The TikTok “Ban” was officially signed into law and we should all be asking why this controversial and wildly unpopular piece of legislation made it across the finish line. Previous attempts to ban the popular social media app have gone down in flames both in the courtroom and the court of public opinion but, nevertheless, a bipartisan majority of lawmakers rallied around the Bill’s most recent form and sent it to the President’s desk to be signed. But what exactly spurred one of the most ineffective and inactive Congress’s of all time to take such swift action on the issue? The answer exposes the dark side of banning one of the most popular tech properties in the world, the powerful players who stand to cash in, and why the rest of us could pay the price.
The roots of this ban lie in a muddled understanding of technology itself and how to effectively regulate an industry designed to constantly change and evolve. Lawmakers, perhaps swayed by alarmist narratives and a relentless barrage of lobbyists, have chosen a reactionary path that lacks nuance and foresight. Banning TikTok is not a panacea for the issues of data breaches and cyber attacks; rather, it represents a knee-jerk response that fails to address the underlying systemic issues it claims to address.
While proponents of the ban suggest that it was a necessary move to protect national security and data privacy, it’s essential to acknowledge the vested interests at play. I spent years on Capitol Hill working to advance Big Tech regulations carefully designed to address those very issues, but a ban on a single app was never part of the equation. Neither my colleagues and I, nor other experts and legislative advocates were suggesting that lawmakers consider such a thing for a number of reasons.
Instead, it was TikTok’s competitors such as Meta, among others, who have actively lobbied for TikTok’s demise. Given that they too profit from the current lack of comprehensive data privacy legislation, their motivation was to effectively eliminate a formidable rival and consolidate their own market dominance. However, this shortsighted approach disregards the broader implications for consumer choice, market innovation, and the very fabric of digital freedom.
By coercing TikTok into a forced sale to a US tech giant, lawmakers risk exacerbating the very issues they purport to address. Such a move threatens to create a dangerous precedent, where powerful corporations dictate the contours of online discourse and dictate the terms of digital engagement. Moreover, it undermines the principles of a free and open internet, substituting corporate interests for public good.
The concentration of power within the big tech space has emerged as a pressing concern with far-reaching implications for innovation, consumer welfare, and democratic discourse. At the heart of this issue lies the phenomenon of monopolies, wherein a handful of dominant corporations wield disproportionate influence over entire industries. In the realm of social media and digital platforms, this consolidation of power has become increasingly pronounced, with behemoths like Meta (formerly Facebook), Google, Amazon, and Apple exerting near-hegemonic control over vast swathes of cyberspace.
Monopolies stifle innovation by erecting barriers to entry and stifling competition. When a single entity enjoys unchecked dominance, there is little incentive to innovate or invest in research and development. Instead, monopolistic firms can leverage their market power to maintain the status quo, thwarting potential disruptors and preserving their stranglehold on the industry. This lack of competition deprives consumers of choice, stifles creativity, and hampers technological progress.
Moreover, monopolies are notorious for engaging in price gouging and anticompetitive practices. With limited alternatives available, consumers are effectively held captive to the whims of monopolistic giants, who can dictate prices and extract exorbitant profits with impunity. This not only harms consumers by inflating prices and reducing quality but also undermines the principles of fair competition and market efficiency.
Furthermore, the concentration of power in the hands of a few tech titans poses a grave threat to free speech and democratic discourse. As gatekeepers of information and arbiters of online communication, these companies wield immense influence over public discourse and political debate. Through opaque algorithms and content moderation policies, they have the power to shape narratives, amplify certain voices, and suppress dissenting viewpoints. This unchecked power can undermine the foundational principles of free expression and undermine the diversity of perspectives essential for a healthy democracy.
Against this backdrop, the prospect of TikTok being acquired by one of these monopolistic entities only exacerbates these existing problems. If TikTok were to fall under the control of Meta, Google, or another tech giant, it would further consolidate their market dominance and deepen their influence over online discourse. This would not only diminish competition and innovation but also heighten concerns about censorship, data privacy, and corporate overreach.
The acquisition of TikTok by a tech behemoth could lead to a further erosion of consumer choice and privacy. With fewer independent platforms available, users would have limited alternatives to express themselves and engage with content online. Meanwhile, the sheer volume of user data amassed by these conglomerates would only serve to strengthen their stranglehold on the digital landscape, amplifying concerns about surveillance capitalism and the commodification of personal information.
Instead of resorting to draconian measures that stifle innovation and restrict consumer choice, Congress should prioritize comprehensive data privacy legislation. By establishing robust safeguards that apply universally across all platforms, lawmakers can address systemic vulnerabilities without resorting to scapegoating individual companies. Moreover, breaking up the monopolistic stranglehold of social media giants demands proactive regulatory intervention, not punitive measures targeting specific entities.
As someone intimately familiar with the nuances of tech policy, I implore Congress to adopt a more nuanced and forward-thinking approach. The solution lies not in banning a single app but in crafting legislation that upholds data privacy rights while fostering a competitive and dynamic digital ecosystem. This necessitates a diverse and tech-savvy cadre of legislators who can navigate the complexities of the digital age and enact meaningful reforms.
About the Author
Cheyenne Hunt, J.D. is a progressive advocate and attorney specializing in progressive activism, legislative advocacy, communications and democracy-focused tech policy. She currently serves as a Big Tech Accountability Advocate with Public Citizen. Hunt graduated from the University of California Irvine School of Law, has earned Dual Degrees in Political Science and Public Policy from the University of Denver and serves as a board member for The Women of Global Change. Connect with her on LinkedIN at https://www.linkedin.com/in/cheyenne-hunt-7b921621b.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the journal or its affiliated organizations. The journal does not endorse or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information presented in this article. Readers should use their own discretion and judgment when interpreting the contents of this article.
