29

Let's say TikTok is banned tomorrow by Congress. How would they be able to actually enforce the ban, assuming TikTok refused to cooperate?

  1. They could definitely convince Apple and Google to remove it from their app stores, however there's also a browser version and Android phones support sideloading apps.
  2. They certainly could ban payments to TikTok's accounts but this doesn't stop people from viewing or uploading content to their website. And there's always crypto and other ways to get around US sanctions.
  3. They could potentially demand that ISPs block access to TikTok.com, however it seems like this would run afoul of the First Amendment.
  4. They could issue a cease-and-desist order via a US court but presumably China would refuse to enforce it in any shape or form.
  5. I guess they could issue a law making it a criminal offense to access TikTok but this seems like an even more blatant First Amendment violation.

Have there been any discussions in Congress about how exactly the ban would be enforced?

RonJohn
  • 624
  • 6
  • 14
JonathanReez
  • 50,757
  • 35
  • 237
  • 435

6 Answers6

37

Keep in mind that it isn't necessary to fully ban it. Impairing a global Internet social media firm's reach is in the horseshoes and hand grenades domain where a moderately close to the target and imperfect ban is good enough to get the job done.

TikTok is a for profit enterprise. If U.S. operations become less profitable, then it won't have a reason to continue U.S. operations.

"TikTok primarily makes money through advertising, thus making it an attention-based business model."

(Source)

In particular, from the same source, it is the sixth highest generator of digital advertising revenues in the world.

A lot of that digital advertising revenue is from firms seeking to win over U.S. customers (mostly, U.S. firms or firms that do business in the U.S., often publicly held firms, and some of whom are governmental entities). The U.S. sourced advertising revenues of TikTok are about $6 billion a year in 2023. This is a majority of its $10 billion a year global advertising revenues.

Moreover, most of that business is brokered through intermediary digital advertising agencies which are easy regulatory targets. There are 45,000 digital advertising agencies in the U.S. and it isn't a particularly concentrated industry, but you could still have a huge impact just by targeting the top 100 of them or so - which is vastly easier than targeting the many tens of millions of U.S. users of TikTok.

A U.S. firm that advertises on TikTok, or a digital advertising agency with U.S. business that brokers advertising on TikTok, if TikTok is banned, is an easy enforcement target and mostly, publicly held companies and governmental entities comply with the law voluntarily as a matter of their broad, overall business policies/standard operating procedures.

Simply requiring each digital advertising agency to have its CEO certify under penalty of perjury that it doesn't do business with TikTok once a quarter on a one page form with no auditing except whistleblower driven enforcement would be more than enough to get mass compliance from the industry before really digging into serious enforcement investigations and prosecutions.

Throw in similar certificates of compliance from publicly held companies in their regularly quarterly reports and from governmental agencies, and you'd be well on your way to an effective ban.

Without revenues from firms and governments vulnerable to U.S. sanctions sending their advertising dollars to TikTok, U.S. operations just don't make sense for the platform and it will die (or dwindle to irrelevance) in the U.S. market.

Even if people who go out of their way can still access TikTok, if it isn't a source of revenue for the company, and if is less of a source of exposure for users who use it to get the word out about themselves, the ban would still work.

It doesn't necessarily take all that much of a nudge. TikTok is basically a fad that needs continued momentum to survive. If interrupted long enough, people will find alternatives and those users will be hard to win back.

For example, Windows Internet Explorer went from market dominance to irrelevance (despite being only slightly different from its competitors) with a far milder nudge from regulators - simply easing tying arrangements between operating system software and browsers due to anti-trust enforcement.

ohwilleke
  • 79,130
  • 11
  • 224
  • 303
  • 16
    The problem is that it's alleged that TikTok is effectively China's propaganda machine. If that's true, China would likely force them to continue operations at a loss. The question is whether or not legislators are willing to go ahead and demand that ISPs block TikTok.com - if they don't, the website would still be easily accessible to every American. – JonathanReez Mar 29 '23 at 00:35
  • 13
    Aside from the advertising revenue, remember that tiktok relies on being popular with its content creators. It's not like internet explorer gets dramatically less usable once it has less users. So yes, there's advertising drop off, but also probably if you find a bunch of the video creators use an easier platform like instagram reels, the attraction for users would drop dramatically too – Bug Catcher Nakata Mar 29 '23 at 02:14
  • 2
    @JonathanReez Not only that, it is also alleged that TikTok is intended to spy on users, that too might mean that cutting into its profits might not be effective. – wonderbear Mar 29 '23 at 07:44
  • 7
    Also if they knock out the funding source and TikTok keeps trying to operate in America while operating at a loss that will provide evidence that its not a for-profit organisation, which might allow more severe approaches to be taken against TikTok. – N A McMahon Mar 29 '23 at 07:58
  • 14
    @BugCatcherNakata: On a slight tangent, Internet Explorer did sort of experience a similar "critical mass" effect, just indirectly. It was different enough internally from other browsers at the time that website developers often had to spend considerable extra effort to make their sites work in both IE and other browsers. That was almost certainly at least partly by design, since as long as IE was the dominant browser, the easy way out for many developers was to only support IE. But as soon as IE lost that dominant position, the easy path suddenly became "follow the standards and screw IE". – Ilmari Karonen Mar 29 '23 at 11:05
  • 4
    @wonderbear I could be wrong, but I don't think TikTok is intended to spy on users, it's just a useful side benefit of a popular app. – Barmar Mar 29 '23 at 14:26
  • By the way a lot of those 45000 advertising agencies are just reselling advertising from the other 44999. That's how Google can account for almost all Internet ads and yet there are so many agencies - they're all just reselling Google ads or presenting ads from Google. – Reasonably Against Genocide Mar 30 '23 at 07:05
  • @user253751 Google is not itself an advertising agency. An advertising agency is a firm that sells ads aired by someone else to people who want to advertise. Advertising agencies are brokerage and not providers of advertising. – ohwilleke Mar 30 '23 at 15:32
  • Your premise is that we can prevent US companies from advertising with tick tock, but can we? Most companies in the US are not US only companies. Amazon and HBO are the top advertisers with TikTok, according to my super professional 'just google it' research. They definitely are not just focused on US customers. They have every reason to continue advertising with TikTok rather or not the US banns them. Do you really expect the USA to demand Amazon stop advertising to all it's non-US customers because the US doesn't like TikTok? How do you suggest enforcing that? – dsollen Mar 30 '23 at 17:12
  • 1
    @dsollen Stating that you can't buy TikTok ads if you want to do business in the U.S. is not a complicated policy. Multi-national companies that want to market, e.g., to their Asian customers can set up Asian subsidiaries or franchisees that don't do business in the U.S. – ohwilleke Mar 30 '23 at 21:08
  • @ohwilleke Oh sure you could do that. It totally seems like something China might try. However, I find it highly unlikely the US would every try something like that. It's economic suicide. Do you really think Amazon will just let the USA dictate how they advertise to their non US customers without a fight? Think the voters will be fine with not being allowed to use Amazon ever again because they called your bluff and you banned them too? Don't you think free speech advocates would be a little miffed? I don't think even our legislature is crazy enough to try to actually do it. – dsollen Mar 30 '23 at 21:19
  • And let's not forget that Amazon, HBO, and the rest aren't afraid to spend their money to make their...disapproval with such a policy happen. Hope whoever tries to pass such a legislation doesn't mind their opponents suddenly having twice the financial backing next election. How do you think the rest of the world will feel about the USA trying to dictate how international companies can advertise or interact with their customers? Congratulations your policy has made the US a laughing stock, has weakened our argument against China by acting just like them, and got you voted out of office. – dsollen Mar 30 '23 at 21:24
  • 2
    @dsollen The U.S. already does lots of things like this on a routine basis without raising an eyebrow. See, e.g., a variety of international sanctions laws, or the federal material support for terrorism statute. And, most major multinational companies already deal with foreign customers via foreign subsidiaries. Big businesses don't play chicken with the government. They are far too vulnerable and they know it and the stakes are too high. – ohwilleke Mar 30 '23 at 21:26
  • While the first sentence here is quite true, it would be absolutely trivial to "ban" it, just as any number of online businesses are trivially and perfectly "banned" on an everyday basis. – Fattie Apr 01 '23 at 08:00
15

Have there been any discussions in Congress about how exactly the ban would be enforced?

To answer the Q narrowly, there are several legislative proposals and I haven't read of any of them myself, but according to NBC:

While the senators behind the [RESTRICT] bill introduced it as a way to potentially ban TikTok, it isn’t clear exactly how that would happen. It would give the Secretary of Commerce a broader power to ban foreign technology in cases in which the U.S. believed it posed a national security threat. How that authority would be wielded is still up for debate, however. A spokesperson for the Commerce Department declined to discuss details on how the agency is considering that power.

I.e. the most popular proposal right now appears to pass the buck to the executive for the best way to achieve this, rather than legislators getting into the details.

OTOH Vox says that IEEPA would be the more likely avenue, but essentially still leaves it to the executive to find the concrete means to implement the ban.

The most viable path as of now is using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which gives the president broader powers than he otherwise has. President Trump used this when he tried to ban TikTok in 2020, and lawmakers have since introduced TikTok-banning bills that essentially call for the current president to try again, but this time with additional measures in place that might avoid the court battles that stalled Trump’s attempt.

Trump’s ban attempt does give us some guidance on what such a ban would look like, however. The Trump administration spelled out some examples of banned transactions, including app stores not being allowed to carry it and internet hosting services not being allowed to host it. If you have an iPhone, it’s exceedingly difficult to get a native app on your phone that isn’t allowed in Apple’s App Store — or to get updates for that app if you downloaded it before this hypothetical ban came down. It’s also conceivable that companies would be prohibited from advertising on the app and content creators wouldn’t be able to use TikTok’s monetization tools.

There are considerable civil and criminal penalties for violating the IEEPA. Don’t expect Apple or Google or Mr. Beast to do so.

Whether this would be constitutional or not in the US I'm not going to get into here [if that's the Q you should ask separately], but simply in technical terms India managed it pretty easily

India is the largest country to have entirely banned TikTok, having blocked dozens of mostly Chinese apps in 2020. Shortly following the ban, India’s Department of Telecommunications ordered internet and wireless service providers to block the apps, TikTok among them.

Soon after that, some TikTok users in India said the app no longer had any functionality.

And there is a screenshot included, which is a bit pointless to reproduce though.

Yeah, people can work around some of those measures, but unlike for [digital] piracy or drug-selling sites, there are near-equivalents for TikTok, so the appetite to use underground means to see short but legal videos is pretty debatable.

Three years later, it looks like TikTok fired all their remaining India employees:

a TikTok spokesperson said, “We have taken the decision to close our India remote sales support hub, which was put in place at the end of 2020 to provide support to our global and regional sales teams.” [...]

TikTok’s exit prompted many Indian platforms such as MX Takatak, Josh, Moj and others to fill up the space left behind by TikTok. Further, Meta-owned Instagram’s short video platform Reels and YouTube’s YouTube Shorts also took a significant share of the Indian market.

There's a more detailed article/blog for those interested in the details of how the Indian market in theat niche then developed. (FWTW, according to another piece, TikTok had over 1,000 employees in India some two years prior, as well as 200 million active Indian users. I was not able to find any stats for TikTok unofficial/underground use in India, after the ban.)

the gods from engineering
  • 158,594
  • 27
  • 390
  • 806
  • 1
    And this isn't exactly apples to apples, but compare with how "easy" it is to use a Huawei phone in the US nowadays https://www.reddit.com/r/Huawei/comments/sc9ups/can_i_use_a_huawei_phone_in_usa/ – the gods from engineering Mar 28 '23 at 23:07
  • 3
    India is a in a bit of a different league because they don't have a First Amendment and have banned various websites for many years. For the US it would be the very first website in history to be blocked. Literally no other country has free speech protections as powerful as those in the US. – JonathanReez Mar 29 '23 at 00:32
  • Piracy definitely has an equivalent given that it's theft of digital assets that could presumably be acquired elsewhere. Disney+ or netflix for example. Easy alternatives dont mean they'll be used – TheEvilMetal Mar 29 '23 at 09:57
  • @TheEvilMetal: true to some extent, but not at the same price. If the only alternatives to TikTok would be [user-]paid ones... – the gods from engineering Mar 29 '23 at 09:58
  • @Fizz from my own use of TikTok I'm seeing heavy sentiment that users will intentionally avoid Meta products like instagram reels. Perhaps TikTok doesn't have as much of an equivalent as OP thinks. There's a reason Meta is lobbying to get TikTok banned instead of improving the product. – TheEvilMetal Mar 29 '23 at 10:01
  • 2
    @JonathanReez In the history of TV media for example, the US managed, or even manages still, to be quite pushy about what "could be said on the air". Not sure how that avoided 1st Amendment issues. Maybe self-censorship as opposed to govt censorship? But I wonder how much traction a foreign entity would get on 1st amendment grounds with a national security component. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Mar 29 '23 at 21:03
  • @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica the Supreme Court rules back in 1996 that the Internet cannot be regulated in the same way as radio and television are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union. I think the 1st amendment component would be where US citizens publishing on TikTok would sue for 1st amendment violation, not TikTok itself. – JonathanReez Mar 29 '23 at 21:05
  • But the same US citizens could then publish on Meta's wonderful equivalent, could they not? You asked about how it could be banned, which is a reasonable enough question. It's also reasonable enough to wonder how the 1st Amendment would play with such attempts. But maybe SE.Law would be a better place to ask how particular technical approaches to banning TikTok would be likely to fare in SCOTUS? For now, ban on app stores and ban ad payments seems to be possible technical/financial answers and those seem solid enough. And as this answer says, Executive gets to decide means anyway. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Mar 29 '23 at 21:43
  • 1
    @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica It is actually quite simple: when TV and radio happened the government simply decided to throw the first amendment straight out the window. Mostly these "amendments" only apply to whoever the government thinks they should apply to. – Reasonably Against Genocide Mar 30 '23 at 10:50
  • Certainly, SCOTUS can put their thumb down on some personal liberties when they choose to these days, eh? Risky Business IT sec podcast covers Tik Tok starting about 5:00 minutes in their latest episode. Their take? Treat it as not IT security per se, but rather foreign media ownership (and they suggest divestment rather than a ban). – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Mar 30 '23 at 20:52
9

It will be easier to block then you think.

  1. From my understanding in order to side load on an apple device you have to have a jailbroken device which isn't that common. On an android device it is easier but it still isn't common for people to side load apps on devices.

  2. Both companies could add blocks to those sites at the root level of the device to help enforce it.

  3. ISP's have been asked to block other content before and the matter of it being constitutional will depend on the entire ban being constitutional or not. If they are allowed to block it they can ask ISP's to enforce it.

    1. The government could just seize the domain which is something that they have done in the past for other sites. (adding this in response to a comment on the Question by Fizz)

  4. Not sure what this is suggesting if the question is assuming that TikTok won't cooperate in the first place.

To be honest no matter how hard they work on banning it people will be able to get around it to get to TikTok. The only change would be the number of users would be much much lower then it would without the ban in place.

Joe W
  • 16,549
  • 3
  • 45
  • 87
  • Is there a precedent where sites were blocked on the root level in Android or iOS? And a precedent for seizing domains not run by spammers or other types of criminals? – JonathanReez Mar 28 '23 at 18:32
  • 4
    2010: China bans Google. 2023: The USA bans TikTok? Many people thought China was becoming more like the United States before then, but perhaps the opposite is the case.... – Obie 2.0 Mar 28 '23 at 18:38
  • @Obie2.0 China did it through their Great Firewall. The US doesn't have one so it's more tricky. – JonathanReez Mar 28 '23 at 18:52
  • @JonathanReez I can't say if there is a precedent for blocking sites on the android/ios level but there is a first time for everything. As for seizing the domain if the site is declared blocked/illegal in the country it would fall into the same categories. – Joe W Mar 28 '23 at 19:01
  • 1
    @Obie2.0: you're channeling Tucker Carlson there. Or maybe someone else :D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxV53vkqogs – the gods from engineering Mar 28 '23 at 19:03
  • 5
    @Fizz - Yes, because Tucker Carlson is the only one who is worried about the United States banning TikTok (him and most younger voters, anyway). Also, most Republicans are on board with banning it.. – Obie 2.0 Mar 28 '23 at 19:05
  • @Obie2.0: fair enough https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3914606-free-speech-organizations-team-up-to-push-back-on-potential-tiktok-ban/ – the gods from engineering Mar 28 '23 at 22:40
  • 1
    Also note that if the users drop substantially, that probably means the content creators are too. If people can't easily upload an enormous range of videos, the app just won't be as worth using – Bug Catcher Nakata Mar 29 '23 at 02:16
  • 9
    Indeed, as the last paragraph points out, whenever something considered harmful for a society is banned, the main goal is not that it would be completely impossible for anyone to access it. If the number of users is drastically reduced, it is already considered a success. – vsz Mar 29 '23 at 06:32
  • 3
    @JoeW sideloading in Android is much easier and does not require jailbreak. You only need to get the APK file from elsewhere (e.g. the app website instead of Google Play). People do it all the time. – fraxinus Mar 29 '23 at 06:35
  • 5
    @fraxinus I didn't say it required jail break, just that it wasn't that common as people tend to think due to the risks associated with sideloading an app from an unknown source and the fact that you have to make system settings to allow it. – Joe W Mar 29 '23 at 12:43
  • TikTok is most popular among teenagers who couldn't care less about "risks" or "security" or "privacy". They'll sideload it, though most use Apple products these days. – JonathanReez Mar 29 '23 at 16:44
  • 2
    @JonathanReez That doesn't always apply to them and that doesn't mean that there are not controls that prevent them from doing that as well. Just because something is possible on an android device doesn't mean it can't also be prevented by other means. Yes, it is possible to side load an app but that doesn't mean that the number of people doing it will be anywhere near the numbers of people that would be there if the app was in the app store. Removing it from the app store isn't designed to keep anyone from using it but reduce the number that will. – Joe W Mar 29 '23 at 16:51
  • 1
    Right I totally agree removing it from the App Store might be enough, even if TikTok.com is still fully accessible and Android users sideload it all the time. But it's not clear if that's as far as legislators would like to go. – JonathanReez Mar 29 '23 at 17:28
  • @JonathanReez Maybe but as far as I am aware there is no ability to stop sideloading apps in android (or jail broken ios) – Joe W Mar 29 '23 at 17:46
  • @fraxinus You do however have to go to your settings page and enable side-loading and click through a scary warning message. So while it's not totally impossible like on iOS, or even difficult, it does have some roadblocks that the app store doesn't. Lazy people (most) will only get apps from the store. – Reasonably Against Genocide Mar 30 '23 at 07:07
  • 1
    Is this question about the politics alone or not? This answer is about the trivial technical issues. – Fattie Apr 01 '23 at 00:46
  • @Fattie This answer is addressing what was asked in the question and addressing it a point at a time. – Joe W Apr 01 '23 at 00:55
  • 1
    @JoeW I think the question and the whole page is just confusing then. The OP stated very specifically and abruptly in the OP's comments that this is "only about the politics". – Fattie Apr 01 '23 at 07:42
  • @Fattie I answered what the op asked if it wasn't supposed to be about what I put in my answer that shouldn't have been in the question. – Joe W Apr 01 '23 at 14:55
8

If TikTok is banned in the US, we have to assume that the law makers have determined a legal way to do it. In such a case, past US actions provide a glimpse to how easily TikTok can be blocked in the US:

  1. Ban it from Apple and Google app stores.
  2. Instruct ISPs to block TikTok server.
  3. Blacklist TikTok on US payment services.
  4. Blacklist TikTok on US banking services (to prevent US TikTok creators from earning money from TikTok).

Note that India has banned TikTok and it did so to "protect" user data privacy and national security:

India's Ministry of Information Technology said it was banning the 59 Chinese apps after receiving "many complaints from various sources" about apps that were "stealing and surreptitiously transmitting users' data in an unauthorised manner". "The compilation of these data, its mining and profiling by elements hostile to national security and defence of India, which ultimately impinges upon the sovereignty and integrity of India, is a matter of very deep and immediate concern which requires emergency measures," the ministry said. - India bans TikTok, WeChat and dozens more Chinese apps

The Indian government said the decision to ban the apps was in order to protect the data and privacy of its 1.3 billion citizens and put a stop to technology that was “stealing and surreptitiously transmitting users’ data in an unauthorised manner to servers outside India”. - India blacklists more than 50 Chinese-made apps, citing ‘threat to sovereignty’

Citing "National security" as a reason is often enough to trump most fundamental rights and delay a thorough judicial review.

(Note though that the real and current motivations of the US behind this public scrutiny of TikTok / Bytedance is to economically pressure and threaten China to not assist Russian war efforts in Ukraine. Temporarily banning TikTok, and other Chinese apps, could very well be part of the "US sanctions" against China if it supplies weapons and munitions to Russia. This is very obvious because if user data privacy was a genuine concern of the US law makers, the right answer to that is to make stronger privacy laws and regulations, like Europe did. But such US laws would also impede American BigTechs like Google, Microsoft, Meta, Apple, Amazon etc. from spying on its users.)

sfxedit
  • 8,898
  • 1
  • 23
  • 50
  • #1, #3 and #4 are perfectly doable. #2 is likely to turn into a protracted legal battle as it would be a huge challenge to the First Amendment. So I'm interested to see if that's actually what's being proposed. – JonathanReez Mar 29 '23 at 00:33
  • 2
    @JonathanReez I don't think so. Blocking a foreign platform doesn't impede right to free speech as it is an isolated act for specific reason and there are plenty of viable alternatives. Moreover, when it is done so due to violation of other laws, it won't be protected under the first amendment. For example, the US frequently blocks piracy websites all the time because piracy is illegal. TikTok is likely to be blocked under data privacy laws or even national security concerns (spying on US military and government officials) or even under US military sanctions (helping Russia). – sfxedit Mar 29 '23 at 00:42
  • @JonathanReez Also, I'd like to point out that TikTok was earlier temporarily banned in India by the indian courts itself, once before, for pornographic / child pornography content - https://www.gadgets360.com/apps/news/tiktok-app-blocked-apple-app-store-google-play-store-india-court-order-2024274 – sfxedit Mar 29 '23 at 00:49
  • 1
    @sfxedit - No? Websites like The Pirate Bay continue to be perfectly accessible from the US. They are not blocked (and indeed could not be blocked effectively without highly intrusive surveillance). Perhaps you are thinking of cases in which domains have been seized as part of arrests and so forth. – Obie 2.0 Mar 29 '23 at 01:26
  • @Obie2.0 Torrent sites (like tpb) are legally difficult to block because they don't host the content directly. But the DMCA act, which can be used to remove specific copyright content, can also be used to get whole websites blocked if they don't comply with DMCA requests - US Court Orders Every ISP in the United States to Block Illegal Streaming Sites. – sfxedit Mar 29 '23 at 01:46
  • @sfxedit - I think that article has some things wrong. The banner on the site mentioned in the question appears to have been put in place by someone who seized the domain, not injected by ISPs as part of some blocking measure: it looks exactly the same from countries such as Panama, China, and Russia. I doubt that ISPs in foreign countries, particularly China and Russia, are hastening to comply with US district court decisions. Reading a bit more about the case, I gather that companies like Cloudfare complained and said that the order was unenforceable, so it was modified. – Obie 2.0 Mar 29 '23 at 02:07
  • @Obie2.0 Maybe, I don't know much about the details of the case. But it supports my assertion that US laws support site blocking or even domain seizures without any prejudice to the first amendment right. – sfxedit Mar 29 '23 at 03:36
  • Not sure I agree with your note at the bottom. US Federal workers have been told to not use TikTok since far before the current Ukraine/Russia crisis. – CGCampbell Mar 30 '23 at 15:06
  • @CGCampbell You are right. Note though that US has been looking to ban TikTok for sometime now but needs a very good political reason. The Russian-Ukraine conflict provides a good one now. In fact, the legislation they plan to use to ban TikTok gives the government great power without much oversight, and is likely to be highly abused. I'll be updating my post later with more details. – sfxedit Mar 30 '23 at 21:25
6

There is a saying among some IT people.

"There is no cloud. There are just other peoples' computers."

Those computers cost a real lot of money. So does the specialized software and the manpower. Users pay by subscription fees for services, or they pay by giving their data to advertisers. If TikTok were to be cut off from the US advertising market, and if it would continue to spend millions to operate "free" services for US consumers, it would be obvious that it is being subsidized by a third party. Even more oblivious users might ask why.

o.m.
  • 108,520
  • 19
  • 265
  • 393
  • 1
    ... they might ask why and then what happens? – JonathanReez Mar 28 '23 at 20:03
  • 1
    nah, this exactly the "you're kill the small biz on TikTok" argm that you'd trigger with this prop – the gods from engineering Mar 28 '23 at 20:07
  • Both YouTube and Twitch are essentially giving all Russians a free premium subscription. It would perhaps be not so costly for TikTok to maintain some web presense. – alamar Mar 28 '23 at 21:12
  • 2
    @alamar YouTube's parent company (Meta) got 1.5% of its revenue from Russia before the Ukraine War. https://seekingalpha.com/article/4495176-meta-platforms-enough-pain-due-russia But TikTok gets 60% of its revenue from U.S. oriented ads. – ohwilleke Mar 28 '23 at 22:54
  • 2
    Twitch (which is owned by Amazon.com) is also a drop in the bucket. "Twitch in-app revenue in Russia sharply fell in March 2022 and April 2022 due to restrictions over the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Twitch stopped paying streamers with Russian bank accounts at the beginning of March 2022. To compare, in January 2022, the in-app revenue of the streaming platform in Russia reached approximately 109 thousand U.S. dollars." https://www.statista.com/statistics/1232599/russia-twitch-app-revenue/ Yet, Twitch is a $2.8 billion revenue business. https://www.businessofapps.com/data/twitch-statistics/ – ohwilleke Mar 28 '23 at 22:58
  • 3
    @ohwilleke: Just for the record, youtube is owned by Google (now Alphabet). Meta is Facebook etc.. Both parent companies have broad and/or meaningless names that hint at being all-encompassing, but they're still distinct last I checked. :P – Peter Cordes Mar 29 '23 at 19:37
  • @PeterCordes My bad. Thanks for the correction. – ohwilleke Mar 29 '23 at 19:44
0

Most of the phone apps are installed from the centralized portals ran by either Apple or Google. Any app which is not distributed by those portals can only exist as a technical niche. It cannot gain traction in the general market.

Simply creating laws which would make it illegal to make money from distributing apps which allow for US phone users' private data to be stored in China would make TicToc impossible to distribute legally.

Congress can regulate commerce and it can regulate what companies do with users' private data. Together that's enough to give it the authority to craft such a ban.

wrod
  • 9,321
  • 25
  • 64
  • StackExchange shutdown their mobile app a while back and this website is still alive and well :-) TikTok already has a fully functional web version. The question is what happens if ByteDance refuses to cooperate and keeps TikTok.com open to US users. – JonathanReez Apr 02 '23 at 22:48
  • 2
    @JonathanReez You can't compare those two because they have very different target demographics with very different technology habits. Stack Exchange's flagship product is still Stackoverflow, which is a website for software developers at work who sit at a PC all day. TikTok is an app for consuming quick distractions on the go, and its primary target audience are teenagers who often don't even own a PC. Stack Exchange gets most of its traffic from search engine queries, while TikTok keeps people in the app where it can provide a personalized recommendation stream. – Philipp Apr 04 '23 at 08:08