Just over two weeks ago, in the late hours of Jan. 18, the massively popular video-sharing application TikTok went completely dark across the nation.
When U.S. users clicked on the app during this blackout, they received a lone push notification reading, “A law banning TikTok has been enacted in the U.S. Unfortunately, this means you can’t use TikTok for now. We are fortunate that President Donald Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office.”
The very next morning — around 14 hours later — the app’s operations were restored seemingly to capacity as if the ban in its entirety were a fever dream the nation could simply leave in the past.
This brief but confusing moment between TikTok’s ban and ultimate restoration caused a range of emotions from panic to mourning for its dedicated users. However, following its restoration, questions have emerged about whether it was a political stunt.
Since TikTok’s short blackout, it has come to public attention that former President Joe Biden’s administration explicitly communicated to TikTok that there was “no reason” to comply with the ban before it was set to take place.
So, what are TikTok’s intentions? If halting all operations in the U.S. was no longer necessary, why go through with an overnight shutdown?
It’s simple: self-interest.
Whether stated in good faith or an attempt to leave more on the plate of the incoming presidential administration, the information revealed was essentially TikTok’s green light to act in self-interest by preserving operations any way that it could. TikTok took advantage.
TikTok has had a long and turbulent history in its interactions with the U.S. government. A complete ban on the app first entered discussions during President Trump’s first term in office, and the most recent bill aimed at banning TikTok nationwide cites “foreign threats to information and communications technology” as the primary issue of concern.
Supporters of this bill, titled the RESTRICT Act, claim that TikTok has not thoroughly proven that American user data is secure from access by foreign adversaries. TikTok is headquartered in Singapore, but its parent company, ByteDance, is located in China — a foreign adversary state in the field of technology.
Data security as an argument to justify a full ban of the app has been highly criticized by experts in technology, law, and politics. The argument here is that the U.S. has not substantially proven that TikTok collects, distributes, or utilizes data in any way significantly different than comparable social media applications, let alone sharing it with the Chinese government.
As well-summarized by social media theorist Clay Shirky, “when you start to look at other places where those kinds of risks might appear, you don’t see the same concern by the U.S. government.”
Shirky compares TikTok to the Chinese shopping application, Temu, which has a similar consumer audience size and possesses even more sensitive information such as home addresses and credit card information. Temu has faced no serious threats to its U.S. operations.
This contradiction indicates a personal or symbolic attack on TikTok. With no more logical reason to single out the app, the public has largely perceived this as an attack on the free speech rights of TikTok’s American user base.
Since rising to dominance, TikTok has facilitated the spread of mass amounts of information in the form of content. The app has come under fire in prior times for spreading misinformation and numerous dangerous trends. It has also aided in connecting countless invaluable communities. The app connects people just as much as it stokes the flames of claims against it.
From this perspective, users not having access to the connectivity of the app would be a substantial blow to the free exchange of ideas amongst its 170 million U.S.-based users.
When examining TikTok’s decisions since the prospect of a ban, free speech dwindles as an argument the public should be invested in.
When the RESTRICT Act first passed the Senate in March of 2024, TikTok distributed push notifications to voting-age users urging them to contact their congressional representatives to vote against the bill that would ban the application. As a direct response to this call, users effectively overwhelmed congressional offices — particularly impressive for a young population that has consistently low turnout in elections.
Even if free speech for Americans was one of TikTok’s missions, the Jan. 18 blackout ended its viability.
Following the Biden administration’s disclosure that TikTok is simply too valuable to ban, the app’s leadership demanded its service providers be ensured they would not face consequences for supporting the app. This was followed by the push notification directly naming President Trump as the savior of its operations.
The Biden administration did not comply with TikTok’s demands, but TikTok’s CEO, Shou Zi Chew, was in attendance at President Trump’s inauguration the day after the app’s reinstatement.
The willingness of TikTok to intentionally engage its user base for its personal political gain, to make demands of a sitting president, and to willfully endorse a different incoming president demonstrates that TikTok makes decisions just as any self-interested mega-corporation that needs to save face.
TikTok has stooped to levels that even some U.S.-based corporations have yet to go to. Its decisions and whom its leadership chooses to associate with should be subject to no less scrutiny than any other corporate entity that Americans know very well is willing to toss them aside for a corporate cause.
I pass the question to anyone who has found themselves lost at the idea of a TikTok-less America: Is TikTok really invested in your freedom of speech? Or is it just another corporate giant playing its consumer base?
How “free” is free speech when reliant on corporate generosity?