Trump's opportunity to restore access to the platform, saying that "the Democrats handed him the easiest w of all time if he's smart enough to seize it."
Others were also critical of the Democratic Party—which is wrapped up in debates over how to move forward from devastating electoral losses in November—with independent journalist Ken Klippenstein saying that "this reminds me of when Trump put his name on the stimulus checks but Biden didn't. Historic own goal by the Democrats here."
Jacobin podcast host Daniel Denvir similarly said on X—the platform owned by Trump ally Elon Musk, the world's richest person—that "the Democratic Party setting up Trump to play the part of the zoomer savior after Trump got this all rolling in the first place is... the sort of self-inflicted wound that only the Democratic Party could accomplish."
Lynese Wallace—who was the chief of staff for former Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), a progressive who opposed the law—said that "the TikTok ban was always bad policy and bad politics. Let's not forget it was folded into a $95 billion foreign aid package passed in the last Congress—and has since paved way for Trump to now 'save' it, despite his own support for a ban during his first term. So dumb."
Seizing the opportunity, Trump said Sunday on his Truth social media platform that "I'm asking companies not to let TikTok stay dark! I will issue an executive order on Monday to extend the period of time before the law's prohibitions take effect, so that we can make a deal to protect our national security. The order will also confirm that there will be no liability for any company that helped keep TikTok from going dark before my order."
Although Trump can't take action before he is sworn in, he continued:
Americans deserve to see our exciting Inauguration on Monday, as well as other events and conversations.
I would like the United States to have a 50% ownership position in a joint venture.
By doing this, we save TikTok, keep it in good hands and allow it to [stay] up. Without U.S. approval, there is no TikTok. With our approval, it is worth hundreds of billions of dollars—maybe trillions.
Therefore, my initial thought is a joint venture between the current owners and/or new owners whereby the U.S. gets a 50% ownership in a joint venture set up between the U.S. and whichever purchase we so choose.
Responding with a statement on X, TikTok said that "in agreement with our service providers, TikTok is in the process of restoring service. We thank President Trump for providing the necessary clarity and assurance to our service providers that they will face no penalties [for] providing TikTok to over 170 million Americans and allowing over 7 million small businesses to thrive. It's a strong stand for the First Amendment and against arbitrary censorship. We will work with President Trump on a long-term solution that keeps TikTok in the United States."
Even before Trump's post, Musk—who is expected to co-lead a presidential advisory commission—said on X that "I have been against a TikTok ban for a long time, because it goes against freedom of speech. That said, the current situation where TikTok is allowed to operate in America, but X is not allowed to operate in China is unbalanced. Something needs to change."
ByteDance's Chinese version of TikTok, called Douyin, was introduced in China in September 2016. The New York Timesreported last April that "TikTok has more users on its platform, but Douyin is ByteDance's cash cow. Roughly 80% of ByteDance's $54 billion revenue in the first half of [2023] came from China."
Critics of bipartisan efforts to ban TikTok in the United States have blasted lawmakers for their priorities throughout the process.
"America: Where it's OK to ban TikTok, books, and abortions, but not OK to ban assault weapons, bombs for genocides, or student debt," said Warren Gunnels, Democratic staff director for the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee under the chairmanship of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who voted against the TikTok legislation.
Just hours ahead of a cease-fire taking effect in Gaza, Turner, who co-chaired Sanders' 2020 presidential campaign, also emphasized that "they really banned TikTok before they banned sending weapons to Israel during a genocide."
"If Congress actually gave a damn about our data privacy," she added, "they would've passed a sweeping data privacy bill, not a bill targeting TikTok."
In a Sunday email to supporters, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.)—who also voted against the law—agreed, stressing that "the answer is not just playing endless whack-a-mole with apps."
"We should have real privacy legislation in the United States," she said. "We should help people have greater agency over their personal information so that they're not being spied on all the time, whether it's a domestic company or a foreign company."
"To which, of course, Big Tech and their lobbies are going to fight against," she warned. "So they just target an
app instead of targeting the problem."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The TikTok Ban Is Discriminatory and Unlawful. Here’s Why.
What Congress is telling the world is that being a person or company that simply has origins in Asia is enough to be labeled a national security threat—no evidence required. That is racial profiling and an affront to the Constitution.
Jan 17, 2025
Today, the Supreme Court upheld Congress’s wrongheaded decision to ban TikTok in a unanimous decision. The ban on TikTok is set to take effect on Sunday January 19, 2025.
Ahead of this misguided ruling, 15 racial justice nonprofits submitted an emergency filing to the Supreme Court, explaining how the TikTok ban violates the rights of 170 million U.S. users and echoes a disgraceful history of anti-Asian racism.
It is no secret that our government wrongfully uses “national security” as a weapon against Asian American and Pacific Islander communities. Stop AAPI Hate’s research highlights how the government routinely scapegoats our communities for economic downturns, public health crises, and national security threats—often without any evidence.
When our government engages in anti-Asian racial profiling and biased enforcement, it encourages everyday people to do the same.
In the case of TikTok, the government claims that a ban is necessary to protect U.S. national security against China. However, the government also filed an affidavit in open court, signed by a senior U.S. national security official, stating there is “no information” that China had ever tried to use TikTok for nefarious purposes in the United States.
In other words, what Congress is telling the world is that being a person or company that simply has origins in Asia is enough to be labeled a national security threat—no evidence required.
That is racial profiling, plain and simple. And it is an affront to the Constitution.
It is disappointing, though unsurprising, that our government is targeting Asian American communities solely because of our race and national origins. Since our nation’s founding, our government has repeatedly trampled on the rights of Asians, Asian Americans, and other minority groups by relying on so-called “national security” concerns as a basis for outright racial discrimination.
Take, for example, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, Japanese American incarceration during World War II, and government-sanctioned racial profiling and surveillance of innocent Muslim communities following the 9/11 attacks. More recently, we saw the China Initiative, a Department of Justice operation from 2018 to 2022 that unjustly targeted Chinese and Chinese American academics, ruined careers and livelihoods, and chilled scientific research.
Every time the government insisted that such laws or programs targeting Asian Americans were necessary, it reinforced the pernicious “perpetual foreigner” stereotype or the idea that all Asian people in America are inherently suspicious and disloyal to the United States based on our ancestry, skin color, or religious faith.
Those laws and programs were based on fearmongering and scapegoating. All three branches of government—the president, Congress, and the Supreme Court—eventually admitted that Japanese American incarceration violated the Constitution. Both the House and the Senate officially apologized for the Chinese Exclusion Act and other discriminatory laws. And the DOJ eventually shut down the China Initiative, acknowledging it perpetuated a discriminatory double standard against people with any ties to China, though President-elect Donald Trump wants to revive it.
Our government never seems to learn and instead continues to pass laws motivated by anti-Asian prejudice, like this TikTok ban.
The TikTok ban has real human costs. The ban will silence 170 million U.S. users, including communities like ours that rely on TikTok to build solidarity, share valuable information, practice their faith, and engage in free expression.
But what worries us even more is how the TikTok ban fuels hateful rhetoric and actions against Asian Americans. It is clear that Congress targeted TikTok because the company is Chinese. Other social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube collect vast amounts of user data and have had major privacy and security issues—yet the government is not applying the same level of scrutiny on those companies.
When our government engages in anti-Asian racial profiling and biased enforcement, it encourages everyday people to do the same. We saw this exact ripple effect of hate during the Covid-19 pandemic.
At the start of the pandemic, then-President Trump spewed racist, anti-Asian rhetoric blaming Chinese people for the virus, fueling a torrent of hate against AAPI communities. In fact, from 2020 to 2022, Stop AAPI Hate received over 2,000 reports of hate acts in which offenders mimicked Trump’s language. His rhetoric emboldened people to spit racist vitriol at our community members as we shopped for groceries, dropped our kids off at school, and took the bus to work. They shouted that we were diseased and told us to go back to our country. Since our founding in March 2020, we have received over 12,000 reports of anti-AAPI hate acts from across the country—and we know racism and discrimination increase when politicians target our communities.
That’s why AAPI communities must tell our leaders that we disagree with the TikTok ban. This decision is not only an affront to our civil liberties and free speech, it is also an affront to our safety. We need leaders who will defend our rights and safety—not strip it away.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular