Words by Harry Turnbull and Marlow Eliot
The dreaded day has finally come for Americans. Doomscrollers have been forced to pursue more hobbies, and the chronically offline have the upper hand in their social sphere. They have been handed the golden chalice of sarcastically declaring ‘I told you so’ to their dopamine-deprived friends. At least they did for about a week. I am, of course, referring to the recent banning of popular social media outlet TikTok, owned by parent company ByteDance. Having experienced an international boom of popularity due to the COVID-19 lockdowns, TikTok has found itself capable of influencing the successes of many sectors in popular culture, politics and business. Notably, TikTok trends have facilitated certain songs to go viral across the internet, and consequently experience a surge of streams/ purchases on various platforms thus founding the careers of many artists. A great example of this is Sam Ryder, whose viral videos facilitated his inclusion in the 2022 Eurovision Song Contest. So, for something so monumental in its impact on popular culture, why would the American government want to withhold this escapism from their citizens?
Addressing the Ban
The fears surrounding TikTok, as do most things in America, stem back to communism. China’s association with ByteDance has been a source of speculation for the US government, particularly the Supreme Court. Communism’s influence has always, in the eyes of America, been an invasive and pervasive disease that threatens the lifestyle of Western civilisation. In the case of TikTok, the Supreme Court views that China’s influence over ByteDance has the potential to spread anti-American propaganda that could undermine national policy enacted in the legislature. In July 2024, files submitted by the US Department of Justice outlined accusations of TikTok data feeding back to the Chinese government concerning ongoing sensitive social matters. According to The Financial Times, this includes abortion. This seems to be an admittance of vulnerability from the US, and considering the backlash of overturning the Roe v Wade ruling, they have every right to feel under scrutiny. Their acknowledgement of the Chinese impact suggests that the public sphere of influence threatens their power and competency. So, their solution lies in the controversial and dated tactics of censorship and banning the app altogether, unless ByteDance diverts ownership away from Chinese authority. This has been met with a wave of reactions, with influencers who owe their careers to TikTok uploading candid videos addressing the ban whilst attempting to fight off tears. Meanwhile, British and European TikTokers have seemed to rally together in either mockery or sympathy for the ban, highlighting their autonomy to still use and create with the app. This has ushered in a new means of discourse surrounding political and social influence from the power of social media outlets such as TikTok.
The Splinternet
Throughout discourse concerning the TikTok ban, many have noted that it represents a growing phenomenon termed the ‘Splinternet’. Sometimes alternatively called ‘cyberbalkanisation’, the Splinternet refers to a growing fragmentation of the global open internet into distinct, disconnected regional networks. This fragmentation stems from geopolitical tensions, primarily driven by national security concerns and data sovereignty requirements – the proposed US TikTok ban serves as a prime example of how narratives of national security can drive the Splinternet. Over the last two decades, the phenomenon of the Splinternet has manifested itself in several ways. Notably, in 2003, the Chinese government implemented their ‘Great Firewall’, separating 1.3 billion citizens from the global internet. As a result, a parallel digital ecosystem was created, where Baidu took the place of Google, and WeChat that of Facebook, etc. One should bear in mind that these alternatives are neither ersatz nor inferior, rather, China’s domestic internet industry has flourished in digital isolation – setting a dangerous precedent. In the last few years, several states have been dipping their toes into similar forms of detached digital networks. Russia has begun setting legislative and physical groundwork for ‘sovereign internet’ capabilities, and Iran has similarly been pursuing a centralised, state-controlled internet.
The Splinternet phenomenon has ignited a great deal of discussion within internet-libertarian and free speech groups, with some arguing that the Splinternet embodies a larger, fundamental threat to human rights, freedom of expression, and freedom of information, as corruption within governments or their agencies in charge of internet regulation could lead to Orwellian levels of censorship and misinformation. The rise of virtual private networks, or VPNs – which allow users to bypass geographical restrictions – represents a subtle form of resistance against the Splinternet. Though the Chinese government attempts to crack down on VPN use, their efforts appear Sisyphean, with Chinese ‘netizens’ constantly finding ways to bypass restrictions, forcing internet usage authorities to play an endless game of cat-and-mouse with new VPN networks appearing quicker than others can be shut down.
Interestingly, both the use of VPNs by Chinese netizens and the backlash from the TikTok ban share a common element of a generational divide in attitude towards global online sovereignty. While older generations – who happen to be those in positions to drive policy and legislation – tend to take more of a state-centred approach, younger generations are more likely to push back against the Splinternet, and tend to be proponents of an open Internet.
Algorithm and Data Tracking
It is worth mentioning that the longevity of TikTok’s successes relies on the emerging prominence of algorithmic technology in our everyday interactions. This is not dissimilar to a website tracking your clicks with Cookies, except for TikTok, which is often without consent. According to The New York Times, ByteDance justifies this with their four key goals for TikTok’s algorithmic efficiency: 用户价值, 用户价值 (长期), 作者价值, and 平台价值. This translates to “user value,” “long-term user value,” “creator value,” and “platform value.” With these values at heart, TikTok has revolutionised the user-software experience, by effectively reading the minds of what the users would want. They do this by data tracking, and analysing this data to promote similar content that effectively aims to keep people on the app for as long as possible. Whilst now this is nothing new, the US has made an argument that it is through this data tracking software the Chinese can ‘spy’ on Western ideologies and lifestyles. It is this that has founded the argument that TikTok is a national security risk, although other Western nations have failed to draw enough evidence to enact a similar policy. However, UK government phones do have the app banned from their phones with similar motivations. This is done for similar reasoning as the US, yet without the generalisation and thus censorship to the wider public. The lack of awareness surrounding the intricacies of algorithms and their invasive nature is, in the eyes of the Supreme Court, justification enough for China to track the data and use it for anti-western propaganda. This serves as a reminder of the true extent of influence algorithms can have on our socio-political landscape, and how dangerous it can be.
The US TikTok ban represents more than the surface level new-cold-war tension between America and China. It personifies a growing divide between both advocates and critics of a global, open internet, that fights against the Splinternet phenomenon. Perhaps, the most significant question to be asking today is not if TikTok and other similar platforms pose genuine risk, but rather how modern societies can toe the line between concerns of national security, and preserving an open, democratic, free society.