The Dumbest Timeline: The Supreme Court Rules on TikTok
Jan 18, 2025
auto_awesome
Kate Klonick, an associate professor of law at St. John's University, dives into the Supreme Court's recent ruling upholding a ban on TikTok, analyzing its implications for freedom of expression. She discusses the political moves surrounding the decision and the potential for TikTok facing a shutdown. Klonick also explores the relationship between tech companies like Meta and political influence, plus the challenges of governance in the digital age. The conversation sheds light on how these factors may reshape the landscape of online content and user rights.
The Supreme Court upheld a law banning TikTok unless ByteDance sells it, citing no violation of First Amendment rights.
The political maneuvering around TikTok's future reveals inconsistency in lawmakers' positions, raising concerns about the motivations behind tech regulations.
Deep dives
Supreme Court Decision on TikTok Ban
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, effectively allowing the ban of TikTok in the U.S. unless its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, divests ownership. This ruling was seen as not infringing upon the First Amendment rights of TikTok, its users, or creators, a position that surprised many legal experts. As the ban is set to go into effect on January 19, TikTok warned that it might cease operations in the U.S. unless it receives assurance regarding non-enforcement from the Biden administration, highlighting the stakes involved as the situation unfolds.
Political Maneuvering and TikTok's Future
The discussion highlights the complex political implications surrounding TikTok's ban, suggesting that Trump could potentially intervene in favor of TikTok after assuming office. The expert observes a chaotic state of political maneuvering, where principles appear secondary to political gamesmanship. Lawmakers who previously supported the TikTok ban are now revisiting their positions, which underscores a lack of consistent political ideology among different parties. This unpredictable environment puts TikTok's future in limbo, as the platform considers its options for restructuring in compliance with the law.
Geopolitical Implications and National Security Concerns
The conversation reveals significant concerns about the underpinnings of the TikTok ban, particularly the lack of concrete evidence behind national security claims regarding data collection by the Chinese government. The Supreme Court's decision seemed to lean heavily on the notion of perceived data threats without thorough examination of the actual risks involved. This creates a troubling precedent where geopolitical tensions can influence domestic tech policies, thereby affecting users' rights and freedom of expression. The discussions suggest that the rationale for such bans may not hold up under scrutiny, raising questions about the real motivations behind these legislative decisions.
Meta's New Direction and Its Political Connections
Mark Zuckerberg's recent shifts in content moderation at Meta raise eyebrows, especially considering his overtures toward the incoming Trump administration. The discussion notes a dramatic pivot in how Meta approaches policy and governance, which may stem from a desire to curry favor with those who wield political power. While Zuckerberg once engaged with diverse stakeholders, the new strategy appears to cater more closely to right-leaning interests, which could reshape the platform's approach to free expression and moderation. This reflects a broader trend where tech leaders align themselves with political figures to safeguard their interests against regulatory scrutiny.
Today- Friday, January 17, 2025 - the US Supreme Court delivered its order upholding the constitutionality of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, a law passed by Congress and signed by President Joe Biden in April 2024. The Court found that the Act, which effectively bans TikTok in the US unless its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, sells it, does not violate the First Amendment rights of TikTok, its users, or creators.
The decision clears the way for a ban to go into effect on January 19, 2025. Late this evening, TikTok issued a statement saying that “Unless the Biden Administration immediately provides a definitive statement to satisfy the most critical service providers assuring non-enforcement, unfortunately TikTok will be forced to go dark on January 19.” The White House had previously announced it would not enforce the ban before President Biden leaves office on Monday. Unless Biden takes action, this may set President-elect Donald Trump up to somehow come to TikTok’s rescue.
To learn more about the ruling and what may happen next, Justin Hendrix spoke to Kate Klonick, an associate professor of law at St. John's University and a fellow at Brookings, Harvard's Berkman Klein Center, and the Yale Information Society Project. The conversation also touches on recent moves by Meta’s founder and CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, to ingratiate himself to the incoming Trump administration.
Get the Snipd podcast app
Unlock the knowledge in podcasts with the podcast player of the future.
AI-powered podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Discover highlights
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode
Save any moment
Hear something you like? Tap your headphones to save it with AI-generated key takeaways
Share & Export
Send highlights to Twitter, WhatsApp or export them to Notion, Readwise & more
AI-powered podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Discover highlights
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode