Connect with us

Published

on

“Entirely performative” — TikTokbanned or not, its probably here to stay, an Ars Frontiers 2023 recap Experts discussed the legal impossibility of a nationwide TikTok ban.

Ashley Belanger – May 26, 2023 1:20 pm UTC Enlarge / On May 22, Ashley Belanger (top left) moderated a panel featuring Ioana Literat (bottom left), Bryan Cunningham (top right), and Corynne McSherry (bottom right) for the Ars Frontiers 2023 session titled, “TikTokBanned or Not, It’s Probably Here to Stay.” reader comments 12 with

Ars Frontiers kicked off Monday with a panel called “TikTokBanned or Not, It’s Probably Here to Stay,” featuring experts on TikTok, data privacy, and cybersecurity.

It just so happened that the week before Ars Frontiers, TikTok was banned in Montana. This made the panel discussion particularly timely, as some TikTok creators and TikTok promptly sued the state, hoping to ensure that all Americans maintain access to the China-owned appdespite lawmakers’ national security concerns that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) might use TikTok to access US user data. Ars Frontiers 2023: “TikTokBanned or Not, It’s Probably Here to Stay.”

An associate professor in the communication media and learning technologies design program at Teachers College, Columbia University, Ioana Literat monitors how young people use social media. She has been researching TikTok since it first became available in the US. Banning TikTok at the “apex of its popularity,” Literat said, would set “a huge cultural and political precedent” for TikTok’s young user base, which is so politically active on the app.

“The government hasn’t really shown a compelling justification for the ban,” Literat said. “If you’re going to restrict freedom of speech in this way, you really need to make a very clear and potent case for the need for the ban” and really prove that “there’s no better alternatives to this ban.” Advertisement

Beyond rationales for a ban not being compelling, legal director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation Corynne McSherry said that state and federal pushes to ban TikTok were “entirely performative and a complete waste of time.” Her organization advocates for more comprehensive data privacy laws, rather than a TikTok ban.

Discussing the various First Amendment concerns that banning TikTok would cause, she agreed with Literat that “the government really hasn’t made much of an effort to get beyond rhetoric in terms of what we should really be worried about.”

“Perhaps you can hear in my voice, I’m a little frustrated about this,” McSherry said. “If we actually care about data privacy, which I think we shouldI think that’s really importantwhat we really need is comprehensive federal legislation that doesn’t just target one particular app, but actually really protects all of us by targeting all of the different ways in which companies are surveilling us all the time.”

Bryan Cunningham, a former White House lawyer and CPRI executive director at UCI Cybersecurity Policy & Research Institute, predicted that “Congress and the president will try to ban TikTok,” and “it’ll be a complete failure,” partly because “it’s not enforceable.”

“I don’t know how you think you’re gonna get the app off of tens of millions” of people’s phones, Cunningham said. “Are we gonna have border checkpoints where they look at your phone and see if the app is on there?” He said his young daughters would drive to Canada to put TikTok on their phones if they had to, and McSherry pointed out that many users would simply use a VPN service to access the app and skirt the ban. Advertisement

Cunningham said that in his view, concerns about the CCP using TikTok to spy on Americans were “very real,” but “there’s better ways to address them” than a ban. He agreed with McSherry that better data privacy laws would help to limit surveillance.

And TikTokers might even be totally onboard with going that route, Literat said. Her research shows that while young people using TikTok don’t seem to take the threat of a ban seriouslyand joked relentlessly about non-tech-savvy Congress members grilling TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chewthey are genuinely concerned about data privacy on social media.

McSherry said that in the past two years, she’s seen lawmakers get more serious about passing data privacy laws that would be “a non-performative way to actually help the citizenry” avoid tech company surveillance.

From the national security standpoint, Cunningham said that the threat goes beyond data privacy, though, and also raises concerns about the CCP manipulating TikTok’s algorithm to sow disinformation, restrict content, or push propaganda. To solve that problem, he recommended what he called a little-discussed alternative to the ban: imposing economic sanctions on TikTok owner ByteDance.

“Congress could give the president the authority, if he doesn’t have it, to impose economic sanctions on ByteDance,” Cunningham said.

Ars Frontiers is all about innovation, and both McSherry and Cunningham pointed out that new apps could emerge to replace TikTok at any point. This is one reason why focusing policy on one app seems extremely short-sighted. But for approximately 150 million Americans on TikTok today, Literat suggested that, at least for now, TikTok appears irreplaceable.

TikTok “has cemented this rolein our cultural imagination,” Literat said.”And it does have thatrole in young people’s lives,and I think it’s gonna bereally hard for a platformto just supplant that.That takes time.And, of course, users careabout where their friends are,where their peers are, and right now,they are on TikTok. So it would have to bea pretty mass migration,and I don’t see that happening yet to other platforms.” reader comments 12 with Ashley Belanger Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience. Advertisement Channel Ars Technica ← Previous story Next story → Related Stories Today on Ars

Continue Reading

Politics

High risk, high reward: Crypto perpetual futures gain momentum in US

Published

on

By

High risk, high reward: Crypto perpetual futures gain momentum in US

High risk, high reward: Crypto perpetual futures gain momentum in US

Coinbase is gearing up to launch crypto perpetual futures as the CFTC reconsiders its previous stance toward the high-risk financial products.

Continue Reading

Politics

The SEC’s staking guidance pivot is what tech-savvy regulation looks like

Published

on

By

The SEC’s staking guidance pivot is what tech-savvy regulation looks like

The SEC’s staking guidance pivot is what tech-savvy regulation looks like

The SEC’s new approach to staking is a turning point for US crypto regulation, showing that genuine, tech-savvy engagement can build smarter policy and keep blockchain innovation onshore.

Continue Reading

UK

MPs back legalising assisted dying in England and Wales after historic Commons vote

Published

on

By

MPs back legalising assisted dying in England and Wales after historic Commons vote

MPs have voted to approve a historic bill that would legalise assisted dying in England and Wales.

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was approved by 314 votes to 291 at its third reading in the House of Commons – a majority of 23.

Politics Live: MPs back legalising assisted dying in historic Commons vote

Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who proposed the legislation, was seen crying in the chamber as it went through.

Campaign group Dignity in Dying hailed the result as “a landmark moment for choice, compassion and dignity at the end of life”.

“MPs have listened to dying people, to bereaved families and to the public, and have voted decisively for the reform that our country needs and deserves,” said Sarah Wootton, its chief executive.

The bill will now go to the House of Lords, where it will face further scrutiny before becoming law.

Due to a four-year “backstop” added to the bill, it could be 2029 before assisted dying is actually offered, potentially coinciding with the end of this government’s parliament.

The bill would allow terminally ill adults with fewer than six months to live to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist.

Campaigners with Dignity in Dying protest in favour of the assisted dying Bill, in Parliament Square, central London, ahead of a debate on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in the House of Commons. Picture date: Friday June 20, 2025. PA Photo. Photo credit should read: Yui Mok/PA Wire
Image:
Campaigners with Dignity in Dying protest in favour of the assisted dying bill. Pic: PA

MPs have deliberated the proposals for months, with a vote in November passing with a bigger majority of 55.

Since then it has undergone some significant changes, the most controversial being the replacement of a High Court Judge’s approval with the expert panel.

Ms Leadbeater has always insisted her legislation would have the most robust safeguards of any assisted dying laws in the world.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

MP: ‘Surreal’ moment as assisted dying passes Commons

Opening the debate on Friday she said that opposing the bill “is not a neutral act. It is a vote for the status quo”.

She warned that if her plan was rejected, MPs would be asked to vote on it again in 10 years and “that fills me with despair”.

MPs have brought about historic societal change

A chain of events that started with the brutal murder of an MP almost 10 years ago has today led to historic societal change – the like of which many of us will never see again.

Assisted dying will be legalised in England and Wales. In four years’ time adults with six months or less to live and who can prove their mental capacity will be allowed to choose to die.

Kim Leadbeater, the MP who has made this possible, never held political aspirations. Previously a lecturer in health, Ms Leadbeater reluctantly stood for election after her sister Jo Cox was fatally stabbed and shot to death in a politically motivated attack in 2016.

And this is when, Ms Leadbeater says, she was forced to engage with the assisted dying debate. Because of the sheer volume of correspondence from constituents asking her to champion the cause.

Polls have consistently shown some 70% of people support assisted dying. And ultimately, it is this seismic shift in public opinion that has carried the vote. Britain now follows Canada, the USA, Belgium, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Australia. All countries with sophisticated health systems. Nowhere has assisted dying been reversed once introduced.

The relationship between doctor and patient will now also change. The question is being asked: Is an assisted death a treatment? There is no decisive answer. But it is a conversation that will now take place. The final answer could have significant consequences, especially in mental health settings.

There are still many unknowns. Who will be responsible for providing the service? The NHS? There is a strong emotional connection to the health service and many would oppose the move. But others will argue that patients trust the institution and would want to die in its arms.

The challenge for health leaders will be to try and reconcile the bitter divisions that now exist within the medical community. The Royal Colleges have tried to remain neutral on the issue, but continued to challenge Ms Leadbeater until the very end.

Their arguments of a failure of safeguards and scrutiny did not resonate with MPs. And nor did concerns over the further erosion of palliative care. Ms Leadbeater’s much-repeated insistence that “this is the most scrutinised legislation anywhere in the world” carried the most weight.

Her argument that patients should not have to fear prolonged, agonising deaths or plan trips to a Dignitas clinic to die scared and alone, or be forced to take their own lives and have their bodies discovered by sons, daughters, husbands and wives because they could not endure the pain any longer was compelling.

The country believed her.

The assisted dying debate was last heard in the Commons in 2015, when it was defeated by 330 votes to 118.

There have been calls for a change in the law for decades, with a campaign by broadcaster Dame Esther Rantzen giving the issue renewed attention in recent years.

Supporters have described the current law as not being fit for purpose, with desperate terminally ill people feeling the need to end their lives in secret or go abroad alone, for fear loved ones will be prosecuted for helping them.

Ahead of the vote, an hours-long emotionally charged debate heard MPs tell personal stories about their friends and family.

Maureen Burke, the Labour MP for Glasgow North East, spoke about how her terminally ill brother David was in so much pain from advanced pancreatic cancer that one of the last things he told her was that “if there was a pill that he could take to end his life, he would very much like to take that”.

She said she was “doing right by her brother” in voting for it.

How did MPs vote?

MPs were given a free vote, meaning they could vote with their conscience and not along party lines.

The division list shows Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer voted in favour of the bill, but Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch voted against.

Health Secretary Wes Streeting and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, who will have to deliver the bill, also voted no.

Read more: Find out how your MP voted

Bill ‘poorly drafted’

Opponents have raised both practical and ethical concerns, including that people could be coerced into seeking an assisted death and that the bill has been rushed through.

Veteran Labour MP Diane Abbott said she was not opposed to the principle of assisted dying but called the legislation “poorly drafted”.

Former foreign secretary James Cleverly echoed those concerns, saying he is “struck by the number of professional bodies which are neutral on the topic of assisted dying in general, but all are opposed to the provisions of this bill”.

Recently, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Pathologists and the Royal College of Physicians have raised concerns about the bill, including that there is a shortage of staff to take part in assisted dying panels.

However, public support for a change in the law remains high, according to a YouGov poll published on the eve of the vote.

The survey of 2,003 adults in Great Britain suggested 73% of those asked last month were supportive of the bill, while the proportion of people who feel assisted dying should be legal in principle stood at 75%.

Continue Reading

Trending