The House of Representatives passed a bill requiring TikTok owner ByteDance to sell the platform or risk a complete ban in the US. The Senate quickly followed suit, and the bill was signed by Joe Biden the next day.
This move poses a significant threat to TikTok in the US, especially since a previous ban in Montana was ruled unconstitutional and never enforced.
Here’s what you need to know about the bill, the possibility of a TikTok ban, and its implications for the platform’s 170 million US users.
Is the US really trying to ban TikTok and why?
The bill passed by the House is part of an ongoing political battle over TikTok, a platform that has seen massive growth since its launch in 2017. Lawmakers are concerned about data privacy and censorship issues related to TikTok’s Chinese parent company.
Despite TikTok’s assurances about data storage and access, lawmakers remain skeptical, leading to the recent legislation.
Various attempts to regulate TikTok in the US have been made, culminating in the recent bill passing in the House.
Does this bill really ban TikTok?
Under the bill, ByteDance must divest from TikTok within 165 days to avoid a ban. App stores could face penalties for hosting TikTok if the divestiture does not occur.
Supporters argue the bill offers ByteDance an opportunity to avoid a ban by selling TikTok to non-Chinese companies.
TikTok disputes this, claiming uncertainty about the sale’s approval and completion within the specified timeframe.
How did we get here?
Past bans and restrictions on TikTok, including efforts by former President Trump, have laid the groundwork for the current situation. Montana and other states have previously attempted bans, but legal challenges have prevented enforcement.
Recent demands from the Treasury Department raised concerns, leading to the development of the current bill.
How will the TikTok ban be enforced?
Enforcing a ban on TikTok faces technical and legal challenges due to the decentralized nature of the internet. Methods like blocking IP addresses could be circumvented using VPNs.
To fully restrict TikTok, the US would need to adopt stringent internet restrictions used by countries like China.
Who supports a possible TikTok ban?
Most Republicans and the Biden administration back the bill, with President Trump’s stance evolving over time. Efforts to ban TikTok have garnered bipartisan support.
Despite some opposition, the bill’s supporters believe it is crucial for national security and data privacy concerns.
Who opposes the TikTok bill?
TikTok vehemently opposes the bill and urges the Senate to reject it. Some lawmakers and civil rights groups argue the bill threatens free speech rights and could set a dangerous precedent.
Opponents of the bill emphasize the need for comprehensive social media regulation rather than targeting specific platforms like TikTok.
What will happen to TikTok in the future?
The bill still faces hurdles in the Senate, and its enforcement could be complex. TikTok’s lobbying efforts and legal challenges could impact the bill’s implementation.
Even if passed, legal challenges may arise, similar to previous bans that were blocked on constitutional grounds.
The House of Representatives passed a bill on Wednesday mandating that ByteDance, the owner of TikTok, must sell the social media platform or face a complete ban in the United States.
The vote resulted in overwhelming support, with 352 members of Congress voting in favor and only 65 voting against. The bill, which was swiftly approved in committee last week, gives ByteDance 165 days to divest from TikTok. Failure to do so would result in app stores like the Apple App Store and Google Play being legally prohibited from hosting TikTok or providing web hosting services for ByteDance-managed applications.
Following the vote, TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew expressed disappointment and stated that the company is doing everything possible to protect the platform’s integrity and enforce their legal rights.
Chew emphasized TikTok’s efforts to secure data and shield the platform from external influences, raising concerns about the implications of the bill on other social media companies, creators, and small businesses.
The decision in the House of Representatives marks a significant development in the ongoing debate surrounding TikTok’s alleged data collection practices and potential political censorship. Despite assurances from TikTok that they do not share U.S. user data with the Chinese government, challenges persist, including past bans and legal battles.
The future of the bill in the Senate remains uncertain, as some Democrats have raised free speech concerns and proposed broader social media regulations to address foreign influence concerns without singling out TikTok specifically.
The White House supports the bill, aiming to provide a pathway for ByteDance to sell TikTok and mitigate national security risks associated with Chinese ownership. The authors of the bill stress that the goal is not to ban TikTok outright but to facilitate its sale to circumvent the block in the U.S.
While the outcome of the bill continues to unfold, TikTok and its supporters remain steadfast in advocating for the platform’s survival, raising uncertainties about China’s approval of a potential sale and the timeline for such a transaction.
As the debate continues, concerns persist about the impact of the bill on other Chinese-owned platforms in the U.S., such as Tencent’s WeChat. The discussions reflect broader efforts to address national security and privacy considerations in the social media landscape.
During his presidency, Donald Trump initially opposed the U.S. ban on TikTok’s Chinese owners but has since shown support for the app.
In a CNBC interview, President Trump acknowledged the popularity of TikTok among young users and stated that it served as a source of entertainment for many. He also criticized Facebook, referring to it as the “enemy of the people.” While still considering TikTok a national security risk, he highlighted similar concerns with other platforms, specifically Meta-owned platforms.
Following the January 6, 2021, riot, Trump faced suspensions and bans from various social media platforms, including Facebook. Despite this, his support for TikTok has resurfaced, contrasting with Joe Biden’s intention to ban the app through Congress.
Should the bill pass, ByteDance would be compelled to sell TikTok to avoid potential bans within the U.S. The company has expressed concerns over the proposed legislation and has urged users to advocate against the ban.
The American Civil Liberties Union has criticized attempts to ban TikTok, citing potential infringements on free speech rights and warning against prioritizing political gains over individual liberties.
Former Trump aide Kellyanne Conway has taken steps to lobby for TikTok, emphasizing the adverse impact of a ban on American users and voters.
Conway highlighted the inconsistency of prioritizing TikTok over other pressing issues involving China and expressed concerns over potential alienation of American users.
Critics have emphasized the impact of banning TikTok on freedom of expression and innovation, particularly noting the app’s alignment with free market principles.
Despite concerns over TikTok’s security risks, Trump’s recent support for the app aligns with his stance against bans and restrictions on social media platforms.
Meta stock experienced a decline following recent discussions surrounding TikTok and potential regulatory actions.
MExperts say powerful viral clickbait has taken over Facebook and Instagram in Canada after Meta removed news from the platforms nine months ago. Now Australia could face a similar scenario online, with the company preparing to battle the Australian government over payments to news organizations.
Last week, Meta announced it would no longer make payments to Australian news publishers, prompting the Australian government to consider using its legislative powers to force the platform to negotiate payments with news publishers. Ta.
The controversy could prevent Australian news organizations from posting links to their content on Facebook or Instagram, as Meta did for six days in 2021, and as Canada has done since mid-last year. The possibility is increasing.
Experts say Canada’s ban has done little damage to the social media giants, but it has hurt the news organizations Canada most wanted to support.
In June 2023, the Canadian federal government introduced Bill C-18, which aims to increase revenue for Canadian journalism publishers by requiring Meta and Google’s parent company Alphabet to compensate publishers for hosting and linking content. (Online News Act) was passed.
Both tech companies initially balked at the prospect, but Alphabet ultimately agreed to a deal with the government in November. Under the terms of the deal, Google’s parent company will contribute C$73.6 million (A$83 million) annually to be distributed to Canadian news publishers. Experts said the deal was in part because C-18 targeted link sharing and indexing, key aspects of Alphabet’s business model.
But Mehta is resisting the law’s restrictions, arguing it is “fundamentally flawed”. In response, it blocked all news sharing on its platforms, including Instagram and Facebook. Prior to the ban, Meta also announced it was ending its partnership with the Canadian Press, which had funded 30 reporting fellowships for young journalists starting in 2020.
The ban took effect in August amid the worst wildfire season in the country’s history, but lawmakers feared it would prevent Canadians from accessing the latest news in their communities and prevent evacuations. . The broadcaster denounced the move as “anti-competitive behavior” and said it violated regulations. federal law.
Mehta said in a statement at the time: “The Online News Act is based on the false premise that Meta is unfairly profiting from the news content shared on our platforms, when the opposite is true. We voluntarily share content on Facebook and Instagram to help grow our audience and generate revenue.”
Non-news content created by viral content makers is filling the space left by news articles.
“Real Facebook without news has turned out to be more harmful than I expected,” said Jean Hughes-Roy, a journalism professor at the University of Quebec.
2022, Roy conducted a simulation He said he conducted a study on what users would see on Facebook if news was banned, but the reality of the ban was worse than the simulation predicted.
“Viral content creators take news content, make it more sensational by adding misleading information or false details, and publish it on their Facebook pages or Instagram accounts. Such content is blocked by Meta. No, but the actual news will be blocked.”
However, the move doesn’t seem to have affected how Canadians use Facebook.
The number of daily active users on Facebook and the amount of time spent on the social network have changed little since the news block began, according to figures from two digital analytics firms shared with Reuters.
Part of Meta’s argument against compensating Canadian journalistic outlets was that links to news articles accounted for less than 3% of Facebook feeds in the country. This was also the argument made regarding Australia’s decision.
Chris Waddell, of Carleton University’s School of Journalism, said Meta is increasingly wary of its position in the news industry.
“I don’t think we’ve lost any advertisers,” he says. “I don’t know if their decisions really made a difference.” [to the company].
“Meta would do that.”I like to get a break from news from other places. It’s hard to imagine that the company really wants to get dragged into the controversy surrounding the impending US election, with AI-generated fake information being posted on Facebook. It’s a real minefield for them. If they’re right, they only make 3% to 4% of their revenue from news, so I can understand why they would bail out of it. ”
News Corp. CEO Robert Thomson told reporters on Monday that Meta’s 3% claim was “obviously a fabrication and an absurd number.”
“So how much discussion is there about the news? If there is a core news, then the latest factual information on Facebook is 100% news. And these are the things Facebook focuses on. We should also focus on our responsibilities to all Australians.”
Most large publications are finding new ways to redirect users to their sites. But Facebook’s refusal to allow links to be shared on its platform has a huge impact on small publishers.
Eden Fineday, publisher of Indige News, an Indigenous-led online journalism outlet, said traffic on the site has fallen by 43% since the ban.
“Facebook is a very indigenous platform,” Fineday told the Toronto Star. “This is a place where a lot of Indigenous communities connect with each other. So it hurts us. Indigenous people are the least considered demographic, especially by corporate America. They’re not just forgotten, they’re also more vulnerable to these changes. It’s sad that companies don’t consider who is being harmed.”
Twenty independent media outlets, including the New Brunswick Media Cooperative, have banded together to try to make up for the loss of traffic. not equipped. The purpose is both to strengthen bargaining positions and to share news more effectively with readers.
Waddell said smaller publishers must do the most to win back readers in order to survive.
“Ironically, those that have been most affected are small start-up publications and publications that have been around for some time that have used Facebook as a promotional tool to reach a wider audience.” he said.
Roy said he is concerned about what the disappearance of news from Meta’s platform would mean for Canadian democracy.
“The latest Reuters Journalism Institute Digital News Report found that 45 per cent of Canadians cite social media as a source of news, and the same percentage is true in Australia. “I’m worried” news doesn’t exist anymore. ”
Ministers have confirmed plans to ban the use of mobile phones in English schools and have published guidance for headteachers, which some unions believe includes practices that are already widely adopted.
One headteacher welcomed the Department for Education’s (DfE) plan, saying it would help give schools the confidence to make changes that would benefit pupils, even if it may be met with opposition from parents.
This non-statutory guidance offers schools a range of potential ways to enforce the ban, from leaving cell phones at home to storing them in inaccessible lockers, and aims to address the distraction and concerns about potential bullying and social pressures caused by the prevalence of smartphones in schools.
Education Secretary Gillian Keegan stated that the guidance aims to “empower” schools that do not currently ban phones and to “provide clarity and consistency.” The guidance emphasizes the importance of schools being places for learning, interaction, and friendship rather than the constant use of cell phones.
There are also concerns about children’s access to harmful content on phones, leading to calls for technology companies and mobile phone manufacturers to take action.
…
The 13-page DfE guidance states that telephone policies should be clearly communicated to students and explain the reasons behind them, while also involving parents in the ban.
……
Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, expressed concerns about the amount of time some children spend on their phones and stated that the new guidance is not impactful, as most schools already have policies in place to address mobile phone use.
Chairman of two schools in Essex, Vic Goddard, mentioned that Passmores Academy had introduced a total phone ban, which was well-received by both parents and students, and that this guidance will be helpful for schools to address potential conflicts with parents.
A photo of a smartphone with a red line is displayed as a warning on the window of a beauty salon in a French village, after a law was passed to ban scrolling on a mobile phone in public. “Everyone is struggling with too much screen time,” said Rudivin, a cardiovascular nurse with her hair cut into a bob and her cellphone hidden out of sight in her bag. “I voted yes. This might be the solution.”
Seine-Port, a city of fewer than 2,000 people in the Seine-et-Marne region south of Paris, voted yes in a referendum last weekend. Limit the use of smartphones in public places, for adults and children alike, while walking down the street, sitting on park benches with others, and eating in shops, cafes, and restaurants. Forbid parents from scrolling on their smartphones while waiting for their children in front of the car. school gate. People who might check their phone’s maps when lost are encouraged to ask for directions instead.
Seine-Port Mayor Vincent Paul Petit, who pushed for the ban. Photo: Magali Delporte/The Guardian
The village also approved a family charter regarding children’s screen use. Don’t use screens of any kind in the morning, don’t use screens in the bedroom, and don’t use screens before bed or while eating. If a teenager’s parents sign a written agreement not to have a smartphone until the age of 15, City Hall will provide the child with an old-fashioned handset for making calls.
“I’m completely in favor of this,” said Ludivine, 34, who has two children, ages 1 and 4. “Some say this is an attack on freedom, but I don’t think so. It’s about raising awareness about the influence of phones in our lives.
“My 1-year-old doesn’t have a screen. My 4-year-old son doesn’t use a screen during class, and only for fleeting moments while my youngest naps. Many children and adults become addicted to screens. Babies in strollers also have scrolling phone calls. This is to replace that with more human contact. Before I had kids, the TV was always on in the background. Now I never turn it on.”
A total of 277 people, or about 20% of the electoral roll, turned out to vote, with 54% voting in favor of the charter. Mayor Vincent-Paul Petit, a member of the right-wing République party, plans to draw up France’s first municipal ordinance regarding the use of smartphones. The law is not enforceable by police, and there is no national law against smartphones, so police officers could not stop or fine people scrolling on the street, but the mayor said it would stop scrolling. The government explains that the guidance is intended to incite people to do so and restrict the use of telephones. Shop owners have placed stickers on their windows gently reminding people to stop scrolling.
Children walk past a sign prohibiting the use of smartphones outside a village school. Photo: Magali Delporte/The Guardian
At Village Bar, restaurant manager Angelique da Silva said she wouldn’t ask customers to stop scrolling, but she understood the purpose. “This is an interesting idea for kids,” she said. “But the younger generation does not accept this, because if their mobile phone is taken away, they will have nothing left. I did.”
Smartphones and screen time are becoming increasingly political issues in France. President Emmanuel Macron said last month that he would consult scientific experts to “determine the optimal use of screens” for young children, suggesting there could be bans or restrictions.
Angelique da Silva of the restaurant “Terrace” in the Port of Seine. Photo: Magali Delporte/The Guardian
“We want to protect public spaces from smartphone intrusion,” Mayor Paul Petit said. “This does not mean banning all mobile phones, but rather suggesting that people refrain from taking out their smartphones to scroll through social media, play games or watch videos in public places. and that is what we want to maintain for social life.
“This is about the addictive element of smartphones, where we can no longer take our eyes off the screen, whether it’s a game or a social network. We encourage people not to serve people. If you’re talking on the phone, finish your conversation outside and then come in and say hello.”
A sign outside the village school. Photo: Magali Delporte/The Guardian
He added: “Almost every teenager walking down the street has a cell phone in their hand. I understand that the word ‘ban’ may be offending to some people.” . But the important thing is to start the discussion. ”
Noemi, a psychologist waiting for her 8-year-old daughter outside a village school, was in favor of limiting scrolling. She said: “Recently, I brought in books and dolls for her daughter to play with in the waiting room, and everyone congratulated me that her daughter wasn’t on screen.”
Mary Landosy and her son Tao.
Mary Landosy, a school support worker for children with disabilities and the mother of 10-year-old twins, did not vote. “Screens are a part of this generation’s lives, whether we like it or not,” she said. “At the end of the day, if you spend your kids doing fun activities, especially outdoors, they actually don’t want to be on screens. My daughter is a soccer player and she likes being outside. What matters is what alternative activities we can offer.”
Young people in the village complained that there were not enough facilities for teenagers, who had little entertainment other than cellphones. The mayor promised to establish a film club, book exchange and sports facilities.
“There’s not much else to do. If we ban phones, we’ll have to create a serious structure for youth leisure, sports and games,” said Nahuel Dessilon, a history student and teacher intern. (21) says. Her mother Fatiha, a former shop manager, said: “Parents have a responsibility and they can deal with the screen issue themselves.”
Jean-Luc Rodier (right) supports the ban, but his son Gabriel thinks it makes no sense. Photo: Magali Delporte/The Guardian
Her son Gabriel, 20, also a postal worker, objected. “I spend five hours a day on my phone, which I think is reasonable. I also read proper books, but I like looking up things on my phone when I’m around town. You can’t ban knowledge that is readily available.”
The recent US ban on Apple Watch imports will continue even after the Biden administration takes office. refused to exercise the right of veto Previous rulings by the International Trade Commission. The ITC’s ruling takes effect today.
The company previously halted sales of the Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 in anticipation of the ban, suspending online sales on December 21 and in-store sales three days later.
A statement released this morning by the Office of the United States Trade Representative said: [Katherine] Mr. Tai decided not to overturn the ITC’s decision, and the ITC’s decision became final on December 26, 2023. ”
Apple firmly refuted the two patent infringement claims behind the ban by health tech company Masimo. In a statement provided to TechCrunch, Apple promised to continue fighting this decision while touting the device’s healthcare features.
At Apple, we’re passionate about creating products and services that have a meaningful impact on people’s lives. That’s why our teams (clinical, design, and engineering) spend years developing scientifically validated health, fitness, and wellness features for Apple Watch that millions of people around the world benefit from. We are inspired by the tremendous benefits people are receiving from this product. We strongly disagree with the USITC’s decision and the resulting exclusion order, and are taking every step to return Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 to U.S. customers as quickly as possible.
Apple also appealed this decision to the Federal Circuit. This decision stems from the light-based pulse oximetry sensor introduced in the Watch Series 6 in 2020. Masimo also accuses Apple of poaching employees to implement the technology in its smartwatch products.
In a statement released shortly after the ITC decision in October, Masimo founder and CEO Joe Chiani said: This important decision is a strong demonstration of our commitment to holding Apple accountable for its misappropriation of our patented technology. ”
Kiani has continued to attack the company in a series of interviews in recent weeks.
Although currently banned in the US, the Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 are still available for purchase outside the country. Meanwhile, the Watch SE continues to be sold in the US as more budget-oriented options don’t utilize the same sensor technology.
A ban on social media use for under-16s has been branded “speculative”, but the government must “continue to consider” the need to protect children, the minister said.
Science Minister Andrew Griffiths dismissed “speculative” reports that some young people’s access to social media could be restricted as part of a “potential consultation” into the issue.
Ministers are reportedly discussing the impact of sites such as TikTok and Instagram on young people’s wellbeing, with future plans potentially forcing them to get parental permission before using social networks. It is said that there is a sex.
Asked by Sky News whether such a proposal could be enforceable, Mr Griffiths said: “Well, we’re just talking about speculation.”
He said the government had already passed online safety laws that would “make activities that were illegal offline illegal online.”
Latest politics: Businesses face ‘period of uncertainty’ over Home Office visa changes
But he went on to say that social media has had “real harm” as well as “good”.
“As a parent myself, I understand that parents feel a very strong need to protect their children from the evils of society that have been prevalent on social media in the past,” he said.
“We have already taken action and it is right to continue to consider it. I don’t think we can ever say the job is done.
“That is speculation about the possibility of talks taking place in the new year.”
Asked whether talks were taking place, he said: “I don’t think any of us know what’s going on and I’m not going to comment on any further talks at this point.”
The Online Safety Act was passed in October and aims to make the UK “the safest place online in the world”.
Under this law, regulations are imposed on businesses such as: meta and apple This is to ensure that inappropriate and potentially dangerous content is kept away from young people and vulnerable people.
Examples include content that promotes suicide or self-harm. The coroner handed down the verdict last year. that it contributed to teenagers Molly Russell to take one’s own life.
read more: What is the Online Safety Bill? Who is for it, who is against it, and how will it be enforced? Pornographic websites may require the use of photo ID and credit card checks to protect children
The law would also hold platforms accountable for illegal content such as child sexual abuse images, force adult websites to properly enforce age restrictions, and prevent underage children from creating social media accounts. The purpose is
Media regulator Ofcom will be responsible for enforcing the new rules, and companies that fail to do so will face fines of up to £18m or 10% of their global annual turnover, whichever is greater.
Companies and senior managers could also face criminal charges if it is determined that they are not doing enough to protect children, and in the most extreme cases, the platform’s operations in the UK could be suspended completely. There is also a possibility that it will be blocked.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
