The U.S. TikTok Ban - Thoughts and Opinions

Hey, y'all. This is ultimately just a place for me to jot down my personal notes on what I think about major technology and global governance concerns. I am totally not an authority on any of this, and I'd welcome any facilitating conversation on any of these topics!

Full disclosure that all the thoughts in this opinion piece were based on this supremely interesting article published by the Harvard Business Review and written by Thomas Stackpole.

The U.S. TikTok Ban: Another Crossroad Between Technology and Geopolitics

In an era where technology is reshaping global power dynamics, the U.S. TikTok ban is more than just a policy decision—it is a defining moment in the modern geopolitical landscape.

The decision to force ByteDance, TikTok's Chinese parent company, to divest its U.S. operations or cease operations entirely is not just about data privacy or national security. It's another chapter in the ongoing technological arms race between the United States and China—one that will have lasting implications for businesses, the internet's openness, and the broader global economy.

And it's interesting just how far the impact of technology has come. I don't think anybody doubted the impact technology was going to have on the world after its 2000s-era advent, but the scale and effectiveness of even social media apps to sway national elections has come a long way from Obama crediting social media as a large aspect of his 2008 campaign success, to today, where the U.S. President-elect actively went on numerous social media podcasts and streams as a genuine avenue for his presidential campaign.

There are a few studies out there that show a high correlation between social media and its ability to influence voters, but a significant difference between then (2008) and today is that the internet now concurrently has an entire sub-genre of content creators devoted to political storytelling.

Often with crowds of supporters numbering in the tens of thousands.

An interesting study published at Princeton University by Fujiwara et al. (2023) found a high likelihood of groups of people flocking together and forming internet communities. Furthermore, they found empirical evidence that showed that, at least for the 2016 and 2020 U.S. elections, Twitter (X) lowered the Republican party's vote share in both of those elections. The study further states that Twitter as an environment allowed for like-minded individuals to not only come together but, in their collective social media presence, act as a perceived source of legitimate political information.

I say "I perceived" here very specifically because, and this is by no means exclusive to this topic, anything you read online should be taken with a healthy degree of doubt.

As the old saying goes, trust but verify.

Technology and Data: The New Era of Strategic Resources

For centuries, the geopolitical competition was defined by physical resources—oil, military dominance, and territorial influence.

And it's because these things were iterative that they each became strategic. If you wanted territorial influence, you needed military dominance, and if you needed military dominance, you needed a healthy supply of oil, etc.

It goes without saying that this is perhaps the most simple list of strategic resources one can put to paper, but let's focus on the idea that they're iterative.

Nations today still (likely) value territorial influence, but in order to achieve that, it is no longer solely about military dominance. While too vast of a topic to bring up here, the effect of the military as a tool for control has diminished because of just how unfeasible it is for major nation-states to become aggressive to one another in our globally linked economies. Instead, nations are engaging in alternative means of influence, whether they be economic, diplomatic, etc.

Notice that these fields (economics and diplomacy) are inherently more civil, and because of that fact, it is a fair assumption that information becomes paramount in success in either of those fields.

Information regarding weaknesses, strengths, needs, likely reactions, the general thoughts of the local population, and chiefly above all else, the ability to influence all of the above and more.

And thus data is a strategic resource, for data is information, and technology is the platform in which data is collected.

If we work under the basis that communities have a tendency to not only influence their internal political preferences, but to sway moderates and the undecided, then we see precisely why data is so valuable in today's political market.

Free Speech, Governance, and Lines in the Sand

At the heart of the TikTok debate lies a fundamental question about free speech, governance, and the boundaries of state intervention in the digital age.

I think we can all agree that in most functioning democracies, free speech is not only important but built into the system. You should, in a functioning democracy, have the rest to come together, discuss whatever it is you may want to discuss and go about the rest of your days without the threat of being policed for said thoughts and discussions.

On one hand, the U.S. ban - or forced divestiture - is framed as a necessary move to protect national security and prevent foreign influence over American discourse.

On the other hand, this decision underscores the uncomfortable reality that governments now wield immense power over digital platforms, dictating who gets to participate in the global marketplace of ideas.

The irony here is that the United States, historically a proponent of an open and free internet, is engaging in the very kind of platform control it has criticized other nations for exercising. The justification is different - national security versus state censorship - but the outcome is functionally similar: a government deciding which platforms its citizens can and cannot use.

It forces us to ask:

At what point does safeguarding national interests cross the line into digital protectionism?

At what point is it not just censorship?

Let’s be clear - governments have always had a role in regulating speech, whether through laws against defamation, incitement, or misinformation. You have always, regardless of your nation, had limitations on what exactly you can say in the courts of public opinion.

But what makes the TikTok ban uniquely concerning is that it’s not about the content itself but about who owns the platform delivering that content. This sets a precedent where the nationality of a company becomes a determining factor in whether its platform is allowed to operate. In an era where global tech companies are deeply interconnected, this raises an important issue: If countries begin blocking platforms based on ownership rather than actual harm, are we inching toward a world where every nation has its own tightly controlled, state-approved version of the internet?

It also begs a second, equally complex question: Who gets to draw the line between security and censorship? Because if the U.S. can restrict a foreign-owned social media platform under the banner of national security, what’s to stop other countries from justifying similar bans on American platforms?

The playbook is already written. The next time a government wants to limit free speech under the guise of protecting national interests, they can simply point to the TikTok case and say: Look, the U.S. did it first.

As a Filipino, and to any possible Filipino readers, I think we can all appreciate just how true this is for our nations, and likely true for so many others.

That’s not to say there are no valid concerns about foreign influence, data security, or algorithmic manipulation. There absolutely are. However, if governments are going to regulate platforms in the name of security, they need to be consistent. If foreign ownership of a social media company is an unacceptable risk, then the same scrutiny should apply across the board - including American tech giants that collect and influence vast amounts of global data. Otherwise, this isn’t about national security at all - it’s about power.

And, like many things, the intent of a thing can define its overreaching consequences for years to come.

And that's what makes this moment so defining. The TikTok ban isn't just a policy decision, but a signal that governments are now muddying the lines on the aforementioned limitations on free speech. This isn't the first time politics and technology have collided, and it won't be the last, but as lines in the sand continue to be drawn or re-drawn, we have to ask ourselves: are we building a safer digital future, or are we watching as the internet slowly transitions from the bastion of freedom it was intended to be to the modern battlefield of wars yet to be?