Why does the TikTok ban matter?

This morning, the Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments for and against the TikTok divestiture bill, set to take effect on January 19. Attorneys representing the U.S. government and ByteDance, TikTok's Chinese parent company, presented their cases to the nine-justice bench. I had the opportunity to listen to the oral arguments, and they were eye-opening.

What Is the TikTok Divestiture Bill?

The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA) is a U.S. federal law enacted in April 2024 to address national security concerns associated with foreign-owned applications, particularly TikTok. The law requires ByteDance to divest its U.S. operations within 270 days of the law's enactment, with a deadline set for January 19, 2025.

If ByteDance fails to comply, TikTok will face a nationwide ban. This would prohibit app stores and internet hosting services from distributing or maintaining the app, effectively rendering it inoperable in the United States. The President—or President-elect—has the authority to extend the divestment deadline by an additional 90 days if a sale is underway.

The Supreme Court is currently reviewing the constitutionality of PAFACA, focusing on the balance between national security concerns and potential infringements on free speech rights.

TikTok’s Arguments Against PAFACA

TikTok has raised two primary objections to the law:

1. First Amendment Concerns: TikTok argues that PAFACA infringes upon the First Amendment by suppressing the free speech rights of both the company and its users. They claim that a ban would unjustly limit the expression of their 170 million U.S. users.

2. Lack of Concrete Evidence: TikTok contends that the U.S. government has failed to provide concrete evidence demonstrating that the platform poses a national security threat. They maintain that concerns about data access by the Chinese government are hypothetical and lack substantiation.

My Perspective

I believe the government is unfairly targeting TikTok, and I suspect there are unsaid motivations at play. TikTok is one of the most community-oriented tech platforms I’ve ever participated in. As my trust in mainstream and legacy media has waned, I’ve often turned to TikTok to access information from independent news sources, which have a strong presence on the platform.

Beyond that, TikTok has proven invaluable for grassroots activism. I’ve participated in fundraising efforts for those suffering in Gaza and built connections with like-minded individuals along the way.

A significant part of me believes the motivations behind this ban extend beyond data security concerns. TikTok threatens the way society interacts and engages. No other platform makes it so easy to organize, assemble, and create a collective voice in protest or criticism of U.S. policies. The government, therefore, has an incentive to dismantle a platform that fosters solidarity and amplifies dissenting voices.

If TikTok allows people to assemble and challenge American policies—domestically and abroad—why would the government be incentivized to let it operate freely? The risk, from their perspective, is that these collective voices could grow too strong, creating a persistent counter-narrative to American policies and power structures.

The Stakes of a TikTok Ban

Of course, I recognize this perspective doesn’t encompass all the factors driving the divestiture bill. However, if TikTok is banned—as now seems likely—it will silence countless voices critical of American policies.

We are still waiting for the Supreme Court’s decision, and where that will lead remains unclear. What I do know is this: When people have the will and the means to organize around a common cause, it benefits us all. Dissenting views are an essential part of American society. I hope that, as a nation, we can remember and honor that truth.