Even if TikTok is Banned, Competitors Present Their Own Threats to Free Speech

There were hardly any unexpected developments during the Supreme Court hearings concerning the Protecting Americans Act, which obligates ByteDance, the Chinese Communist Party-linked owner of TikTok, to divest from the app or face a ban.

The crux of the case is whether TikTok can persuade the Justices that such a requirement infringes on the First Amendment by mandating a foreign-owned app to sell or shut down. As of Friday, they have not succeeded — and the Court has mandated that TikTok must either be sold or shut down this weekend.

Bipartisan doubt expressed by Justices Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Ketanji Brown Jackson indicates that TikTok’s likelihood of success appears as fragile as a trending dance move.

This legislation, as highlighted by my colleague Ilya Shapiro, regulates foreign ownership of platforms rather than the content they disseminate. It serves as a known method to shield Americans from foreign interference.

Nonetheless, just because the anti-TikTok measure is legally sound doesn’t mean it’s prudent. While discussing the future of the app, we must confront an unsettling reality: despite its connections to the Chinese Communist Party, TikTok unexpectedly became a notable haven for free speech during the 2024 election cycle — especially contrasting with platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube.

This is a fact that Meta and Alphabet, the tech giants behind these platforms, would rather Americans ignore.

Meta and Alphabet offer the most apparent alternatives to TikTok, and despite Mark Zuckerberg’s recent changes, both have earned a reputation for excessive censorship.

Meta’s censorship machine squelched the Hunter Biden laptop story before collaborating with the Biden administration to stifle dissent and promote viewpoints favorable to its commercial and political interests.

Currently, Zuckerberg is altering his stance, skillfully portraying Meta — which encompasses Facebook, Instagram, and Threads — as “proudly American” while also discontinuing Meta’s flawed fact-checking.

Encouragingly, he is also fostering better relations with President-elect Donald Trump and stressing the importance of transparency. Alphabet, responsible for YouTube, engages in just as much censorship as Meta traditionally did — reportedly suppressing an interview between Trump and Joe Rogan last October. However, it seems hesitant to even rhetorically revise its policies.

Meanwhile, TikTok emerged in 2024 as a unique digital public forum where political discussions flourished. The platform’s algorithm highlighted voices from the MAGA movement to supporters of Kamala Harris. Users openly debated crucial issues such as immigration, foreign conflicts, and RFK Jr.’s proposals on health.

This accessibility — ironically cultivated by an app associated with an authoritarian government — illustrates the stark contrast between Meta’s heavy-handed moderation and TikTok’s more liberating stance.

This split also positions Elon Musk’s X differently, potentially leaving it as the sole platform in America that allows relatively unrestricted speech if TikTok is removed.

To clarify, TikTok may or may not represent a national security threat. ByteDance’s access to extensive amounts of American user data — from geolocation to online behaviors — raises valid concerns.

Nonetheless, the U.S. government has yet to produce evidence that ByteDance has actually exploited American data for malicious purposes. The worry stems from the potential for the Chinese Communist Party to access and exploit this data. And that concern is quite substantial.

That being said, banning TikTok outright or mandating its sale would not resolve the entrenched threats to free speech and data privacy embedded within American corporations.

Unlike TikTok, Alphabet and Meta have entrenched themselves as gatekeepers of American political conversation, manipulating citizens’ visibility and silencing dissent, thereby undermining the core principles of the First Amendment.

We must not let speculative fears regarding China blind us to the authoritarian practices of American corporations. Fortunately, key figures in the incoming Trump administration, particularly Vice President-elect J.D. Vance leading the efforts, seem poised to demand accountability from these platforms.

Alongside vigorous FTC antitrust measures, legislators should demand full transparency: disclose platform content moderation algorithms, share communications between platforms and government entities, and ensure that every user has an equal opportunity to express themselves and earn monetization. Excuses are no longer acceptable.

Yes, the TikTok law may stand up constitutionally. However, if lawmakers genuinely wish to safeguard Americans online, they need to cease using TikTok as a scapegoat and start dismantling the domestic monopolies that have turned the online landscape into an extension of the deep state — beginning with Meta and Alphabet.

The new administration and its congressional allies can initiate the process of uncovering the truth and preserving the integrity of the internet for all.

The true battle isn’t against a foreign app — it’s about curtailing the collusion and unchecked influence of Big Tech domestically.

Tim Rosenberger is a Fellow at the Manhattan Institute; Mimi St Johns is a Stanford-educated blockchain entrepreneur.