Talk:Censorship of TikTok

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 4 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Strawberrytt (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 29 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Noboyfriend noproblem123 (article contribs).

Untitled

The provided article on "Censorship of Tiktok" does well to describe the recent history of governments banning the app, however is misleading in its title and lead section. For example, the lead section claims that India only pursued a ban of the app due to conflicts with China, but the article elaborates on prior bans from the country citing indecency on the app. Along with this, another improvement to the lead section would be to mention the Armenian and Pakistani bans as described later in the article. One change to the overall article which would improve its clarity would be further descriptions on why certain countries have decided to ban Tiktok. If the article draftee had chosen to describe examples of the "pornography" and "inappropriate content" which forced bans of the app from India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Pakistan, then an understanding of why the censorship occurs can be fortified. Along with this, the use of the word "censorship" in the title is a bit extreme, as it is less of the app being blocked from users to prevent the spread of information but more for its questionable content for specific cultures and concerns of data security on the part of India and the US. As well, more. elaboration should be given to the history of the US ban on Tiktok- though the "Donald Trump- Tiktok Controversy" is cited as a separate article, more information could have been given to contextualize the lawsuit and describe the changes in ownership as a result of the compromise found between Bytedance and the US government. My last recommendation for improving the article would be to keep the capitalization consistent across the lead and "India" section. Overall, however, the article's greatest quality comes from its simplicity in describing different cases of bans based on geography. Vanguard826 (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2021 and 1 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kassandras1029. Peer reviewers: Vanguard826, Maddydowling27, Bgallardo225.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 29 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Noboyfriend noproblem123.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review

This article starts off strong especially with the great number of citations that are included to support the context of the material. The article starts off by mentioning ByteDance with a link to what exactly Bytedance is, however, in regards to this specific page it would be helpful to the reader to know some brief context about Bytedance and what connection it has to own Tiktok. The article then sharply transitions into citing pornography concerns, there could possibly be a smoother transition included here. I believe mentioning a variety of countries contributes to a strong point about censorship because it displays how different government systems deal with censorship over the media. The article links a different article when referencing the United States; in order to make this article more appealing and detailed in context, the United States should have some sort of mention and be talked about in detail. The United States is greatly known for having an issue with TikTok in 2020 so this should be highlighted. There also should be specific examples of media that were considered censored, this would add a better understanding of just how censored TikTok was in multiple countries. The article's strongest aspect is its elaboration on the ban in India; greater detail in other countries would be helpful to get a broader aspect on this issue. Maddydowling27 (talk) 05:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review BG

All in all, I think that the article is very strong and sets up many great examples of how TikTok has been banned around the world, specifically because of concerns of pornographic content. I would suggest adding a few more details about each case and also adding in information about the Trump Administration's policy regarding Tik Tok. In addition, I would add in information about how the Biden Administration has handled the cases since he took office, if there has been any action taken. Another piece I would add in is information about how China and ByteDance have reacted to these bans and how China has managed its policy regarding TikTok and ByteDance. What is it like there? Does China censor it or do they let them do their thing? Thank you for your article, it is definitely informative and interesting to read!

Bgallardo225 (talk) 04:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

This article should be about the censorship BY tiktok

This article should be about the censorship BY tiktok, not OF tiktok. It is mistitled. Tiktok regularly censors content that is found objectionable by the communist party in China. Ergzay (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

There is already a separate Censorship by TikTok article covering that topic. -- Beland (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Possible additions to article

What I plan on adding to Censorship of TikTok:

- Given that some subsections have very little information on the censorship of TikTok that these countries have endured, I think it would be ideal to elaborate on.

 - https://www.nst.com.my/world/region/2021/08/718633/bangladesh-court-orders-ban-tiktok-pubg-free-fire-save-children

 - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/29/world/asia/tik-tok-banned-india-china.html

 - https://gadgets.ndtv.com/apps/news/tiktok-ban-pakistan-lift-back-content-vulgar-obscene-complaint-2620149

- There are other countries that have also censored the application, so I plan to research and add information about countries that are not yet included in the article.

 - https://mincom.gov.az/en/view/news/990/azerbaijan-limits-internet-access-to-prevent-armenias-large-scale-acts-of-provocation-

- The United States subsection seems bare by only including a hyperlink to Donald Trump–TikTok controversy. I am not sure what to add as of now, but given the sheer size of the TikTok controversy in the US, there is definitely something that is worth adding.

- There are many grammatical and formatting errors that I plan on fixing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kassandras1029 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Sources that could help this article

- https://bciptf.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Joe-Swain_Fall-2021_Publication-2.pdf (a published essay written to explain the U.S involvement in wanting to ban Tiktok, specifically Trump) - https://freedomhouse.org/country/armenia/freedom-net/2021#footnote1_f7dslom (a government funded organization that focuses on Armenia's ban on social media) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgonzalezdev (talk • contribs) 21:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: E100 - Spring 2022

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2022 and 31 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vanikhullar (article contribs).

TikTok is still banned in Jordan

The article is wrong 94.249.66.170 (talk) 06:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Updated. -- Beland (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The world map

I think the map should have the US hatch marked to distinguish between state/DC/insular area-level and Federal bans. This is a good article overall. 2603:6081:4:5900:3596:58E3:B0C1:C9CB (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, especially given the new Montana ban. -- Beland (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, there's actually already a state-level U.S. map further down in the article. -- Beland (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Banned vs Blocked

Can somebody explain the difference between Tiktok being banned vs being blocked in China? I also asked about this on the wiki commons discussion for the map referenced in this article here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Censorship_of_Tik_Tok.svg ParkerFriedland (talk) 06:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Does anybody here have any objections to me ether merging the "TikTok not available because Douyin is used instead, which is a heavily censored version of TikTok used in China." category into the "TikTok banned on public sector" catagory (or merging them both into a "TikTok blocked on public sector" if there is a difference between it being banned and blocked)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParkerFriedland (talk • contribs) 08:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The captions all now say "banned". But I'm confused as to the difference between "on public sector" (which is not grammatical) vs. "on governmental devices"? Distinguishing areas that have Douyin vs. nothing I would keep because it is meaningful and informative. -- Beland (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I figured it out based on the article text; "on public sector" means "for all users". I changed the caption. -- Beland (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Fist paragraph

I believe this article does a great job describing the TikTok bans in each country and is very well backed by resources. Even though this is true I see an issue with the first paragraph. The first paragraph discusses some reasons TikTok is banned in some countries, but I do not believe it does a good job with describing these things. It seems a little biased. It states reasons for TikTok bans include, “concerns from the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, ownership by a Chinese parent company ByteDance, pornography, human trafficking, and toxic content.” Only some things from this statement are followed up later in the article. No where in the article does it discuss human trafficking or toxic content. I feel these things should be removed.Tankt42 (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Azerbaijan

The paragraph under Azerbaijan discusses how users in Armenia reported restrictions of many social media platforms including TikTok, but I do not agree with the why portion of this paragraph. The why part of this paragraph states that it was an “attempt to "prevent large-scale provocations from Armenia.” This may be true but a better way to describe it or a great addition would be “The State Security Service of Azerbaijan announced the official suspension of TikTok on grounds of national security, stating that military secrets and misinformation were being spread on the platform.” (Netblocks, 2022). https://netblocks.org/reports/tiktok-restricted-in-azerbaijan-and-armenia-amid-clashes-over-nagorno-karabakh-3An4pky2 Tankt42 (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Dates

Another great addition to each of the different countries would be when these bans may have started. Some countries do not have dates such as Iran, Malta, and the United States. Tankt42 (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

The United States

The United States paragraph does a great job at explaining the bans of TikTok in the country but does not have very many specifics nor does it discuss the almost total ban of TikTok. A good thing to add would be how Montana was the first state to ban TikTok, what that means for Montana and how other states followed soon after. https://news.mt.gov/Governors-Office/Governor_Gianforte_Bans_TikTok_in_Montana#:~:text=The%20governor%20signed%20Senate%20Bill,the%20Montana%20Department%20of%20Justice. Another great thing to add would be how TikTok almost got banned completely. “In August 2020, former US President Donald Trump signed an executive order that would have banned TikTok and WeChat in the US, citing national security concerns. However, the order was temporarily blocked by a federal judge and later revoked by President Biden” (Anita, 2023 https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/timeline-tiktok-bans-restrictions-worldwide-chiama-anita#:~:text=In%20May%202018%2C%20Iran%20banned,concerns%20about%20%22immoral%22%20content. Tankt42 (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

TikTok Measures

I believe this article ends very abruptly and does not have much of a conclusion. A great way to possibly fi this would be to add a final section that discusses what TikTok is doing to help reduce or end these bans. We could title the section TikTok Measures” and describe what is has put in place to fix the issues with its platform. Some of these things include, new moderation policies, data privacy practices, content policies, content advisories to help with things like safety, hate speech, and misinformation, storing user data locally, and addressing concerns of national security (Anita, 2023). https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/timeline-tiktok-bans-restrictions-worldwide-chiama-anita#:~:text=In%20May%202018%2C%20Iran%20banned,concerns%20about%20%22immoral%22%20content. Tankt42 (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

The web link is broken!!

The “Banpedia” website is just a link to GoDaddy! Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 05:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Not banned in Montana anymore

https://www.npr.org/2023/11/30/1205735647/montana-tiktok-ban-blocked-state Daoortor (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Right, I think we need the help of someone who knows how to edit that world map. It still shows Montana as red even though the article says a federal judge blocked the ban. 192.147.66.4 (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Wrong title

The subject of this article is the "banning" of a web application, you cannot "censor" an app because it is a platform/tool for facilitating communication not a form of communication or communicator its self. 2A00:23EE:2380:F57:FC87:8AFF:FE1F:751A (talk) 10:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@ 203.192.238.167 (talk) 08:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Terrible sources

"A bill was passed into law" and the sources are CNN and ABC news? How about congress.gov?

Full Decent (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:NOR - Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, Wikipedia articles rely on reliable secondary sources to satisfy the notability requirement of sourcing and avoid original research at the primary material source. I believe sourcing the claim to the relevant page on congress.gov would be allowed per the policy regarding primary sources if you were so inclined, but I would also keep in at least one of the two existing sources (CNN or ABC) to prove notability. Both sources have been subject to lengthy discussion on reliability by Wikieditors and are considered reliable in their areas of expertise (aka, news coverage of politics would fall under that banner). White0rchridae (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. The article also says there's no clear reason which is decidedly false. Like many applications and issues that have been found with espionage over the years, CCP having a backdoor is considered a security risk and thus why official government devices especially wouldn't want it used. 97.70.37.87 (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Extending Protection

So, with the whole ban situation, people are bound to look it up on here. The problem is, certain people like to...strongly voice their opinion on this platform. There for I call for some more protection on this page. This should also be the case for Restrictions on TikTok in the United States. Ikeable guy (talk) 04:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

US IS BACK

After being 12 hours pretty much in the dark TikTok has restored service to the U.SI don't know if this needs.Any map update or not ChaseTOM4YT (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

TikTok is still banned in the United States per PAFACA. Restoring service by TikTok does not void the provisions of the law or grant immunity to companies who violate its provisions. EarlyRetirement (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

tiktok is still banned, by law, but so far i've updated the map so that TikTok can be used in the US but it's still officially banned. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 00:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Confusing map colors

The colors on the first map (the one with cyan colors) is quite confusing. It's hard to distinguish the colors of those countries that allow TikTok (vibrant cyan) and the US, which bans it de jure (slightly lighter shade of cyan). I know that it might be a trivial issue to many, but those colors are hard to distinguish, which ruins the point of the map and its legend. JekyllTheFabulous (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

As of right now, I do not see any confusion or have heard anyone else complaining about the colors. The one you mentioned above (lighter cyan) isn't really lighter cyan. It's a type of light blue. I will try and investigate, and if I find it to be confusing, I'll change it. Thanks. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 06:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I have changed it. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 06:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. It is now easier to look at. JekyllTheFabulous (talk) 07:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

TikTok should still be available in Russia even if it's not completely up to date. CurryCity (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm already aware of this. Generally i'd put diagonal lines of both blue and gray, but i'm investigating. I'll let you know when something is changed. Thank you. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 21:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

done, i've updated it. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 02:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 20 January 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. There does not appear to be consensus on moving this article at this time Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

---

Censorship of TikTok → Restrictions on TikTok – Per WP:PRECISE as well as WP:NDESC and WP:NPOVTITLE. Amigao (talk) 03:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose Strong Oppose - TikTok is censored throughout these banned countries, and 'Restrictions' pretty much ruin the entire purpose. Articles like YouTube and Instagram also have a similar page that also says 'censored', so I believe that it shouldn't be renamed per consistency with other articles. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 05:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  Definitely won't be moved and will be labled as "no consensus" unless another person supports this. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 09:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nom, while there is censorship on this list it's mostly restrictions—blindlynx 13:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support It is the more neutral title. Restrictions on an app do not always equate to censorship. Some1 (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - Other articles specifically have "Censorship" in their name. Censorship of YouTube, Censorship of Twitter, and so on. It would make no sense to rename this article to Restrictions on TikTok and let it be a discrepancy to the rest of these articles.

Bennett1203 (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

These articles do not deal with non-censorship restrictions, such as government device bans. EarlyRetirement (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

That's a good point. A restriction on a government-owned device is not the same as censorship. The two term should not be conflated. - Amigao (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment "Restrictions of..." would be less precise than "Censorship of..." since censorship is a more specific form of restriction. AlphaBeta135talk 19:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 20:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Non-censorship restrictions are included in the article. EarlyRetirement (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok, if you say so. That won't change my opinion especially since you were the one who brought this up by moving this page randomly without consensus. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 02:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per Freedoxm and Bennett1203. Selectively watering down Tiktok's article title by using "restrictions" in lieu of "censorship", which is otherwise the on-wiki standard, amounts to a NPOV issue. Flip^andFlopped ツ 21:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  The other "Censorship of YouTube, Censorship of Twitter" articles, etc. could be renamed to "Restrictions on _____". Some1 (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  That is a long process, and it's less precise. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 21:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  also since when did we have to mass-move pages from 'censored' to 'restricted'. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 21:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  Just curious, what do you think of the title Restrictions on TikTok in the United States? Is that article title fine or should it be renamed to Censorship of TikTok in the United States? Some1 (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  That article is fine, as it only applies to Americans. Despite wikipedia being an american website, Wikipedian articles are not just for americans, but many other people. That is also the more common name between censorship and restrictions, unlike articles that say 'censored'. Thank you. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 21:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  There is a scope disconnect between title and content as it is now, if the title remains unchanged then we should removed the stuff that isn't censorship from the article—blindlynx 21:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  If we do, then where are we supposed to put the removed content? Split it into another article? I doubt it. This is pretty controversial, as someone moved this page to 'Restrictions on Tiktok' without a move request. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 21:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  Censorship includes restrictions, but not all restrictions are censorship. So if this article were to be renamed to 'Restrictions on...', then all of the content currently on this article can remain. Some1 (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  Again, per above. I only oppose this per consistency with other articles. Thank you. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 21:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  Unsubscribing due to controversial comments. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 21:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  Subscribing back. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 02:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  If you support consistency i don't understand why you oppose the removal of none censorship stuff. Other articles similar articles don't have non censorship stuff in them—blindlynx 14:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  The issue is that the content isn't consistent with other articles, this article includes restrictions that aren't censorship such content is not in other censorship of foo articles—blindlynx 23:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  Blindlynx, that's also a reasonable solution here. Content about restrictions, such as government-owned device restrictions, should sit in a separate article and not in one about strictly censorship. - Amigao (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm okay wither either, renameing just seems simpler—blindlynx 16:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  "That article is fine, as it only applies to Americans" does not really seem like a strong policy-based argument. - Amigao (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  Ok, if you say so.. That won't change my opinion though because it ruins the consistency of other articles to this one. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 21:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Strong Support The majority of actions taken by governments against TikTok are government device bans, which can't logically be considered censorship. Additionally, the article focusing on US restrictions against TikTok is titled "Restrictions on TikTok in the United States". Censorship also has a strong negative connotation and again (as @Some1 pointed out), not all restrictions applied to TikTok amount to censorship. EarlyRetirement (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - While it's true that government device bans don’t directly suppress speech, they still represent a restriction on access to information, which can be a form of indirect censorship. The broader context of actions against TikTok often involves content suppression, surveillance concerns, and outright bans, which align with the definition of censorship. Renaming the article risks downplaying these aspects. As for the U.S. article, its title reflects a specific focus, but this broader article addresses global actions, many of which are far closer to censorship than simple restrictions. The negative connotation of censorship is appropriate given the nature of many actions described. Bennett1203 (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Benett1203: I don't think that you can voice your opinions twice, but I support your opinion. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 02:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

EarlyRetirement, That's not true. There are more actions taken by gov'ts to ban and/or unbanned TikTok rather than govermentally banning it. Here are the number of countries that banned it or have unbanned it:

• 17 countries - 7 still banned, 4 de jure banned, and 6 unbanned:

• Afghanistan
• Armenia
• Azerbaijan
• Bangladesh
• Djibouti
• India
• Indonesia
• Iran
• Jordan (not the shoe brand, the hashemite kingdom)
• Kyrgyzstan
• North Korea (DPRK)
• Pakistan
• Somalia
• Syria
• United States
• Uzbekistan
• Venezuela

And in the meantime, only 14 (1 de facto) countries have gov't device bans:

• Aotearōa (New Zealand)
• Austria
• Australia
• Belgium
• Canada
• Denmark
• Estonia
• France
• Ireland
• Latvia
• Netherlands
• Norway
• Taiwan
• United Kingdom

This specifies that your argument claiming that we 'should transition from censorship to restrictions' and that the 'majority of gov'ts ban is only reflected on govt's devices ban' is technically wrong. If you need proof, feel free to check the first and second colored maps. Thank you. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 02:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose "Censorship" is widely used on Wikipedia to describe removed or restricted content, it's not a political hot potato for saying certain types of censorship are good or bad. I think the article "Restrictions on TikTok in the United States" was titled that way because it was originally about a failed executive order and then the government removing it from government devices (obviously that has since escalated). Also, "Restrictions on TikTok" could be confused with TikTok's Restricted Mode. ^Falling_Gravity 03:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support,Restrictions the use of mobile phones in restaurants only prohibits the use of mobile phones, not the content. When censorship mobile phones in restaurants, someone will look through your SMS and photos, telling you what you can keep and what you must delete. 2400:2200:3DE:7103:2C05:20C1:7A40:5A54 (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• SUPPORT for multiple reasons, first that the most common (but not exclusive) name we see is ban, which is a form of restriction. I would not be posed to ban in the title has that seems to be the most common overall. The term censor is perhaps the least used, and “censorship of” implies the voice of TikTok is being censored, but rather the user of the platform as a whole is being restricted and/or banned. It can also easily be confused with “censorship by” which is already an article. The voices of the individual users themselves are not “in the context of this article” being censored for any aspect of their actions. The article does not appear to discuss to any manful degrees that the company’s content or voice is being censored, as they are not the publisher but rather a public forum. I do not believe that censor, ban or restriction are more-or-less politically charged then the other, nor is one more neutral, but rather the perception is more in the eyes of the individual readers bias. I would also add that if we said an an English speaking country, if a newspaper was no longer permitted to be published, for censorship reasons, it is generally an indictment of the editor in chief or leadership, not the individual editors, and most certainly no of the op-ed contributors, which might be the best analogy to TikTok. TiggerJay (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.