The Digital Nudge: How the Biden Administration Used Social Media to Control Public Discourse
https://m.primal.net/OeoF.webp
Control over information has become one of the most powerful tools in modern politics. Social media is the battleground for public opinion, and those who dictate what can be seen, shared, and discussed hold immense power. The concept of choice architecture, as outlined in Nudge by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, has been weaponized by governments and tech platforms—not to inform, but to manipulate narratives and suppress dissenting voices. The Biden Administration, in particular, has leveraged digital nudging not to combat misinformation, but to shape the political landscape in its favor by controlling what the public sees, hears, and discusses.
How Social Media Nudging Became a Political Weapon
1. Algorithmic Censorship and Narrative Control
Social media platforms act as digital gatekeepers, determining which posts, accounts, and perspectives gain visibility while silencing others. Under the Biden Administration, these platforms curated public discourse to align with government-endorsed messaging, often under the guise of “fact-checking” and “content moderation.”
Case Study: The Hunter Biden Laptop Scandal
Before the 2020 election, the New York Post published a bombshell story revealing emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop, which suggested unethical foreign business dealings and possible influence peddling involving Joe Biden. Instead of allowing the public to assess the evidence, major platforms like Twitter and Facebook restricted or outright banned the story, preventing its spread just weeks before the election.
Twitter locked the New York Post’s account and blocked users from sharing the link, claiming it violated their policies on “hacked materials.”
Facebook preemptively suppressed the story’s reach, limiting visibility before an independent fact-check was even conducted.
Mainstream media dismissed the story as “Russian disinformation”, an assertion later proven false—but only after the election had already taken place.
This was not an organic editorial decision but a coordinated effort to protect a political candidate by controlling public discourse and influencing voter perceptions.
2. “Fact-Checking” as a Censorship Tool
Under the Biden Administration, fact-checking partnerships between social media giants and government agencies became a primary tool for suppressing opposition. These programs operated not as neutral arbiters of truth, but as ideological enforcers ensuring only government-approved narratives prevailed.
Case Study: COVID-19 Policy Enforcement
During the pandemic, any dissenting opinion on lockdowns, vaccine efficacy, or alternative treatments was met with aggressive censorship. Even highly credentialed doctors and scientists faced deplatforming if their views contradicted the White House’s narrative.
Dr. Robert Malone, a scientist who helped develop mRNA vaccine technology, was banned from Twitter for questioning the long-term effects of mass vaccinations.
The Great Barrington Declaration, authored by epidemiologists from Harvard, Stanford, and Oxford, called for an end to blanket lockdowns. It was suppressed and dismissed as dangerous misinformation.
Leaked emails later showed that the Biden Administration pressured Facebook to remove posts that expressed skepticism about vaccine mandates, equating questioning government policy with spreading falsehoods.
This was not about science—it was about absolute control over the pandemic narrative to justify policies that restricted freedoms and expanded government power.
3. Psychological Manipulation Through Social Proof & Default Settings
Beyond outright suppression, the Biden Administration also used behavioral psychology to engineer social pressure and compliance through digital nudging.
Case Study: Vaccine Adoption Through Social Media Badges
In an effort to increase vaccination rates, the government and social media platforms collaborated to create visible social proof mechanisms, such as:
Facebook and Instagram offering users the ability to add an “I Got Vaccinated” badge to their profiles, creating a bandwagon effect.
Twitter promoting vaccine-positive hashtags and amplifying accounts that supported the administration’s stance.
YouTube demonetizing content creators who discussed vaccine side effects or expressed personal hesitations, silencing legitimate concerns.
By making pro-government messaging the social default, users who hesitated to comply were subtly pressured into conformity—not through debate, but through perceived consensus engineering.
The Endgame: Retaining Political Power Through Digital Control
While nudging techniques have been used in public health and finance, their application in politics represents a dangerous evolution. The Biden Administration’s partnership with Big Tech wasn’t about protecting the public from falsehoods; it was a deliberate strategy to consolidate control over information and maintain political dominance.
Case Study: Election Influence Through Algorithmic Favoritism
In the 2022 midterms and leading into the 2024 election cycle, social media companies continued to amplify administration-friendly narratives while suppressing political opposition:
Posts critical of inflation, rising crime, and economic mismanagement saw decreased engagement and visibility.
The Democratic Party’s messaging on student loan forgiveness and infrastructure spending received algorithmic promotion, making it appear more widely accepted than it actually was.
Political opponents, including conservative commentators and alternative media sources, faced content throttling and deplatforming, ensuring that voters received a heavily curated version of reality.
The weaponization of digital nudging means that Americans are no longer freely forming opinions—they are being gently but forcefully pushed toward state-approved beliefs.