Politics of Authoritarianism

Millions of people around the world query large language models (LLMs) for information. Although several studies have compellingly documented the persuasive potential of these models, there is limited evidence of who or what influences the models themselves, leading to a flurry of concerns about which companies and governments build and regulate the models. Here we show through six studies that government control of the media across the world already influences the output of LLMs via their training data. We use a cross-national audit to show that LLMs exhibit a stronger pro-government valence when prompted in the languages of countries with lower media freedom than in those with higher media freedom. This result is correlational, so to triangulate the specific mechanism of how state media control can influence LLMs, we develop a multi-part case study on China’s media. We demonstrate that media scripted and curated by the Chinese state appears in LLM training datasets. To evaluate the plausible effect of this inclusion, we use an open-weight model to show that additional pretraining on Chinese state-coordinated media generates more positive answers to prompts about Chinese political institutions and leaders. We link this phenomenon to commercial models through two audit studies demonstrating that prompting models in Chinese generates more positive responses about China’s institutions and leaders than do the same queries in English. The combination of influence and persuasive potential across languages suggests the troubling conclusion that states and powerful institutions have increased strategic incentives to leverage media control in the hopes of shaping LLM output.

What happens to information environments when democracies ban social media platforms? While a large literature examines information control under authoritarianism, democratic governments have increasingly intervened in major online platforms. We study a prominent case: Brazil’s 2024 national ban on the social media platform X. Using an event-study design, we estimate the causal effects of the ban and examine how partisan identity shaped responses. Drawing on a large sample of politically engaged users and ideal-point estimates of ideology, we find strong partisan asymmetries. Conservative users not aligned with the government were more likely to circumvent the ban, and right-leaning news domains became markedly more prevalent on the platform. We describe this dynamic as a “sorting ratchet”: the ban segmented the digital public sphere along partisan lines, with effects that persisted even after restrictions were lifted. Platform bans in democratic settings may therefore deepen polarization and durably reshape information environments