Skip to content

New York Times floods the zone on TikTok ruling

The Supreme Court has upheld Congress's demand that TikTok either sell itself to an American owner or shut down. How do I know? Because the New York Times has treated this event with about the same world-historical banner-headline flood-the-zone gravity as 9/11. As of 1:30 pm, they had written 14 separate pieces about it by 13 different reporters—and that's only counting the ones that got headlines:

  1. Adam Liptak: The Supreme Court has backed a law requiring TikTok be sold or banned.
  2. Adam Liptak: The Supreme Court appeared poised to uphold the law when it heard arguments on Friday.
  3. David McCabe: Here’s what to know about the potential TikTok ban.
  4. David Sanger: The government’s case for banning TikTok on national security grounds was light on examples.
  5. Katie Mogg: A TikTok habit is hard to break.
  6. Cecilia Kang: Parents express mixed reactions to a potential TikTok ban.
  7. J.D. Biersdorfer: Here’s how to download your videos and data from TikTok.
  8. Meaghan Tobin: Here’s why Beijing could have the last say on any TikTok deal.
  9. Alexandra Alter: Publishers and authors wonder: Can anything replace BookTok
  10. Sheera Frenkel: Teenagers on TikTok exchanged advice on how to get around a ban.
  11. Cecilia Kang: The ban is based on national security concerns. Limits because of foreign ownership are not unusual.
  12. Madison Malone Kircher: Influencers React to a World Without TikTok.
  13. Tripp Mickle and Nico Grant: For Apple and Google, complying with the law would be easy.
  14. David McCabe and Maya C. Miller: Government officials react to the looming TikTok ban.

Come on. Let's all calm down. It's a social media app for teenagers. The Republic will survive no matter what happens.

36 thoughts on “New York Times floods the zone on TikTok ruling

  1. cephalopod

    This is a banning professional football level event for a lot of young people. Lots of old people might not care, but I wouldn't underestimate how this is being interpreted by the young ones.

    1. Art Eclectic

      A bunch are more focused on Discord, which doesn't have the same reach or "influencer" opportunities to showcase your brilliance.

    2. tango

      Exactly so! I suspect that a lot more people (yes, teens technically ARE people) care about this than about most of what gets discussed here most of the time....

  2. architectonic

    The job of the New York Times is not to inform its readers. The job of the New York Times is to sell advertising to its readers.

    1. rick_jones

      To sell its readers to those wishing to reach them through advertising. As it has been for newspapers basically since the beginning I suspect.

    1. D_Ohrk_E1

      Convicted felon Trump asked them to pause the enforcement of the law to allow him to review and negotiate, not to nullify it.

      President Trump, therefore, has a compelling interest as the incoming embodiment of the Executive Branch in seeing the statutory deadline stayed to allow his incoming Administration the opportunity to seek a negotiated resolution of these questions.

      Just before the end of convicted felon Trump's first term, he issued an executive order specifically calling out TikTok and effectively banning it. Had there not been an injunction, TikTok would have already been banned in 2020.

    2. rick_jones

      And the ruling was, as I understand it, unanimous. There are at least three justices who arguably have no fealty to Trump.

  3. Joseph Harbin

    "The Republic will survive no matter what happens."

    Well, the fate of TikTok aside, the state of the republic is rather precarious these days.

    My two cents:
    1. The ban was fueled by xenophobia more than legit national security concerns
    2. Banning a major media platform, even if you think it's necessary, is hardly something we should do in this country lightly
    3. Regulatory reform is needed for all social media services, and the ban does not get us one inch closer to getting that done
    4. Young folks and other users will be rightly pissed. Who will they blame and where will they go?
    5. A worse possible outcome: Musk buys TikTok and Twittifies it
    6. An even worse outcome: Musk buys TikTok and MSNBC

    1. Joseph Harbin

      Re #4:
      Since Biden plans not to enforce the ban, leaving it to Trump, we have potential for another bad outcome: Trump "saves" the platform and captures support from users and influencers

  4. economist23

    Sure, the Times is in the business of clicks. But the import of the utterly baffling ruling today is serious. SCOTUS opened the door to anti-protest laws on NatSec grounds.

    1. D_Ohrk_E1

      No, they didn't. Most experts and lawyers expected this outcome all along.

      ByteDance had an option: Sell. Assuming Americans' 1A rights were at stake, selling to a company that could ensure data protection would mean that not a single American TikTok user's 1A was compromised.

      1. Joseph Harbin

        There's a market for Americans' user data. Anyone who wants it can just pay the price. This whole charade doesn't nothing to protect user data.

        1. D_Ohrk_E1

          There are two types of user data: anonymized and personally-identifiable. The former is openly accessible except if a user requests against it; the latter is only sometimes available and surely can and will be blocked by either the federal gov't, local gov't, or user lawsuits.

  5. csherbak

    The monetization that was available was not small and as Zuck and Musk and Bez can attest - getting between an American (naturalized or native) and their money Has Consequences. Just as many 'flouted' our norms by electing Trump, many TikTok'ers are starting up accounts on Red Note (another Chinese company that's more standard CCP censoring) and essentially 'giving away' whatever data TT was leaking. The value proposition is worth handing over their data and eyeballs esp. as META is considered Just As Bad. (Both sides indeed.)

    I thought there was a carve out in the law for the President to activate it, and Trump will no doubt do so esp. if money crosses his palm.

    I have no comment on the broadsheet reaction by the NYT. Pretty lame IMO.

  6. lawnorder

    I don't think "a social media app for teenagers" is an accurate description. News coverage indicates that Tik Tok has about 170 million users in the US, or half the population. I do not believe that half the population of the US are teenagers.

    1. Joseph Harbin

      In 2024, 17% of US adults cited TikTok as a regular news source (up from 3% in 2020). The NYT currently has 9 to 11 million total subscribers.

      Though not exactly equivalent, both are news media companies and TikTok's direct reach is far greater than the country's largest newspaper.

      It's a chilling move for the US government to shut down a major news source. It's a dangerous precedent.

      1. jdubs

        Are they shutting it down? Or requiring a sale? These are not the same thing.

        Why is it dangerous to require the current owners of a news distribution company to sell to new owners?

        How is this dangerous precedent different than the nondangerous precedent of forced sale of a news distribution company based on antitrust rulings?

        1. Joseph Harbin

          Fact is, I don't think the best way to view it is as a ban or a forced sale. It's a play to use government power to squeeze a media platform that it doesn't right now control. Trump, Republicans, the right want to control media fully, and what they don't control directly they want to intimidate into submission. TikTok as an influential platform is in their sights. Capitulate or eliminate.

          The rest is pretext. They don't give a shit about "national security" any more than care about deficits when Dems hold power or than they care about women's rights when they're screwing transexuals.

          The right can't tolerate independent media. Everything is under attack right now. The networks, newspapers, etc. And without Trump even taking office yet, they are nearing a total victory.

          Maybe the Chinese will pull the plug. But don't be surprised with TikTok survives as a right-wing operation.

          It's not just control of news. It's the culture of the day. That's TikTok's strength at the moment, and why it's important to control it.

          We're entering a dark place.

      2. D_Ohrk_E1

        ByteDance was required, by a Trump EO, to protect US user data from Chinese officials' access.

        They did some stuff then claimed they had complied, but then it came out they had lied.

        Congress stepped in and passed a bill after the Biden administration could not get an agreement with ByteDance. That bill was signed into law by Biden, forcing ByteDance to either sell or have TikTok shut down to US users.

        There are a couple of layers of irony mixed with contradictions, that the CCP essentially bans (rendered inaccessible) TikTok use within mainland China and HK, and yet, ByteDance appealed to US courts on the grounds of 1A.

        As for whether they set a dangerous precedent, that's very unlikely. As noted by the decision:

        Petitioners, for their part, have not identified any case in which this Court has treated a regulation of corporate control as a direct regulation of expressive activity or semi-expressive conduct.

        And anyway, foreigners -- people without US citizenship or who are not on US soil -- do not enjoy the constitutional protections of 1A. Think about how we have a ban on foreign contributions to elections.

        1. Joseph Harbin

          I'm not here to say the Chinese are boy scouts. And yeah, they're foreigners. But they're not the right kind of foreigners. The Saudis are co-owners of Twitter. About a third of political content across all social media originates in other countries. Why not go after the Saudis or Russia?

          The TikTok ban should be seen in the context of the extraordinary attack on all independent media, "independent" meaning not controlled by the right-wing. This is how fascists operate.

          Let's not be saps.

          1. D_Ohrk_E1

            You're conflating two issues of company ownership and data. Yes, it's Chinese-owned, but the issue of natsec is that the data, by Chinese law, is available to the CCP if it requests it. Whether or not SA's investment means it has direct access to user data is not something I'm aware of, but then again, I left the birdsite not long after Musk bought it. That is to say, fuck Musk, 'cause I don't trust him to do what's right, let alone what's legal.

  7. shapeofsociety

    Stories concerning "what's happening on the Internet" always get more coverage than they deserve because they are easy to report. Burning shoe leather to get the story in meatspace is hard, cracking open your phone and then writing a summary of stuff random people are saying on social media is easy.

  8. rick_jones

    So, assuming the “ban” goes ahead, is it just the play/app stores no longer able to distribute to US devices? Do infrastructure providers have to withhold infrastructure? If so, just in the US, or also worldwide? Will ISPs be required to block access, Great Firewall like, to TikTok IP addresses?

  9. zergus

    "It's a social media app for teenagers."

    Nope. Roughly half of active TikTok users in the United States are over 30. About 70% are over 20.

  10. kenalovell

    The stories are behind a paywall so I can't read them. If they develop the theme "constitutional governance on the brink as two presidents decline to enforce law passed by Congress and ruled valied by Supreme Court" that would be good. Ditto the theme "Trump fights hard to deliver on campaign bribe".

    But somehow I doubt that's what they're about.

Comments are closed.