TikTok removing posts for violating the "joy of TikTok"

TikTok’s “Joy” Policy and Engagement Logic

• Several comments argue the “joy of TikTok” rule is data‑driven: stress‑inducing or disturbing content hurts long‑term engagement even if it spikes short‑term views.
• People frame TikTok as optimized for dopamine (pleasure, escapism) rather than cortisol (stress, anxiety), making shocking or graphic news a net negative for retention.
• Others counter that this is exactly why TikTok is a bad lens for serious news: it’s a highly curated entertainment feed, not a civic information platform.

Censorship History and Political Bias

• Multiple commenters note TikTok has long been aggressive with moderation: deleting mildly negative comments, suppressing “undesirable” content (e.g., “ugly, poor, or disabled” users), and enforcing various political red lines.
• There is disagreement over bias: some say it amplifies pro‑Trump content; others highlight past censorship of LGBTQ+, disabled, and anti‑genocide content, or of coverage critical of Israel.
• Some see the removal of the ICE/CBP journalist arrest clip as part of a pattern of selectively muting material embarrassing to current authorities; others think it’s just “disturbing/violent” enforcement.

Private Platforms vs State Coercion

• One camp stresses: platforms are private, not public utilities; they can set any content rules, and users should self‑host if they dislike them.
• Another camp says that argument collapses when the US government forces a foreign platform to sell precisely to change its information flows; they describe this as theft and weaponization against domestic dissent.
• Defenders of the forced sale frame it as necessary to prevent Chinese state influence via a mass platform.

Democracy, Foreign Influence, and Free Speech

• Strong clash over whether restricting foreign political influence is compatible with democracy:
  • Some argue any state attempt to “protect” citizens from influence destroys free speech; people must be free to consume any political content, foreign or domestic.
  • Others distinguish normal influence from targeted state‑run election interference and disinformation (e.g., lies about mail‑in ballots), arguing some guardrails around the electoral process are legitimate.

Politics vs Escapism and User Welfare

• Many users say they don’t want politics in every app; they want cat‑video escapism, not 24/7 crisis and “doomscrolling,” which they find psychologically harmful.
• Others insist politics already shapes every aspect of life, and sanitizing disturbing realities (e.g., journalists violently detained) is complacent or complicit.
• There’s side debate on whether maximizing engagement serves users’ “best interests” or merely exploits their attention, with national‑politics addiction contrasted to ignorance of impactful local politics.