By Anonymous Student
Introduction
How does digital authoritarianism pervade democratic capitalist nations? While digital authoritarianism is typically associated with overtly repressive regimes such as those in Russia or China, its presence is not confined to authoritarian states. Democratic nations are increasingly exhibiting similar tendencies. Under the pretext of national security, state sovereignty, or combating disinformation, democratic governments have adopted measures that mirror authoritarian strategies, such as Internet censorship, mass surveillance, and digital information manipulation. Alarmingly, this trend is not limited to public institutions as Big Tech companies also play a major role in shaping and controlling digital spaces.
Digital authoritarianism, whether enacted by state or private entities, functions as a method of governance, leveraging technology and media to restrict freedom, manipulate information, and exert control over society. In the United States, described as a land of the free, Freedom House paradoxically documented a notable decline in digital freedoms, a deterioration that accelerated under the Trump administration. It is also the country with the largest number of global Big Tech companies, making it a fascinating case to study. In this essay, we aim to address the question: How does digital authoritarianism permeate the United States, a democratic capitalist nation?
Government’s Authoritarian Drifts in the Land of the Free
The Temptation to Isolate from the Global Network
Democratic nations have to make complex decisions to balance personal data protection and national security concerns. In the United States, a scandal has erupted around the potential banning of the Chinese social media app TikTok. The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA), signed into law on April 24, 2024, bans social media services if the President considers them a “foreign adversary controlled application”. The law explicitly applies to ByteDance Ltd, owner of the TikTok app. The law was justified by concerns that TikTok's Chinese ownership could enable the Chinese government to access personal data to spy on American users or manipulate content to influence public opinion, posing a threat to national security. Donald Trump has proposed that the Chinese app be divested and sold to a US-based company, allowing it to continue operating in the United States without censorship. “We have a lot of potential buyers”, he said on March 30th, 2025. According to the New York Times, Amazon has expressed its interest in buying the app to the White House. However, the national security concerns raised are largely hypothetical. There is insufficient public evidence today to prove the government's case against TikTok. Moreover, a forced sale under threat of a ban may violate the First Amendment of the US Constitution by suppressing free speech without sufficient evidence of a security threat, or be motivated by unilateral political views. Comprehensive privacy legislation would be more appropriate than targeting TikTok in particular. What we can infer from this case study is that the prohibition of TikTok in the context of historical adversity between the United States and China seems to be part of a strategy to create a nationalized information ecosystem. By demanding the sale of TikTok to an American company, under threat of a ban, the American government is seeking to regain control over the digital flows circulating on its territory. Such a policy is akin to informational protectionism, reminiscent of the logic used by authoritarian regimes in the name of so-called digital sovereignty.
Expansion of State Mass Surveillance Capabilities
Mass surveillance technologies such as CCTV cameras, biometric analysis (which includes facial and voice recognition, fingerprints, etc.), and spyware are being deployed exponentially in democracies around the world under the guise of fighting against terrorism and protecting public safety. However, their application can quickly outstrip their initial objective, leading to potential abuses and even a slide toward authoritarianism. This is the case with the American company Clearview AI, which supplies American law enforcement and intelligence agencies with AI-driven facial recognition systems to supplement their surveillance equipment. Clearview AI has built up a gigantic biometric database that contains a staggering number of images retrieved online, particularly from social media (Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn), without the knowledge of the platforms or their users. Artificial intelligence uses it to generate a “faceprint” for every individual. Clearview AI, therefore, appears to be a highly effective tool for implementing preventive surveillance policies. However, these fall into a legal gray area and pave the way for mass profiling, violating the digital privacy of millions of Americans. This perspective is highly controversial due to its dystopian implications for privacy and its potential for authoritarian drift.
As Albert Fox Cahn, executive director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, points out, Clearview's business model is based on “weaponizing our own images against us without a license, without consent, without permission”. During protests, for example, the police only need a few photos of faces to identify every person present. The criminalization and the penalization of protesting become very serious risks. Clearview AI founder Hoan Ton-That openly displays his affinities with the American far right and his support for Donald Trump. He and his associates have even considered deploying the technology against immigrants, racialized people, and the political left. While this discriminatory use has not been officially proven, the fact that one of the company's top customers is now the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) fuels concerns. Ultimately, Clearview AI is an ideologically driven company whose mass surveillance technology is now in the hands of the Trump administration, fully embracing the dynamic in which digital tools are becoming instruments for the systematic erosion of civil liberties and democratic foundations.
The digital surveillance exercised by the US government is also based on legal measures whose risk of authoritarian excesses deserves special attention. The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 is an extremely controversial Act of Congress for having granted legal immunity to telecommunications companies that collaborated with intelligence agencies by transmitting private communications from millions of Americans. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has taken legal action to challenge Section 702 of the law, specifically on alarming grounds, calling it unconstitutional. Indeed, this section authorizes the mass acquisition of international communications involving US citizens and residents, in apparent violation of theFourth Amendment to the US Constitution, prohibiting “general warrants” and abusive searches. The act allows the government to intercept telephone and electronic communications without mentioning facilities, phone lines, email addresses, or locations to be monitored. Even when the FISA court considers certain surveillance practices to be intrusive and unconstitutional, its authority remains limited. In addition, there are no significant restrictions on the retention and dissemination of information relating to US citizens, as it is considered “foreign intelligence information”. The government is therefore entitled to compile huge databases that it can later use to find information on US citizens and residents. By revealing the potential abuses and risks of such legislation, the ACLU highlights the authoritarian tendencies of this state oversight and the disproportionate power it confers on government agencies.
Digital Information Manipulation
In an era where social media are becoming increasingly important in the media landscape, political figures are turning to these platforms more than ever to communicate. Between artificial intelligence, emotionalism, and populism, Donald Trump’s communication strategies stand out in comparison to those of other democratic leaders. Indeed, he manages to blur the boundaries between entertainment, government communication, and propaganda. Through three case studies, we will try to understand how political leaders use these digital tools to manipulate public opinion.
First, let’s look at the AI-produced “Trump Gaza” video. Donald Trump broadcasted this in February 2025 on his social media, Truth Social, as well as on mainstream social media like Instagram. It was relayed through the platforms by Internet users and made the buzz. The short video begins with images of war-torn Gaza, with children prostrated and held by armed men. The video then turns into a utopian representation where Gaza is transformed into a luxurious seaside resort.
Public figures such as Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu appear in swimsuits, sipping cocktails by the pool, and Elon Musk, glorified, under a rain of dollars. The fact that Donald Trump shared the clip, without mentioning its source or its original satirical intent, suggests that he claims it as a rendering of his political plans. The message, both nauseous and explicit, has now become viral. Donald Trump’s neo-colonialist mission in the Middle East is presented under the guise of peace and progress, and with complete disregard for structural violence and the humanitarian reality on the ground. The virality of this video reveals that this technological tool represents a dangerous boon for populist politicians: artificial intelligence offers them a powerful tool to manipulate public opinion. It gives visual credibility to the most provocative or implausible ideas and causes strong emotions in Internet users. And in a context where the general public does not yet master the codes of this new technology, it is even more vulnerable to manipulation.
Another video released by the White House, entitled “ASMR: Illegal Alien Deportation Flight”, sparked a heated controversy and waves of criticism. Captured in the popular Internet format of the ASMR, usually used to relax listeners with soft sounds, the video hijacks this ASMR format to stage the expulsion of illegal aliens. Instead of soothing noises, we hear the roar of aircraft engines and the rattle of chains and handcuffs. This "aesthetic" treatment transforms a deportation operation into an almost hypnotic spectacle, arousing criticism from many internet users who consider the content to be sadistic, dehumanizing, and cynically calculated. While the video quickly generated strong engagement and impressive views, its purpose goes far beyond government communication: it is part of a strategy to normalize state terror, by aesthetizing coercive practice and desensitizing the public to violent acts. This type of staging reveals an instrumentalization of popular media codes for the aim of political legitimization, blurring the line between communication and manipulation.
Finally, a crucial element to analyze is the presence of Donald Trump on social media X, which holds a central place in his political communication strategy. Through this direct channel, Donald Trump bypasses the traditional media and addresses not only his base of supporters but also an international audience. His account functions as a permanent forum where self-promotion, misinformation, and public accusations mingle. He regularly publishes messages highlighting his own successes, often in a hyperbolic manner, while spreading distorted claims about his political opponents and institutions. The publications of Donald Trump on X actively participate in an effort to delegitimize counterpowers, especially the traditional media ecosystem. An example of this idea is a tweet published in February 2017, where Donald Trump states:
With this message, he is not content to criticize the press. Indeed, he seeks to make it an enemy of the people, establishing a populist logic in which any critical voice is equated with an attack on the nation's interests.
This speech is helping to undermine Americans' trust in the institution of public media and fueling growing hostility toward journalists. Social media becomes a tool for polarization, promoting the spread of disinformation, fragmentation of public space and radicalization of opinions.
Tech Giants and the Digital Iron Fist
The Threat of the Technocapitalist Oligarchy
The extreme concentration of ownership of Big Tech companies in the hands of a small group of billionaires, often referred to as the "Tech Bros," poses a growing threat to the balance of power and democracy. These figures, like Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, or Jeff Bezos, have wealth and power without equal. This power is based not only on economic resources but also on the exclusive control of technologies that structure the global digital space. Unlike political leaders, these private actors are neither elected nor subject to checks and balances mechanisms.
They thus embody a form of media oligarchy that can, at any time, guide public debates or silence dissenting voices, according to opaque criteria that they define themselves following their economic, political, or ideological interests.
Their ability to suspend or ban online accounts, and change algorithms or terms of use without consulting anyone or having to justify themselves openly shows that authoritarian social media drifts are now a real threat. For example, following his 2022 acquisition of Twitter (now X), Elon Musk changed the platform’s terms of use, unilaterally imposing a new regulation on millions of users around the world. Among the changes, one provision has raised considerable concern: the temporary suspension, without explanation, of accounts belonging to several journalists from major news organizations, including CNN, The New York Times, and The Washington Post.
Although these accounts were rapidly reinstated following a Twitter survey, the incident highlighted how one man’s decisions can have a significant and immediate impact on freedom of online expression and access to information for thousands of users. Decisions regarding changes to the algorithms and terms of use of online platforms are also made for users, who have no say other than to accept or discontinue using the platform. However, the latter option is unlikely given that platforms are designed so that users spend as much time on it as possible. Big tech’s capitalist economic models are based on an algorithmic incentive to maximum engagement in order to maximize their profit. Consequently, in the absence of an institutional framework to control these powers, this technocapitalist concentration threatens fundamental democratic principles. It raises the urgent question of a more transparent, pluralistic, and citizen-controlled governance of platforms. Without this, the line between technological innovation and algorithmic authoritarianism is likely to become increasingly blurred.
Algorithmic Governance and Its Authoritarian Implications
Today, the algorithms of digital platforms shape our perception of the world. They determine how users access information online and form their opinions by having a say in the content presented to users in their newsfeeds, search results, or notifications. The algorithms generate a curated feed customized according to your user profile (digital identity) and your past online behavior. What you read, watch, and consume is carefully selected for you by predictive search technology to maximize your engagement. This personalization of the digital experience can limit users' exposure to different viewpoints and reinforce pre-existing opinions, thus catalyzing echo chambers and confirmation biases fueled by misinformation. It is possible to assert today that the results of an algorithm are not neutral, fair, or equitable due to the existence of algorithmic biases. They occur when automated systems systematically promote specific outcomes for unintended reasons (training data issues) or deliberate reasons (profit-seeking) on the part of their inventors. In the end, the result is an algorithmic amplification of polarizing, sensationalist, and emotionally charged content, as it generates more clicks, reactions, and shares, thereby increasing profits. According to a study on algorithmic biases by Henry Okechukwu Onyeiwu, posts with sensational messages evoking negative emotions such as anger or contempt have about 2.5 times the share rate of those with neutral or nuanced messages. It can be inferred that platform algorithms promote the virality of emotionally polarizing content, which reinforces social division. This algorithmic power is also used for political or ideological purposes. For example, Elon Musk manipulated X’s algorithm so that his own tweets were systematically more visible than those of others, thus giving more visibility to his political and ideological convictions. His increasingly numerous interventions in US and international political affairs reinforce the fears of a centralized power in the hands of a few tech billionaires. Finally, the use of personal data collected by these platforms for content personalization poses another major problem. The Cambridge Analytica scandal has exposed the dangers of this model: millions of Facebook user data were exploited for election purposes, influencing the results of Brexit and the 2016 US presidential election. This demonstrates how algorithms, combined with large-scale data collection, can be used to influence public opinion on a significant scale. Faced with these authoritarian drifts, more and more researchers and activists are calling for democratic regulation of algorithms. They demand more transparency, citizen control, and corporate accountability in algorithmic design to mitigate these harms. Without supervision, the power that algorithms give to the Tech Bros could well transform our democracies into authoritarian technocracies, governed by invisible code lines of private interests.
The Surveillance Synergy
Today’s digital surveillance is not limited to a state mission: it is now deeply integrated into private sector structures, in a logic of collaboration between governments and Big Tech companies. Giants such as Google and Amazon have close relationships with law enforcement and intelligence agencies, providing them with tools, infrastructure, and expertise. For example, Amazon Web Services (AWS) hosts sensitive data from several federal agencies, reinforcing the state’s dependence on a private provider. Amazon also collaborated with law enforcement through its Ring connected camera program, allowing the police to access surveillance videos without a court order, banalizing a form of domestic surveillance through widespread consumer goods. A regulatory capture accompanies this close partnership, that is to say, giving priority to the interests of Big Tech companies over the general interests of the public, made possible by the phenomenon of the “revolving door” between Silicon Valley and Washington. For example, Google executives have integrated into the Obama administration, helpingto steer technology policy in a direction that is in their interest. At the same time, large digital companies exert a considerable influence on public policies through their financial power: they invest heavily in lobbying, funding think tanks, and leading the public discourse on crucial issues such as net neutrality. Surveillance is not just a side effect of digital technologies: it is at the heart of these platforms' business model, based on the massive collection and monetization of personal data, which is an extremely valuable resource. This model, coupled with strategic alliances with the public authorities, brings about a form of systemic and difficult-to-dispute surveillance, in which state authority and private interests converge at the expense of individual freedoms.
Conclusion
Despite its image as the "land of the free," the United States increasingly exhibits traits of digital authoritarianism, revealing how such practices can thrive even within democratic capitalist frameworks. The convergence of state power and Big Tech influence has created a complex system of digital control that contradicts the US Constitution and fundamental democratic principles. As digital technologies continue to shape the social and political landscape, democratic societies must urgently implement stronger legal safeguards for digital rights. In the end, the recovery of democratic control over digital is not only a regulatory task: it is a duty of political and civic commitment for every citizen who cares about their freedoms.
References
Florence G'sell, “Digital Authoritarianism: from state control to algorithmic despotism” (January 30, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5117399
Peter High, “Kara Swisher On Pessimistic Optimism And Burn Book: A Tech Love Story”, Forbes (April 29, 2024). https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterhigh/2024/04/29/kara-swisher-on-pessimistic-optimism-and-burn-book-a-tech-love-story/Carole Cadwalladr,
“This Is What a Digital Coup Looks Like”, TED (April 10, 2025). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZOoT8AbkNE&list=WL&index=100
Marc Owen Jones, "Big Tech’s Partnership with Authoritarianism," Middle East Report 307/308 (Summer/Fall 2023). https://merip.org/2023/09/big-techs-partnership-with-authoritarianism/
Solcyré Burga, “Trump Extends TikTok Ban Deadline by Another 75 Days. Here’s What to Know”, Time (April 4, 2025). https://time.com/7273133/tiktok-ban-trump-deadline/
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), “Why the FISA Amendments Act is Unconstitutional”. https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/images/nsaspying/asset_upload_file578_35950.pdf
Kyle Chayka, “Donald Trump’s A.I. Propaganda”, The New Yorker (March 5, 2025). https://www.newyorker.com/culture/infinite-scroll/donald-trumps-ai-propaganda
“‘Trump Gaza’ AI video intended as political satire, says creator”, The Guardian (March 6, 2025).
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/mar/06/trump-gaza-ai-video-intended-as-political-satire-says-creator
Fred Turner, Trump on Twitter: How a Medium Designed for Democracy Became an Authoritarian’s Mouthpiece (2018) (pp. 143-149). https://fredturner.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj27111/files/media/file/turner-trump-on-twitter-in-pjb-zzp.pdf
“The Trump administration is descending into authoritarianism”, The Guardian (March 22, 2025).
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2025/mar/22/trump-administration-authoritarianism
Henry Okechukwu Onyeiwu, “Digital Rhetoric and Algorithmic Bias : Exploring SocialMedia’s Role in Shaping Public Discourse and Political Polarization” (February 2025) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389312911_DIGITAL_RHETORIC_AND_ALGORITHMIC_BIAS_EXPLORING_SOCIAL_MEDIA%27S_ROLE_IN_SHAPING_PUBLIC_DISCOURSE_AND_POLITICAL_POLARIZATION
Olga Solovyeva, PhD | Good tech & Digital safety strategist | London, UK
© 2025 Good Tech Strategy. All rights reserved.