Yes, a TikTok ban is closer than ever. No, your app won’t just disappear | CNN Business

CNN - Jan 11th, 2025

The Supreme Court is currently deliberating a law which could result in TikTok being banned in the United States unless it is sold off from its Chinese parent company, ByteDance. During the oral arguments, a majority of the justices appeared inclined to uphold the law, raising the likelihood of the ban taking effect on January 19. TikTok's legal representatives argued the law violates the First Amendment, but faced skeptical questioning. If enforced, the law would involve removing TikTok from app stores, potentially leading to service degradation for existing users and concerns over cybersecurity vulnerabilities. The potential ban poses unprecedented challenges for the US government, as there is no prior example of blocking a major social media platform in the country. Despite this, workarounds like VPNs might still allow access. The situation could also change depending on whether ByteDance decides to sell TikTok’s US assets, with parties like Frank McCourt and Kevin O’Leary expressing interest in purchasing. Additionally, President-elect Donald Trump has expressed a desire to negotiate a sale rather than enforce the ban, which adds further uncertainty to the app's future in the US.

Donald Trump Tik Tok Supreme Court Joe Biden Cybersecurity Byte Dance First Amendment Us Law Social Media Ban

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.4

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides an informative exploration of the potential ban on TikTok in the United States, covering legal, technical, and political angles. It effectively presents the complex legal scenario involving the Supreme Court's consideration of the law requiring TikTok's divestiture from ByteDance. However, the article lacks in-depth analysis of all perspectives involved, and there are concerns about the transparency and source quality. Furthermore, while the article is mostly clear in its language and structure, some segments could benefit from more precise language to better convey the intricacies of the situation.

Accuracy

The article is largely accurate in its depiction of the legal proceedings and potential outcomes for TikTok. It accurately describes the Supreme Court hearing and the implications of the law signed by President Biden. However, it could benefit from more precise dates and clarity regarding the timeline of events, such as the specific year the ban is set to take effect. The article mentions various potential technical outcomes of a ban, like app store removals and ISP blocks, supported by expert opinions from Eva Galperin. Nevertheless, the article lacks detailed references to official legal documents or direct quotes from the court proceedings, which would enhance its factual accuracy.

Balance

The article attempts to present multiple perspectives, including legal arguments from TikTok's attorneys and insights from cybersecurity experts. However, it predominantly focuses on the potential consequences of the ban from a technical and user perspective and lacks a thorough exploration of the broader political and economic implications. The article briefly mentions President-elect Trump's position but does not delve into opposing viewpoints or provide a balanced discussion on why the law might be deemed necessary. More comprehensive coverage of stakeholders, including U.S. government officials and Chinese perspectives, would offer a more balanced view.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, with a logical flow that guides readers through the complex issue of TikTok's potential ban. It uses straightforward language to explain technical and legal concepts, making it accessible to a broad audience. However, some segments could benefit from more precise language, particularly when discussing the enforcement mechanisms of the ban and the legal arguments presented at the Supreme Court. The use of hypothetical scenarios, such as VPN usage to bypass the ban, is explained clearly, but the article could use more concrete examples to illustrate potential outcomes. Overall, the tone remains neutral and professional throughout.

Source quality

The article cites a few sources, such as Eva Galperin from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, to support its claims about technical implications. However, it does not provide extensive attribution to authoritative legal sources or direct quotes from the Supreme Court proceedings. The reliance on unnamed 'legal experts' and a lack of direct citations for specific legal arguments weakens the credibility of the reporting. Additionally, there is no evidence of consulting primary sources or official documents, which would bolster the article's reliability. A wider range of authoritative sources, including legal analysts or government statements, would improve the source quality.

Transparency

The article provides some context about the legal proceedings and potential outcomes but lacks full transparency regarding the basis of certain claims. For instance, it does not disclose any potential conflicts of interest in its reporting or clarify the methodology behind the expert opinions cited. There is insufficient explanation of how the law might be enforced and the logistical challenges involved, leaving readers with lingering questions. While it mentions the stance of TikTok's attorneys, it does not explore the underlying reasons for the U.S. government's actions or any affiliations that might impact impartiality. Greater disclosure of sources and methodologies would enhance transparency.