The Trump administration set the internet ablaze when it issued an executive order that sets a firm date for a TikTok ban. That Tencent-owned WeChat would also be included was something of a surprise.
The Montana TikTok ban is now facing a lawsuit from parent company ByteDance, on the basis of violation of Constitutional rights and assorted federal laws. The ban is not slated to take effect until January 2024, and legal challenges were expected in the interim.
While we wait for the social media companies to become fully transparent and show us that they’re taking all their users' privacy and security seriously, it’s up to the brands and marketers to be the change makers. Soon data privacy will be the issue for brands, just like sustainability and diversity.
TikTok is currently working on opening the first of its European data centers in Dublin, as it faces the prospect of a ban if it does not come into compliance with EU rules under the Digital Services Act (DSA).
The UK has followed the US in enacting a TikTok ban that applies to government devices, citing national security concerns. The ban is part of a broader review of potential social media app threats.
The former TikTok employee worked as a risk manager in the company's Safety Operations division for six months and claims that a "complete re-engineering" of the app is the only way to secure user data.
In line with the Trump administration's recent overtures toward a nationwide TikTok ban, the new bill if passed would ban TikTok on all devices throughout the US government.
The Trump administration had proposed banning TikTok as a national security threat. Cybersecurity researchers from the University of Toronto have come to a different conclusion, though with caveats.
The surveillance concerns surrounding TikTok are legitimate, yet they are no more legitimate than the spyware potential of countless Chinese IoT devices.
Montana's TikTok ban is the first of its kind to become law if it survives the inevitable legal challenges. A group of content creators is already challenging the ban in court, claiming First Amendment violations and overreach by the state in invoking national security powers.