Yes, TikTok should be banned.
By Orson Giblin (IV)
Contributing Writer
A few weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed a bill 352-65 to ban TikTok. Many supporters of the bill raised concerns surrounding user privacy and the potential connection to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Though none of these allegations have been proven factually correct, these fears justify the need to move forward with preventative measures. As often said, it is better to be safe than sorry.
It is the executive responsibility of the American government to protect its people. According to Statistica, the United States has the largest TikTok audience, with almost 150 million users in 2024. Keeping such a popular platform that could threaten the privacy of its users places the American people in a vulnerable position. Is TikTok really worth the risk?
This House bill is not the first legal order to ban the app, as the Trump administration threatened to shut down TikTok’s U.S. operations if its parent company ByteDance did not divest ownership back in 2020. TikTok’s international engagements incite heightened suspicion, more so than American-based platforms like Instagram and X.
Even though these various other apps have short-form sections that are similar to TikTok, there is less discourse and concern surrounding them. This could be due to the fact that they are all U.S. owned. Jonah Roy (II) says, “I would rather TikTok be owned by the U.S. rather than another country. If anyone is going to have access to my data, I would rather it be my own country.”
TikTok has grown to become a comforting space for many, where users can interact with and entertain themselves with content that pertains to their niche interests. Though it is an entertaining app overflowing with relatable and humorous content, TikTok’s overwhelming popularity has made it the perfect political puppet while simultaneously disrupting development in adolescence.
As many are aware, TikTok purposefully implements incredibly personalized algorithms. Every video users watch is utilized as information to tailor to their feeds, which will then feature videos of similar content. In addition to making the platform more addictive, this constant customization encourages confirmation bias, which restricts the range of perspectives one is exposed to.
Additionally, videos that showcase extreme opinions tend to garner more attention from viewers, resulting in some creators purposefully posting provoking content to increase their profit and engagement.
Users who engage with videos expressing certain opinions are recommended more and more videos of that sort, gradually leading them down a winding rabbit hole of extremism. Since most users are relatively young, they are especially susceptible to heavy influence from various propaganda.
Authorities can take advantage of this and advertise different messages throughout the platform that are specifically designed to target impressionable youth. By banning TikTok as a whole, the government will be removing a major source of misinformation.
Furthermore, most of the content on TikTok is short-form, meaning it is designed for users to endlessly scroll through short videos. This makes the experience dangerously addictive and also damages people’s attention spans.
Daryl Nguyen (I) believes that “[TikTok] usage should be limited because, frankly, it’s an addiction, and people don’t realize it. I think in our modern society, we use all of our available time to watch short videos, [so] our attention span decreases. I think we’re in a generation that’s narrowing its focus.”
Due to short bursts of entertainment, teenage brains become more accustomed to the constant, “easy,” short-term dopamine; consequently, when people have to do something that requires more concentration, it becomes near impossible to focus. With new updates, TikTok users now even have the option to play the already brief videos at twice the speed. Despite being initially designed to suit short attention spans, the app had to modify its own features to cater to the decline in focus and maintain user engagement.
Additionally, other social media apps with similar features, like Instagram Reels, Snapchat Spotlights and YouTube Shorts, that mimic TikTok’s format and functions, are rising in popularity. Andy Tran (III) says, “If TikTok is banned, there will just be more people on other apps like Instagram Reels, so it won’t be the end of the world. A lot of social media apps are similar now, so it won’t be that different.”
It is important that people are able to decrease their dependency on TikTok. Just after the boom in usership during the pandemic, the app has consumed society as a whole. Many youth refer to content as “brain rot” or useless, but still incorporate hourly scrolls into their nighttime routines. By proceeding with the ban of TikTok, America can not only protect the privacy, but also the minds of all users.
No, TikTok should not be banned.
By Roan Wilcox (II)
Staff Writer
The debate over banning TikTok is not about the inordinate amount of time wasted online, the latest dance trend or the role of social media in everyday life. It is a question of free speech and government overreach taken to the extreme. It is vital to recognize the facts: TikTok has not been proven to be a “Chinese puppet;” using TikTok is a personal choice and the success of a ban, which has already passed in the House of Representatives, would set a dangerous precedent for the future.
From a first principles perspective, it makes little sense to preemptively “convict” TikTok of being a pawn of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), when it has not been proven in a court of law. A basic value many Americans hold is “innocent until proven guilty;” fear does not excuse injustice.
The United States’ own national security apparatus admitted in Congressional hearings that the threat of TikTok is hypothetical, and they do not have conclusive evidence to suggest it is currently being abused by the CCP. Yes, there exists the possibility that any company based in China can be influenced by the government, but it is unclear what uniquely enables China to oversee TikTok’s data and influence its algorithms. Indeed, the same logic could be used to justify the banning of any number of Chinese-owned businesses. From League of Legends to Alibaba to Motorola, any could be deemed a threat, should it become politically expedient.
Moreover, an often-ignored aspect of the TikTok controversy is the fact that using the platform is a choice. The beauty of America is that decisions are made from the bottom-up, not the top-down. Thus, the role of the government in this capacity is to warn and explain, not order. This is especially relevant in the realm of free speech, since more than one hundred million Americans use TikTok to communicate with friends, share opinions and vent. It is troubling that a collection of politicians in Washington can unilaterally strip away such a platform.
There is also a more threatening undertone. Politicians, conservative ones in particular, have made little secret of their view of TikTok as “woke” and “corrupting.” This is non-unique to TikTok, however, as virtually all social media companies deliver the content their viewers want to see. In all likelihood, TikTok’s leftward bend is due to the fact that TikTok’s users are younger people, who skew liberal. Attempting to frame this as an agenda promulgated by one Chinese social media company is misleading and merely serves as a stalking horse to stifle discourse.
Other apologists for the ban argue that this is a question of mental health. That would be a fair point if TikTok were the only social media company in America, but it is not. With the rollout of imitators like Instagram Reels, YouTube Shorts and Snapchat Spotlight, a ban on TikTok would only disperse the user base to other apps. More importantly, the mental health of its former users would not change.
What’s more, the bill that recently passed in the House is not just about TikTok. It allows the government to mandate the divestment, or closure, of any app doing business in the U.S. which is headquartered in a “foreign adversary country” or “subject to the direction or control of a foreign person or entity.” That is particularly frightening in its implications.
How do you definitively prove that a company is or is not influenced by foreign adversaries? You probably can’t. This means that the ban that just passed in the House grants sweeping powers over the most popular means of communication: apps — all in the name of “national security.” It is eerily reminiscent of the “shoot first, ask questions later” mentality that dominated America during the Cold War and War on Terror — both of which undermined civil liberties and expanded the reach of the federal government.
But what about reciprocity, you may ask? Even if TikTok isn’t a piece of spyware, then aren’t we still justified in banning it because China outlaws our social media companies? No, for the simple reason that America is not an authoritarian state built on fear and repression. We do not fear open communication among our citizens and we should not let fear supersede rationality, even when the boogeyman of “national security” is raised.
Questions concerning spyware, mental health and safety are all serious, but allegations are no basis for divestment or a ban. The path away from our founding values is a slippery one, and should not be followed on the pretext of “protection” from a hypothetical threat that users are already aware of. A ban has implications not just for the students here at Boston Latin School who enjoy using TikTok, but for free speech, due process and government encroachment.
