Forbes columnist John Tamny takes aim at Wall Street Journal columnist Allysia Finley for attributing socialism's appeal and antiwar sentiment among voters to TikTok's algorithm. Finley also suggests the platform may have boosted Trump in 2024. Tamny's rebuttal: that argument treats political disagreement as a platform conspiracy and hands the right a grievance politics playbook it spent years attacking the left for using.
When media and politicians blame platforms for unwelcome opinions, they dodge the harder question: why those opinions spread. Platform blame becomes a ready-made excuse to regulate tech, ignore public sentiment, and pretend persuasion failed because the feed was rigged. It's a pattern that shapes policy fast.
TikTok's Chinese ownership and algorithmic influence aren't baseless. The platform does shape what millions see. But when platform mechanics become the catchall explanation for every trend, voter shift, or ideology elites didn't expect to gain traction, the argument loses its teeth.
This is the laziest habit in media. When your side wins, the platform reflected reality. When your side loses an argument, the algorithm brainwashed voters. That story flatters pundits, protects politicians from accountability, and treats audiences like puppets. It keeps showing up because it's easier than asking why a message resonated without a platform's help.
Filed to the Media desk · Jul 21