Biden Signed The TikTok Ban. What’s Next For TikTok Users?
from the the-process-begins dept
Editor’s Note: This post was written before TikTok & ByteDance filed a lawsuit challenging the law this morning. So, while it says that no lawsuit has been filed, that’s no longer the case. The rest of the article is still relevant, though. We’ll have an analysis of the actual lawsuit later (probably tomorrow).
Over the last month, lawmakers moved swiftly to pass legislation that would effectively ban TikTok in the United States, eventually including it in a foreign aid package that was signed by President Biden. The impact of this legislation isn’t entirely clear yet, but what is clear: whether TikTok is banned or sold to new owners, millions of people in the U.S. will no longer be able to get information and communicate with each other as they presently do.
What Happens Next?
At the moment, TikTok isn’t “banned.” The law gives ByteDance 270 days to divest TikTok before the ban would take effect, which would be on January 19th, 2025. In the meantime, we expect courts to determine that the bill is unconstitutional. Though there is no lawsuit yet, one on behalf of TikTok itself is imminent.
There are three possible outcomes. If the law is struck down, as it should be, nothing will change. If ByteDance divests TikTok by selling it, then the platform would still likely be usable. However, there’s no telling whether the app’s new owners would change its functionality, its algorithms, or other aspects of the company. As we’ve seen with other platforms, a change in ownership can result in significant changes that could impact its audience in unexpected ways. In fact, that’s one of the given reasons to force the sale: so TikTok will serve different content to users, specifically when it comes to Chinese propaganda and misinformation. This is despite the fact that it has been well-established law for almost 60 years that U.S. people have a First Amendment right to receive foreign propaganda.
Lastly, if ByteDance refuses to sell, users in the U.S. will likely see it disappear from app stores sometime between now and that January 19, 2025 deadline.
How Will the Ban Be Implemented?
The law limits liability to intermediaries—entities that “provide services to distribute, maintain, or update” TikTok by means of a marketplace, or that provide internet hosting services to enable the app’s distribution, maintenance, or updating. The law also makes intermediaries responsible for its implementation.
The law explicitly denies to the Attorney General the authority to enforce it against an individual user of a foreign adversary controlled application, so users themselves cannot be held liable for continuing to use the application, if they can access it.
Will I Be Able to Download or Use TikTok If ByteDance Doesn’t Sell?
It’s possible some U.S. users will find routes around the ban. But the vast majority will probably not, significantly shifting the platform’s user base and content. If ByteDance itself assists in the distribution of the app, it could also be found liable, so even if U.S. users continue to use the platform, the company’s ability to moderate and operate the app in the U.S. would likely be impacted. Bottom line: for a period of time after January 19, it’s possible that the app would be usable, but it’s unlikely to be the same platform—or even a very functional one in the U.S.—for very long.
Until now, the United States has championed the free flow of information around the world as a fundamental democratic principle and called out other nations when they have shut down internet access or banned social media apps and other online communications tools. In doing so, the U.S. has deemed restrictions on the free flow of information to be undemocratic. Enacting this legislation has undermined this long standing, democratic principle. It has also undermined the U.S. government’s moral authority to call out other nations for when they shut down internet access or ban social media apps and other online communications tools.
There are a few reasons legislators have given to ban TikTok. One is to change the type of content on the app—a clear First Amendment violation. The second is to protect data privacy. Our lawmakers should work to protect data privacy, but this was the wrong approach. They should prevent any company—regardless of where it is based—from collecting massive amounts of our detailed personal data, which is then made available to data brokers, U.S. government agencies, and even foreign adversaries. They should solve the real problem of out-of-control privacy invasions by enacting comprehensive consumer data privacy legislation. Instead, as happens far too often, our government’s actions are vastly overreaching while also deeply underserving the public.
Originally published to the EFF Deeplinks blog.
Filed Under: apps, tiktok ban
Companies: bytedance, tiktok




Comments on “Biden Signed The TikTok Ban. What’s Next For TikTok Users?”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
I did read that tiktok might geoblockbthe the USA, just like porn sites block users in states with age verification requirements
Of course those who want to use tiktok will just bypass that with Tor, proxy, or vpn
There is not much tilktok can do about that
Abd under the radar vpns cam be used. The vpn I ran alongside my online radio station was that way is it was targeted at users in offices, schools and the like to bypass the company firewall.
I blocked all web ads as well and even blocked anti adblock scripts from loading as well and even picked content obviously not suitable fur offices such as porn and gambling.
Office filtering goes too far and my vpn allowed people to bypass the office or school firewall with any risks to the network
And taking payment in Bitcoin was part of our policy of “we do not know abd dont want to know who is using our vpn”
The revenue from that allowed the station to be ad free and use
Re:
there’s absolutely no way your incompetent ass ran a damned thing.
Re: Re:
Burma-Shave
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Bypassing geo restrictions is not illegal in the United States
Just like bypassing filtering in schools or workplaces does not break federal laws, though it might break some state laws.
One person who did like my vpn claimed his workers were breaking theft of service led in his state, but he did concede that it not break any federal laws
Re: Re: Re:
shut up edge lord
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, yeah, you’re behind 12 proxies and you can pull more ass than a donkey breeder. You got any more unbelievable stories to tell, or this is the extent of your act?
Re: Re: Re:
Nobody is saying VPNs aren’t legal. We’re saying you’re a dumb ass, and don’t know what you’re talking about BOTH technically and legally most of the time. You’re the dumb ass that claimed cellphone jammers weren’t illegal. Which is a categorically untrue.
You’re also the dumb ass that doesn’t know the difference between routable and unroutable address spaces.
It’s pretty clear you understand nothing and are just repeating words you’ve picked up on the internet like they are some sort of magical incantation that will bring you credibility.
Re: Re: Re:2
Yup. You can prevent your own phone receiving calls (by simply blocking all numbers calling it), but doing that to anyone else’s is interfering with their right to freedom of speech.
Re:
About your damn VPN shilling…
Have you read Ars Techbica recently? Security researchers, ie, NOT YOU, have recently found a way to “hack” VPNs via a security flaw in the infrastructure.
A VPN has never ensured your safety, security or anonymity. Only Opsec thinking and reducing your online foothold does.
Even if your advice did hold merit once, it doesn’t now.
Oh, and you still have to “abide” by the laws of the land. Which means no hacking of cops, no taking an angle grinder to whatever they own, or no breaking and entering.
Did you forget that after running your supposed radio station and VPN service? Or were you lying all along?
Re: Re:
You forgot “No making your license plate unreadable to either cops or cameras.”
“What’s Next For TikTok Users? ”
Panic and mass hysteria, I’m sure.
There's shooting your own foot, and then there's strapping a block of C4 to it...
And like that the US called in both an artillery and air strike on any moral high ground they might have had from this point forward to call other governments(like say the one they’re fearmongering about here) out for trying to limit speech within their respective countries.
So congrats USG, even if I believed that TikTok was nothing but a chinese propaganda platform you just did more to help their government and every other oppressive government in the world than one social media platform ever could have.
Enjoy your ‘victory’.
Re:
What I like are all the supporters of this ban arguing, “Well China did it to us.”
When did we have to start acting like fucking 5 year old children on the world stage?
This whole effort seems more performative art than anything.
Re: Re:
No, that’s a complete acceptable reason to do something such as blocking a foreign owned company from operating domestically when their competitors can’t operate in their country. International trade is a effort to balance a number of things, including how much access each party has to the other economy.
But this ain’t that. In any way, shape, or form.
It’s also not an effort to protect consumers.
This is just stupidity.
Re: Re:
I mean, the response to ‘Well China did it to us!’ practically writes itself.
‘Cool, so we’re no better than them then?’
Re: Re: Re:
“We’re totally better than them. Just the best country, the best.” — a man who, in the words of A.R. Moxon, “you wouldn’t trust to feed a soft-serve ice cream cone to a stray badger”, probably
Re: Re: Re:
Or, better yet…
“Why are we following Elon Musk and simping for China?”
Sure, banning an app isn’t actual simping, but when you follow China’s example…
Re:
Assuming the US had any moral ground left.
High or otherwise.
Re: Re:
Well that’s the trick of politics, you don’t have to actually have the moral high ground so long as everyone is willing to pretend that you do for political reasons and you don’t do anything too blatant to show that you very much do not.
… Which they USG just did and as a result shredded the facade that might have previously allowed the US to be taken seriously should they offer criticism to other governments for cracking down on speech in their respective countries.
Re: Re: Re:
To wit: Republicans and their voting base.
Re: Re: Re:2 IF Republican THEN Innocent. IF Not-Republican THEN Guilty
Well, with the difference that they don’t have to worry about giving away the game by being too blatant since their voting base will excuse anything they do anyway(with the possible exception of being decent people) since the standards they use are based upon person/group rather than action/words.
Re: Re: Re:3
Well, almost anything. Kristi Noem’s career as a politician is probably done after that excerpt from her book about killing her pet dog was made public. Even Donald Trump (allegedly) said her sharing that story was a bad idea.
Then again, she’d probably hit the GOP glass ceiling already.
Re: Re: Re:2
Did you mean liberals? They believe men can get pregnant
Re: Re: Re:3
And a trans man can indeed get pregnant if he still has at least a uterus, just as a woman who’s had an oophorectomy can still get pregnant. Your point, transphobe?
Re: Re: Re:4
See! They think men have a uterus.
I have no fear of trannies.
Re: Re: Re:4
Do you believe Doctors will use valuable time ensuring men aren’t having miscarriages when they came to the emergency room?
Re: Re: Re:
And the US has been spreading propaganda and fear since the Cold War.
Remember the time they tried to bribe Lee Kuan Yew? Caused a “revolution” in Iran? Desabilized South America to install their own dictators?
I know the average human being doesn’t care about the past, but to us in the Third World (yes, the Cold War definition), we’re just relieved the mask is finally off.
Shame this is just gonna make shit worse globally.
Re: Re:
Yeah, no, just high.
Re:
They will. Some of the bills authors started buying facebook stock as soon as they knew this was being pushed through