I woke up to countless messages from my friends in the U.S. complaining about the ongoing TikTok ban Jan. 19. The previous night, users in the U.S. opened TikTok expecting to be greeted with yet another short-form video. Instead, they were met with a pop-up apologizing for TikTok’s unavailability in the region and expressing gratitude for President Donald Trump’s support of the platform Jan. 18 at 11:00 p.m., according to Forbes.

The TikTok ban lasted a total of 15 hours before President Donald Trump signed an executive order delaying the ban by 75 days. The terms of the order are the following: either parent company ByteDance transfers TikTok to a joint venture with 50% U.S.-based ownership, or they halt availability in the U.S., according to Forbes. My friends expressed relief, grateful that their time with the platform was extended. However, the issue is bigger than lack of access to short-form content.

In a victory rally preceding his inauguration Jan. 19, Trump announced his support for TikTok by insisting it must be saved, according to the Associated Press. Hearing his words, it is easy to assume that Trump is the hero here, saving a platform that is crucial for millions of Americans. However, it was Trump who pushed for the ban in the first place, signing an executive order to ban the app in 2020, according to NPR.

The decision to ban TikTok — and the subsequent reversal under President Trump’s administration — reeks of political theater. Through backtracking on the potential ban, the U.S. government creates the illusion of protecting American interests while possibly undermining the principle of free speech.

This strategy isn’t new. Throughout history, the U.S. government has utilized similar tactics to erode trust in foreign groups and consolidate authority. The era of McCarthyism, or the Second Red Scare, is a prime example of this. During the 1950s, Senator Joseph McCarthy led a widespread campaign against alleged communist influence.

This campaign, presented as a response to national security concerns surrounding the USSR, spiraled into censorship so severe that McCarthy was censured by the Senate in 1954 for abuse of his power, according to the U.S. Senate. The censorship he implemented included book banning and driving those working in mass media out of their jobs, according to Britannica.

Similar to the rhetoric surrounding the TikTok ban, McCarthy’s actions were justified under the threat of a foreign power, but the measures taken did not correspond to the stated threat.

According to The New York Times, the U.S. government claims that the Chinese Communist Party’s involvement in the algorithm of the app could give them the platform to feed users Chinese propaganda, fueling anti-U.S. sentiment across the country. While this is a real concern, the U.S. government’s solution to shut down the platform has far-reaching negative repercussions.

As a young person living in a time of political uncertainty, I want as much access to information as I can get, despite the risk of propaganda. It is up to the individual to decide what to believe. As we have seen by the various other social media platforms controlled by individuals answering to the current government, like X, the American government also feeds citizens propaganda.

Take, for example, the Cambridge Analytica-Facebook scandal. Cambridge Analytica, a political consulting firm, was reported to have taken data from millions of people’s Facebook profiles and then used it to create targeted political propaganda that influenced voters in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, according to The New York Times. This information was not known to the public until 2018 when journalists uncovered the breach.

It is hypocritical for the government to deny one type of propaganda and then perpetuate another type that they deem acceptable, just because it aligns with their beliefs.

Consider the Patriot Act’s legacy in the post-9/11 era. The Patriot Act was put into place to deter and punish terrorist acts and enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, according to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. The U.S. government’s sweeping surveillance programs were justified by the promise of national security, but the policies raised significant privacy concerns, as law enforcement officials were able to collect significant information on citizens, according to The White House.

Similarly, banning TikTok gives the government the authority to gatekeep and discern the accessibility of communication platforms, setting a dangerous precedent for future restrictions — if a platform can be targeted under the guise of foreign influence, what’s to stop the government from applying the same logic to other forms of media, especially those critical of its policies?

To understand the implications of the TikTok ban, it is important to understand the app’s cultural significance. TikTok has grown into more than a social media platform. For young people, TikTok serves as a space for creativity, activism and identity formation. From organizing protests to spreading awareness about social justice issues, the platform has empowered voices that traditional media outlets often overlook. In 2020, for example, TikTok users played a key role in organizing many protests and campaigns like the Black Lives Matter movement and voter registration drives.

Now, the platform is extremely effective in raising awareness about various conflicts and humanitarian crises, allowing victims of war to raise the money needed to escape and educating users on world events that may not be covered in the news, such as Israeli and Palestinean, Sudanese and Ethiopian conflicts. By threatening to remove such a platform, the government could have the ability to restrict our generation’s ability to mobilize, connect and challenge the status quo.

Moreover, the economic implications of the ban cannot be ignored. According to the BBC, TikTok has become a hub for over 7 million small businesses in the U.S., as well as countless independent creators, most of whom rely on the app for revenue. The potential loss of TikTok threatens to destabilize this digital economy, disproportionately affecting younger demographics, as 30% of businesses on TikTok are owned by users under 30, according to TikTok.

Another layer to this issue is the international perception of American values. By targeting TikTok, the U.S. government inadvertently undermines its own credibility as a champion of free speech. Nations worldwide look to the U.S. as a beacon of democratic principles. The White House constantly preaches the First Amendment. Actions like banning TikTok send mixed signals, suggesting that these principles are conditional, which echoes the tactics of authoritarian regimes that suppress individual voices under the pretense of protecting national interests.

It is also crucial to address the psychological impact of the ban on young Americans. For many, TikTok is a primary source of community and connection. Removing this outlet — even temporarily — sends a message that their voices are expendable. Ripples were sent through the app in its last hours Jan. 18 — retrospectives and reflections on the past years, goodbye videos and a trend where users shared final confessions. This period showed the importance of human connection and communication among users of TikTok. It’s no coincidence that the youth, who are often at the forefront of cultural and political change, are the primary users of the app. Through this ban, the government indirectly stifles the innovation that our generation brings.

The broader implications of the TikTok ban extend far beyond this single platform. At its core, this controversy is about control: over information, over narrative and over the tools that empower individuals to challenge authority. The U.S. government’s actions reflect a deeper anxiety about the shifting balance of power in a digital age where traditional institutions no longer hold major authority over information and truth.

In the coming months, as the 75-day negotiation period unfolds, it will be critical for Americans to scrutinize the government’s intentions and demand transparency. If ByteDance agrees to transfer TikTok to a joint venture with U.S. ownership, it may temporarily satisfy the government’s demands, but it will also set a dangerous precedent. It suggests that any platform — no matter how integral to public life — can be co-opted or dismantled if it doesn’t align with government interests. That is the real threat of this ban.

This story was originally published on The Standard on February 10, 2025.