We call this patchwork governance—a layered, improvised mix of law, platform policy, and community intervention.
Gossip, speculation, and call-outs may seem like noise, but they often do the work of protection.
📄 Open access here: doi.org/10.1002/poi3...
New article out with Dr. Crystal Abidin in Policy & Internet:
We analyze what happens when young people become internet-famous on TikTok—and neither legal protections nor platform policies are enough to address the risks they face.
The gaps are filled, unevenly, by the TikTok public.
think that this point right here is so, so central to what *socio*technical research can offer in this moment.
The backend “algorithm” is (sort of) an unknowable black box, but the stuff we can see is far more interesting and relevant.
This is what I get for making predictions.
Sharing @rscarlets.bsky.social and I’s piece again given what’s going on today - such a moment of uncertainty given Trump’s explicit push for the Court to delay vs. their seeming openness to uphold the law today.
www.techpolicy.press/the-tiktok-b...
Alex Turvy and Dr. Rebecca Scharlach write that the US TikTok ban reveals the paradoxes and limitations of current government regulatory paradigms.
Thanks Tom! You're a gem.
My brill friends @rscarlets.bsky.social & @alexturvy.bsky.social remind us that bans "aim to reduce risks but instead fragment oversight, drive users to less regulated spaces, and reduce transparency while claiming to increase security" 🔥👇
I guess the Supreme Court read our article @rscarlets.bsky.social 🙃
www.nytimes.com/2024/12/18/u...
Thanks so much, Nathalie!
Thanks to @blakeplease.bsky.social for help thinking through this piece!
Thanks to @techpolicypress.bsky.social for publishing!
New piece with @rscarlets.bsky.social : The TikTok ban won't work—it'll create exactly what it claims to prevent. Bans don't eliminate platforms, they transform them into less governable forms. Our analysis of the paradox at the heart of platform restrictions:
www.techpolicy.press/the-tiktok-b...
What's your theory?
In the meantime -- making the use of my daily Research API credits while I still can.
What happens next matters. The TikTok ban raises harder questions we can’t ignore:
Can democratic governance adapt to networked platforms?
What do we lose when policymakers rely on blunt tools like bans?
What happens when platforms embody competing cultural logics?
The TikTok ban reflects a government grasping for control in an ecosystem it doesn’t fully understand.
It’s easier to ban an app than to reckon with the messy realities of:
1. Globalized tech innovation
2. Cross-border data flows
3. Algorithms that shape speech
*This* is the real tension.
This case isn’t about TikTok alone. It’s part of a larger shift:
Tech built elsewhere now shapes US.culture and economy.
The government wants to reassert control.
The platform isn’t the problem—it’s what TikTok represents: the decline of US dominance in digital infrastructure.
TikTok’s case treats its algorithm like a neutral delivery mechanism. It isn’t.
The government fears that mechanism could become a vector for influence. But all platforms—TikTok, Instagram, Facebook—*already* shape speech by design.
So: Is free speech a shield, or a way to avoid accountability?
TikTok leans on free speech protections. The government warns about “potential manipulation.” Here’s the problem:
Platforms don’t just host speech. They organize it—through algorithms, recommendations, and opaque decisions.
Whose “speech” is that? The user’s? The platform’s?
The government argues “ownership = vulnerability.” TikTok says, “No misuse has happened.”
But the deeper issue is harder: Can we separate platforms from the systems that created them?
Platforms reflect where—and how—they were built.
That’s uncomfortable for everyone.
ByteDance’s tech isn’t “made in China”—it’s made through a Chinese model of tech development:
Data-driven, hyper-iterative, ecosystem-based.
The U.S. government frames this as a risk.
TikTok frames it as irrelevant.
Neither framing really tells the full story.
TikTok insists it’s a domestic company with 1A rights. True—on paper.
But this framing masks something real: TikTok is part of a Chinese innovation ecosystem. Its DNA—recommendation algorithms, product strategy—comes from that context.
It’s not neutral, and neither are ANY other platforms.
Now that I've done my best impression of a lawyer, I want to offer a few deeper considerations as a researcher:
1️⃣TikTok’s “U.S. company” framing
2️⃣The illusion of free speech neutrality
3️⃣The global power struggle over platforms
This case is about way more than TikTok. 🧵
TikTok argues the public interest favors allowing the platform to continue operating while the Supreme Court reviews the case, preserving free speech protections.
TikTok predicts devastating consequences if the ban is enforced: loss of 170M U.S. users, massive revenue losses, and irreversible damage to its platform ecosystem.
TikTok argues the Act violates the Constitution’s Bill of Attainder Clause, which prohibits Congress from singling out individuals or entities for punishment without a judicial trial. This Act explicitly targets TikTok—banning it automatically without procedural protections/evidence of wrongdoing.
TikTok argues Congress didn’t consider less severe alternatives—like stronger data protection laws or transparency measures—before enacting a blanket ban.
