Jump to content

Talk:Restrictions on TikTok in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TikTok Ban

[edit]

I found a source saying banning TikTok could violate the First Amendment in the United States Constitution. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/24/opinion/tiktok-ban-first-amendment.html Cwater1 (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More Information on U.S. China relations

[edit]

I think the article should contain more information on U.S. China relations leading up to this point in the TikTok ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StudentCSCI5125 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you find one or more source(s) claiming that the relations are influencing the ban. Cwater1 (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information

[edit]

OompahOomaph (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)I feel like we could use more information about what will happen next and how TikTok being banned will affect users.[reply]

For now more information is linked at the top of the article. CurryCity (talk) 05:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Security section

[edit]

The first paragraph should be removed or moved to the parent article because it is primarily about NATO. The second paragraph involves a duplicated case that is already covered in the parent article. CurryCity (talk) 07:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, both paragraphs seem off-topic in this article. Probes and subpoenas are not restrictions. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More Information

[edit]

There has been a recent bill passed by the US Lawmakers, which will force ByteDance 165 days to divest, otherwise it will be banned. Not sure if it counts as a restriction or not. Sapphirepanda23 (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the RESTRICT Act? Doesn't appear any votes have taken place yet: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/all-actions –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure to be really honest, I got information from BBC and CBS news, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tiktok-bill-ban-divest-from-bytedance-parent-company/ Sapphirepanda23 (talk) 07:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove map until it fixes WP:OR issues

[edit]

This map distinguishes between political parties of the enacting official but plenty of legislatures, for example, of the other party than the enacting official passed the ban. It seems more confusing than it is illuminating and represents WP:OR given that it isn't represented in the sources. Superb Owl (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The column in the table can also be removed. I don't think party affiliation is the most important aspect here even if it is supported. CurryCity (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done also removed the 'Enacting official' column for the same reasons Superb Owl (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanics of such a ban?

[edit]

Curious as to how such a ban would be implemented, and/or enforced. What's to stop people from downloading the app via a VPN and side loading it? 138.229.183.42 (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of the ways it is supposed to be enforced is: it would be illegal to serve the data for the app. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) would have to block all traffic to banned sites, a Virtual Private Network (VPN) company would have to do the same as-well. Non-compliance is punishable by $5000 per user who accesses it, the and the owner of the app would have to pay $500 per user accesses the application. It is theoretically possible to get a VPN in a country that allows Tik-Tok, and doesn’t have a headquarters/building in the united states; however the VPN allowing apps labelled as a “national security threat”, would make them a national security threat as well and possibly get them banned.
Notice — I am not a lawyer, nor do I claim to be; this information may be incorrect. This is not legal advice, if you do seek legal advice: talk to a lawyer. JSMskd (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Potential split

[edit]

Should content from this article as well as the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act article be split into a new article with the title of "TikTok ban in the United States"? Alternatively, this article could be moved to that title; in that case, plenty of background information would already be included. –Gluonz talk contribs 15:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The TikTok ban is prominent enough to become its own article. Most of this article is about bans in places such as universities. A separate page for the TikTok ban would be a better idea. Sussywidget (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This article has a ~2.3k word count which does not justify splitting per WP:SIZERULE. A separate "TikTok ban in the United States" article would a WP:CFORK that could easily be discussed in this "Restrictions on TikTok in the United States" article. I suggest creating a new section in this article titled "January 2025 TikTok ban"; this split discussion can be revisited if the new section gets too large. Some1 (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Some1: Size is not the reason for which I requested this split. Rather, I think that the TikTok ban in the United States would be notable enough for its own spinoff article. –Gluonz talk contribs 17:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still think everything that could be said in the proposed "TikTok ban in the United States" article could easily be said in this article in a new section titled "January 2025 TikTok ban" or something like that. Why don't you start there and see if the section gets too large? I don't see the rush in creating a new article. Some1 (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOPAGE, a subject being notable doesn't necessarily mean that a separate article is warranted. Graham (talk) 06:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should be proposed a new section in this article titled "January 2025 TikTok ban", thanks. Andre Farfan (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to create a new section in this article titled "January 2025 TikTok ban", no one is stopping you. Some1 (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of surprised there wasn't already this section, assuming the content isn't already documented elsewhere. The only argument for a standalone article is if it becomes a notable WP:EVENT, but seems WP:TOOSOON. CNC (talk) 02:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think some of the content are interspersed between the Legal challenge, the Second Trump administration (2025–2029), and the "Mass migration" to other platforms sections of this article. If TikTok really does "goes dark" tomorrow [1], then I think it's worth creating its own section; if it doesn't and Trump plans to extend the deadline or whatever, then it belongs in the Second Trump administration (2025–2029) section. I agree with you that it's too soon to have a separate article for this (not that a separate article is warranted anyway). Some1 (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Some1. - Amigao (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:SIZERULE. Article just needs updating and expanding for now. CNC (talk) 01:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. TikTok just went dark, and I feel this has enough standalone coverage to warrant a seperate article. Atheions (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need for a separate article, people can just edit: Restrictions on TikTok in the United States#January 2025 shut down. Some1 (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for reasons articulated above. There may eventually be enough content to warrant a split or changing this article’s title to "TikTok ban in the United State" (or similar) via WP:RMC and placing the rest of the content in sections on History, Other restrictions, or something along those lines. It’s premature to create a second article when there’s so little content here. A great way to test whether there’s enough content for two articles or to warrant a move to a new title reflecting a modification of the primary topic is to add content here and subject it to the regular editorial process. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 04:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We are way way way too detailed on this article in the first place, and we should not be trying to dissect news events to infinisimal detail (we write in summary style for the 10-year POV, and we are not a newspaper), particularly if this is only out for a few days (given what Trump has said) As pointed out, the Restrcictions.. page is sufficient for this. --Masem (t) 04:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Why split the ban to a new article when this article says all about restrictions posed on the platform? Many states have banned TikTok on their government devices before the complete ban. HarukaAmaranth 06:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support The current ban in the USA is more notable then other incidents. I have created new article 2025 TikTok ban in the United States RealStranger43286 (talk) 06:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have redirected the title while this discussion remains ongoing. Graham (talk) 06:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in the article that you had just created is a direct copy-paste of the Restrictions on TikTok in the United States#January 2025 shut down section of this article. Some1 (talk) 07:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per attribution in edit summary, it's because Stranger43286 was performing a split while there is an ongoing discussion for such a split. Best to WP:AGF given WP:CLUE applies here (not that you weren't anyway). CNC (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok ok bro. You guys are replying me while I cancelled my plan. RealStranger43286 (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You made a bold split that was reverted, you're not edit warring over it so no harm done, if that's what you mean by cancelled. Everyone is entitled to bold editing, even if it's almost always a bad idea while discussions are ongoing to build consensus. I can't remember the policy to reference regarding WP:BOLDSPLIT, but it's along the lines of WP:BOLDMOVE which requires lack of previous discussion and lack of opposition. Hope that helps, all the best. CNC (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm not new user. I created my account in May 2024 and become Extended confirmed user in December 2024. I have created some popular article. But I'm not too experienced. Best regards. RealStranger43286 (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The ban wasn't just for TikTok, but rather ByteDance products in general. Maybe "ByteDance ban in the United States?" Sussywidget (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would just recommend having that be a redirect if this split occurs as TikTok is the most notable of the banned apps. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think the ban is notable enough in its own right to get its own article (and/or an idea would be to rename this one to being about the ban, keeping all relevant info to the ban, and then putting all the other info in the U.S. section of Censorship of TikTok) Wikipedian339 (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This article isn't really long enough to warrant a split, and "TikTok ban in the United States" is ambiguous since the most recent law not the only attempt to ban it (Trump's original EO and Montana's law come to mind). I think we could rename this page to something like "Efforts to ban TikTok in the United States" since the current title is a bit outdated. FallingGravity 01:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: ambiguous target title. however, if it were necessary to be done, i would suggest a clear and non-ambiguous title, such as "Federal Restrictions on TikTok in the United States". - avxktty (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per User:Some1 Sushidude21! (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the news nomination

[edit]

Missing Information

[edit]

This article is missing information on Executive Order 13942. WikIan (talk) 06:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How / Where should politicians' changing positions be discussed?

[edit]

Charlie Kirk is an influential political activist on the right and prominent supporter of Donald Trump. I'm citing him here, even though he's not a politician himself, because his comments on this subject conveniently summarize the shifting positions of some Republican politicians, including Trump:

Only July 31, 2020, Kirk tweeted "BREAKING: President @realDonaldTrump just announced on Air Force One that he will be banning the evil CCP-compromised app TikTok."

Kirk would continue to inveigh against the platform for years, tweeting "Ban TikTok" multiple times in late 2022 and early 2023 (before Trump himself posted in support of TikTok ban in March of that year, when that possibility was again being seriously discussed), and Kirk tweeted on November 29, 2023 that "It's way past time to ban TikTolk," which Kirk called "a cancer on America," as he complained that Congress and specifically Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson had not taken such action.

Today, January 19, 2025, Kirk, tweeted "Trump is saving TikTok. Pay attention, Gen Z."

Nothing about the relationship between the supposedly "cancer(ous)" TikTok app, its owner ByteDance, and ByteDance's obligations to the "evil" Chinese Communist Party has changed in the intervening four-and-a-half years. All that changed is the opinion of Donald Trump on this matter. (Why Trump's opinion changed thus is very important to determine, but one thing at a time.)

In the meantime, a number of other politicians* who supported and voted for the ban, both Republicans and Democrats, began having cold feet when it became apparent that the Supreme Court was likely to uphold it (as they did, unanimously), ByteDance was not going to divest as required by the law, and thus the ban really was going into effect. None of them, as yet, has introduced legislation to repeal this law, although there was a motion in the Senate on January 15, 2025 to extend the date of the ban by nine months. It was blocked by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas),* one of the few members of Congress to remain consistent on this issue.

That's not a guarantee that Cotton is right on the merits, but the changing positions of the other members of Congress and of President-elect Trump suggests that either their stated reasons for wanting to ban the app before or their stated reasons for wanting to undo the ban now were or are not genuine. At the very least, this discrepancy should be noted. This article will seem pretty foolish if doesn't acknowledge the inconsistency. But I'm not sure how that would best be done: should it get its own paragraph -- and if so, where? -- or should the information be scattered in the different sections?

*And today Sen. Cotton tweeted this: "Any company that hosts, distributes, services, or otherwise facilitates communist-controlled TikTok could face hundreds of billions of dollars of ruinous liability under the law, not just from DOJ, but also under securities law, shareholder lawsuits, and state AGs. Think about it." NME Frigate (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That said, following the link in this article to that for the "Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act," I find that Democrats in April 2024 said they had no choice but to vote for the bill because it was packaged with a Ukraine funding measure that felt they was imperative. So one sentence here noting that could suffice for much of this concern I've raised. NME Frigate (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on noting the discrepancy of opinion of politicians, though I'll note that you can also find sources describing Democratic senators expressing approval of the ban.
From https://apnews.com/article/tiktok-ban-congress-bill-1c48466df82f3684bd6eb21e61ebcb8d: "`Congress is not acting to punish ByteDance, TikTok or any other individual company,' Senate Commerce Committee Chairwoman Maria Cantwell said. `Congress is acting to prevent foreign adversaries from conducting espionage, surveillance, maligned operations, harming vulnerable Americans, our servicemen and women, and our U.S. government personnel.'”
From https://apnews.com/article/tiktok-ban-house-vote-china-national-security-8fa7258fae1a4902d344c9d978d58a37: "Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner announced after the House vote that he would work to `get this bill passed through the Senate and signed into law.'...Warner said that `we are united in our concern about the national security threat posed by TikTok — a platform with enormous power to influence and divide Americans whose parent company ByteDance remains legally required to do the bidding of the Chinese Communist Party.'”
Here's a collection of senators' opinions on the ban, from both sides of the aisle: https://www.techpolicy.press/what-us-senators-are-saying-about-tiktok/ You can find some Democratss opposing it vaguely (Markey, perhaps Warren) and Republicans supported it more enthusiastically, but I don't see much evidence for Democratic Senators feeling coerced to sign this bill. Of the opinions listed in that link, only Senator Coons' mentions Ukraine or Israel. Truthnope (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that collection of quotes. I would note that the last piece is dated April 11, 2024, after the first version of the bill had passed the House but had not moved forward in the Senate (and never would).
A report in "The Hill" (cited in Wikipedia's article on the law) dated April 26, 2024, after the larger bill which included a medium sized bill which included a new iteration of this bill had passed includes Ed Markey saying that the TikTok ban was a "grave mistake" even though he voted for it because it was part of the package. It also includes this from the Senate's top Democrat:
"Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) this week blamed House Republicans for jamming language potentially banning TikTok into the $95 billion foreign aid package the Senate passed Tuesday.  
'Look, Speaker [Mike] Johnson [R-La.] put it in the bill, in the big supplemental bill, and we had to get the supplemental bill passed as quickly as possible,' he told reporters when asked about a political backlash to the TikTok ban."
When I started this topic, I didn't realize there was already a Wikipedia article titled "Donald Trump-TikTolk Controversy." That one addresses my concern about the most egregious flip-flopping with ample details. It also includes a different Mark Warner quote than the one you cite: "As painful as it is for me to say, if Donald Trump was right and we could've taken action then, that'd have been a heck of a lot easier than trying to take action in November of 2022. The sooner we bite the bullet, the better." All in all, it would seem that Trump proposed the ban for personal reasons, Congress slowly came to a collective agreement that there really was a serious security concern albeit they had reservations about First Amendment concerns and might or might not have passed it as is in the Senate if it weren't part of a larger security spending bill, and just as they decided to proceed, Trump changed his mind for personal reasons. NME Frigate (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


"In 2020, President Donald Trump proposed a ban of the app as he viewed it as a national security threat. In August, he signed an executive order instructing that ByteDance divest from the app, though the order was blocked by a court injunction in September and was reversed by the Biden administration in 2021. However, in 2024, the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act was proposed in Congress, again ordering that ByteDance divest due to alleged security concerns and pro-Palestinian bias. The bill was approved by Congress and signed into law by Joe Biden. Following a lawsuit from TikTok, the law was upheld by the Supreme Court.

"On January 18, 2025, the day before the deadline of the law, TikTok temporarily suspended its services in the United States. The following day, after President-elect Trump signaled that he would grant a 90-day extension to TikTok upon being inaugurated, services were restored."

Frankly, I think these two EXISTING paragraphs do a good job of condensing the flip-flops on BOTH sides. It shows the notion became a political football, and makes the point succinctly. They even switch direction each quarter! I'd say these cover it enough, no need to split hairs over how many politicians have moved which way, IMHO, no dedicated section for such "discussion" is needed. Jororo05 (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with this. I was just responding to the suggestion that the Democrats may have been forced into signing the bill due to the House Republicans inserting it into a bill providing funding for Ukraine and Israel. As noted by NME Frigate, there is an article by the Hill containing a quote by Chuck Schumer claiming that the passing of the bill had more to do with the foreign aid package. My observation was that there's also evidence of Senate Democrats supporting the bill on its own merits. I'm fine with leaving the article as is. Truthnope (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I said, I'm OK with all of this here given that there are other articles that get into the weeds. Trump *said* in 2020 that he viewed it as a national security threat, but we don't know if he really did see it that way; one of the other articles here says that he was also upset because TikTok users were mocking him. As late as early 2023, as Congress started to take the issue seriously, he was criticizing them for not having come around to his position sooner. It was only as a real bill was on the verge of passing Congress in early 2024 that he opposed the ban, and as was widely reported at the time, that followed upon his having met with a Republican campaign donor who has a significant stake in the company. When the bill passed, "The Hill," an outlet which tends to skew a little to the right, said that Democrats had been tricked into voting for (and in Joe Biden's case, signing) something that they didn't want to pass because it was part of a larger bill that they did want to pass and that it would hurt them in the 2024 election. As it probably did. But it's certainly true that a significant number of the Democrats who voted for it -- maybe even a majority of them -- believed in it. NME Frigate (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mention 75-day delay in "Second Trump administration (2025–present)"

[edit]

this section is outdated and only mentions what he has said before january 20th, it doesn't mention the signing of EO.14149, which delays the ban by 75 days. - avxktty (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What pro Palestinian bias? Context was missing.

[edit]

There should be added context that analysts found that the young generation are just more sympathetic to Palestinians and Gaza death tolls. And Tiktok is a platform that young people like to discuss the topic and such discussions is reflected in other platforms. A Washington Post report from November 2023 found that the #freepalestine hashtag appeared 39 times more on Facebook than the #standwithisrael tag, and 26 times more on Instagram than the pro-Israel hashtag. Both of those platforms are owned by Meta, a U.S. company with a U.S. founder.[2] Unless you also accuse American companies of artificially promoting Palestine. Then the article should fairly mention that one of the congress advocacy justification for a ban alleging Pro Palestinian bias, is being firmly refuted by analysts. So I added in vox media and another source in the criticism section, citing analysts who disagree and argued against the ban's advocacy on the basis of alleged "anti-Israel bias" from the app. 49.186.64.104 (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the context, please try and make the wording more neutral next time though. CNC (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
in general, also see WP:ARBECR. besides WP:EDITREQUEST, any writing or talk page section somewhat related to the Israel-Palestine conflict can be removed if you do not have WP:XC Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Restrictions_on_TikTok_in_the_United_States&oldid=1273788146"