Get the latest Syracuse news delivered right to your inbox.
Subscribe to our newsletter here.

Friday saw the culmination of a nine-month legal battle over TikTok as the United States Supreme Court ruled to uphold a federal ban of the app. This decision presents profound consequences for free speech, national security and our shifting landscape of technology. TikTok, Inc. v. Garland saw the Supreme Court side with the U.S. government, arguing that TikTok’s data collection posed a national security threat.

The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act of 2024, signed by then-President Joe Biden, forced parent company ByteDance to either sell TikTok’s U.S. assets or cease operations in the country entirely by Sunday.

Less than 24 hours after the initial ban went into effect on Saturday night, opening TikTok prompted a message confirming President Donald Trump allowed the reinstatement of the app in the U.S., extending the timeline for ByteDance.

The proposed TikTok ban stems from fears that the app poses a national security risk due to concerns about the Chinese government accessing vast amounts of personal data about U.S. users. China’s National Intelligence Law grants authorities broad powers to request data, and some speculate that this content will be used for surveillance or disinformation campaigns that could influence American public opinion.

TikTok collects detailed personal data like location, browsing history and device information. Combined with the potential for algorithmic manipulation by Chinese entities, people aim to impede the app’s role in shaping user behaviors and spreading targeted messaging. But there is no credible evidence to suggest that Tiktok has been systematically used in this way, making these claims largely speculative and unfounded.

“The United States could ban TikTok, but banning this one platform would not make Americans any safer,” the Atlantic Council said. With everyone’s attention on Tiktok, politicians are ignoring similar risks already present in domestic media outlets.

This level of data gathering isn’t unique to TikTok, as companies like Facebook and X gather similar data. Furthermore, the Chinese government’s main source of sensitive American data has come from the nation’s illegal hacking and history of direct relationships with U.S. data brokers. TikTok, while scrutinized for its part-Chinese ownership, is not even a leading contributor to the American data China can access.

Banning TikTok alone won’t solve the broader data privacy issue. Users can easily bypass restrictions and switch to similar platforms, continuing data exploitation.

Instead of targeting one app, the government must implement comprehensive privacy reforms and better oversight of all social media platforms. This alteration requires systemic and ground-up policy reform, not just reactive measures focused on individual companies.

The push to ban TikTok also triggers alarm about infringement on free speech. Christopher Jon Sprigman, a law professor at New York University, criticized the ban for its lack of concrete evidence of the claimed security risks. Sprigman argues that targeting speech, particularly by attempting to suppress content related to China, inflicts First Amendment concerns as it restricts speech based on content and viewpoint.

Suppression like this is problematic and sets a chilling precedent for limiting free American expression. Sharing Sprigman’s notion, Patrick Toomey of the American Civil Liberties Union found the Supreme Court’s refusal to block this ban “deeply troubling,” reiterating that the government had not presented adequate evidence of an imminent national security threat to warrant such an extensive measure.

A federal judge struck down Montana’s attempt to ban TikTok in 2023 as unconstitutional, signaling that this issue does indeed pose broader implications for free speech.

The debate over banning TikTok has become a flashpoint for wider discussions about national security, data privacy and free expression. On one hand, proponents of the ban fixate on Tiktok’s data collection practices, claiming that the Chinese government could one day exploit this information. Given China’s broad legal frameworks for data collection, these concerns, while not yet fully substantiated, remain difficult to dismiss entirely.

But the proposal to outright ban TikTok isn’t the correct solution.

It risks infringing upon the First Amendment rights of 170 million U.S. users who rely on the platform to express themselves and build their businesses. Silencing these users not only curtails their ability to share ideas, stories and creativity, but also disrupts countless livelihoods and small enterprises that depend on the platform’s reach.

Banning TikTok is a heavy-handed response that doesn’t fully consider the long-term consequences for free expression in America. In fact, such a ban sets a dangerous framework for government overreach.

Ironically, the ban also falls short of addressing the very national security concerns it claims to mitigate. If we are genuinely concerned about the risks posed by data collection and foreign influence, we might focus on tackling the broader systemic issues like data privacy reforms and algorithmic transparency. This dilemma applies to all social media platforms, not just one.

What’s urgently needed now is a comprehensive, long-term strategy to establish robust privacy safeguards and regulate data practices effectively. Without these measures, we risk falling into a cycle of reactionary policy; one that doesn’t solve the underlying problems, but weakens and stifles fundamental freedoms in the process.

Grace Johnson is a junior majoring in english and textual studies. Her column appears bi-weekly. She can be reached at gjohns18@syr.edu.

Published on January 22, 2025 at 10:37 pm