by Sia Cariov
In a recent editorial posted by the Wall Street Journal, a collection of university students argued that the ban on TikTok was purposeful to favor President Trump. The article argues that the entire situation was built so President Trump could appear as a savior by disallowing the ban and bringing back the app. The article emphasizes the ongoing concerns surrounding TikTok’s Chinese ownership and the perceived national security risks that come with it. The piece acknowledges the concerns raised by critics who argue that TikTok’s Chinese owners, ByteDance, could be compelled by the Chinese government to share user data or spread misinformation. The article highlights the growing skepticism about the effectiveness of the ban and whether it genuinely addresses the data privacy and security issues at hand. The editorial explains President Donald Trump’s involvement in the TikTok ban, pointing out that the current political climate and concerns around data privacy have led to differing opinions on taking a tougher stance against Chinese-owned companies like TikTok.
I agree with this article that the ban and reprieve of TikTok were highly suspicious. The connection between TikTok and the Chinese government is obvious, and because of the ban, there is evidence that they are intertwined. We both agree that the ban of the app was suspicious and that there are links between the app and the American and Chinese governments. The relationship between TikTok and the Chinese government is unmistakable, given that the app’s parent company is Chinese. As a result of the ban, evidence has come to light, revealing the intricate ties between the app, President Trump, and the Chinese government and their potential implications on national security and data privacy. The article and I share a skeptical view regarding the ban, considering the connections between TikTok, the Chinese government, and even the American government. These relationships have fostered an environment of uncertainty around the true intentions behind the ban and subsequent reprieve, raising concerns about the potential influence of political and personal interests on the matter.
While the article explains its discontent with keeping TikTok, the authors believe that a complete ban of the app is unnecessary. I disagree with this because TikTok users have been given enough proof that the app is unsafe. I think the app should be banned, considering the substantial evidence that TikTok threatens users’ privacy and personal information. Many of TikTok’s user base consists of young people and children, who are highly impressionable and may not fully understand the implications of sharing personal information online. Given TikTok’s known connections to the Chinese and American governments, the app’s data collection raises serious concerns regarding the potential misuse of user information. The exposure of young users’ personal data could harm their safety and well-being, as it could potentially be exploited. For example, an algorithm is used to make the user’s “For You” page. This uses information from liked posts to show more of what the viewer enjoys. This is proof that the app is aware of what a user views and likes. Even when downloading the app, it requires a user’s name, email, phone number, age, and other personal information. There is even a question about whether the user would like to share their location. With this in mind, I believe that implementing a ban on TikTok is a necessary step to protect vulnerable users and maintain the integrity of personal information. Ultimately, it is crucial to prioritize the privacy and safety of users, especially minors, when considering the operations of social media platforms like TikTok.
I think my view should be considered because there is proof that TikTok is connected too intensely with China and President Trump. The ban and reprieve of it were highly suspicious and I think users ignored it because they wanted the entertaining app back. The editorial would agree with my opinion because they explain that restrictions and regulations of the app must be put into action. The authors of the editorial and I would share both agreements and disagreements.