Why CJP Needs to Call for a Boycott of Big Tech Social Media

Date: 05-08-2026

Social media is no longer the platform for authentic public discourse it was 15 years ago. It has become a cesspool of bots, coordinated attacks, and algorithmic manipulation, often serving as a tool for powerful interests to shape narratives and silence dissent.

In recent months, the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) has experienced this reality firsthand. The speed with which its message spread was unprecedented, but so was the swift and coordinated response to suppress it. This experience highlights a critical truth: the current centralized social media ecosystem is fundamentally broken for movements that challenge the status quo.

The Platform Trap

The recent story of CJP is a masterclass in how the game is rigged. Within days of its launch, the party’s X (formerly Twitter) account, website, and backup accounts were blocked. The Indian government, under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, directed X to withhold the @CJP_2029 account, citing national security, an order kept confidential from the public .

This was not an isolated incident. Soon after, CJP Spokesperson Saurav Das’s WhatsApp account was also “mistakenly” blocked by Meta’s automated systems, a decision that was reversed only after he raised a public outcry .

This pattern reveals the core problem: these platforms are not neutral public squares. They are privately owned, centrally controlled corporations that operate at the behest of governments and their own commercial interests. The power to grant or deny access, amplify or suppress voices, rests in the hands of a few unelected billionaires and the state.

The Enshitification of Social Media

Platforms like X, Facebook, and Instagram are no longer about connecting people; they are about maximizing shareholder value. This has led to an “enshittification” that has made them toxic environments:

• The Bot Army: Social media is now flooded with bots that artificially amplify content, creating a false sense of consensus. As one analysis notes, “Bot farms have become powerful tools in manipulating public opinion… By artificially amplifying posts through fake likes, retweets, and comments, they create an illusion of popularity and consensus” . This manufactured engagement drowns out authentic voices and makes it nearly impossible to discern genuine public sentiment from orchestrated manipulation. This is not just a theory; investigations have uncovered how politicians use “bot swarms” to artificially boost their visibility on Facebook , and reports of “phone farms” in many countries reveal how armies of real phones can be used to control social media algorithms, creating a “bandwagon effect” where fake trends guide real public opinion .

Experts warn of threat to democracy from ‘AI bot swarms’ infesting social media

Bot farms invade social media to hijack popular sentiment

• Algorithmic Bias and Censorship: The very architecture of these platforms is designed to be gamed by those with resources. Their algorithms are opaque, proprietary black boxes that can be manipulated through coordinated engagement, paid promotion, and bot networks. This means that the content you see is not an organic reflection of what people are actually saying, but a carefully curated feed shaped by whoever has the money and technical capability to influence it. When a government or political party can deploy vast IT cells and bot farms to artificially boost their narratives while simultaneously pressuring platforms to remove opposing voices, the platform ceases to be a public forum and becomes a weapon of propaganda.

• The Rise of Far-Right Propaganda: The platforms have become fertile ground for the spread of disinformation. The same centralized control that allows for censorship also allows for the unchecked amplification of propaganda, often by foreign actors and extremist groups.

Fighting an Algorithm Isn’t the Same as Fighting Real People

The CJP’s response to these attacks has been brave. When asked about the abuse she faces, one young CJP supporter stated, “I am inspired by Savitribai Phule. When she went to educate girls, cow dung, mud, and stones were thrown at her. If I am being abused on social media today, it doesn’t bother me much.”

‘Feels like career over’: The online campaign to intimidate women part of CJP protest

This is a powerful sentiment, but it misses a critical point. Savitribai Phule faced real people. Today’s movements are fighting algorithms, bot farms, and coordinated IT cell attack. These are not organic attacks from fellow citizens; they are manufactured assaults designed to demoralize and drown out dissent, often funded by governments and influential interests. As an investigation noted, “unlike open source decentralized platforms distribute ownership and control among users through federated open-source protocols… promoting transparency, inclusivity, and resistance to corporate capture” . The battle is different, and the solutions must be different too.

This is a powerful sentiment, but it misses a critical point. Savitribai Phule faced real people. Today’s movements are fighting algorithms, bot farms, and coordinated IT cells attack.

When a leader like Sourav Das of the CJP receives replies where 99% are part of a coordinated attack from a hostile IT cell, it is no longer a debate; it is a cyber-warfare tactic. Staying on these platforms validates the enemy’s infrastructure. Why remain in a house where the windows are bricked up and the doors are guarded by mercenaries?

903 replies but 99% abuses

Billionaires, Governments, and the Narrative

Big Tech social media platforms are owned by billionaires with a singular, dangerous goal: narrative control. These entities rely heavily on government revenue and political favor to survive, creating an inherent conflict of interest.

The recent takeover of X by Elon Musk illustrates this dynamic perfectly. The implication is not merely commercial; it is ideological. Reports suggest the acquisition was driven by a desire to ensure a specific political outcome (e.g., making Trump win), proving that these platforms are weapons of mass persuasion.

We see the financial stakes clearly in the 2024 election cycle. Political advertising spent reached almost $11 billion in US. In India alone, major parties like the BJP spent approximately ₹1,737.68 crore for the Lok Sabha polls. When such immense capital converges with private corporate ownership, the result is a media environment that is captive to the highest bidder or the most powerful algorithmic manipulator.

The final price tag on 2024 political advertising: Almost $11 billion

BJP spent ₹1,737.68 cr for 2024 Lok Sabha polls: expenditure report to ECI

Governments possess both the power and the money to censor and manipulate the narrative on these platforms. Consequently, Big Tech social media is not a neutral ground; it is a state-corporate collaboration designed to silence dissent and amplify the status quo.

The Paradox of CJP’s Position

There is a logical fallacy in the argument that one has “problems with Godi (Mainstream) Media” but feels safe on Big Tech social media. This reasoning is flawed. If mainstream media is compromised by corporate and state interests, Big Tech platforms are the very same beast, wearing a digital mask.

By defending these platforms through staying on these platform, the CJP inadvertently defends the infrastructure used to spread the disinformation it seeks to combat. The distinction is false. The enemy is the model of ownership and algorithmic control, not just the content.

The Open Source Solution

If the problem is centralized, corporate-controlled platforms, the solution is decentralization. The call to action for the CJP, and any movement seeking genuine, uncensored expression, is to abandon the “Big Tech” platforms and build a presence on open-source, decentralized social media.

Platforms like Bluesky, Mastodon, and Nostr offer an alternative. Built on open protocols like the AT Protocol and ActivityPub, these networks are not owned by a single entity . They are more resistant to censorship because there is no single point of failure that a government can pressure or a billionaire can manipulate. Ownership and control are distributed among users, embodying a vision of “user stewardship” where individuals have the ability to manage their digital presence, identity, and content .

The argument that “Big Tech has only thousands of fact-checkers for billions of users, but with open source social media, fact-checking is done by millions as it’s community-controlled” is a powerful one. In the Fediverse, content moderation is often handled by communities themselves, offering a more resilient and accountable system.

The open-source model provides the four essential software freedoms: to run the software for any purpose, to study and change the source code, to redistribute copies, and to distribute modified versions. This aligns closely with the ideal of human freedom of speech, rather than narrative manipulation.

Why Open Source Resists Billionaire Capture: Decentralization, Freedom, and the Hard Work Ahead

Conclusion

The ongoing struggle between the CJP and the Big Tech social media giants is more than a political spat. It is a clear demonstration that the current system is incompatible with a healthy democracy.

The tools of narrative control—from bot farms and algorithmic bias to government-ordered censorship—are designed to protect the powerful and maintain the status quo. If the CJP and other movements are to genuinely challenge entrenched systems, they must refuse to play on a battlefield where the rules are written and enforced by their opponents.

It is time for a strategic retreat from the toxic, manipulative platforms of Big Tech and a move toward the open, decentralized, and community-owned networks that represent the future of free speech. The call for a boycott is not an act of retreat, but a necessary offensive to reclaim the digital public square.