The Battle for TikTok Is at the Forefront of a Deeper Geopolitical Trend
Menu
हिंदी తెలుగు اردو
Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion
Support independent journalism. Donate Now
World
The Battle for TikTok Is at the Forefront of a Deeper Geopolitical Trend
Shweta Singh
44 minutes ago
US politicians worry that its owner, ByteDance, could be forced by the Chinese government to hand over American user data, or manipulate TikTok's algorithm to serve Beijing's political agenda.
Representative image of a person holding phone with the TikTok app open on it. Photo: Solen Feyissa/Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0).
Real journalism holds power accountable
Since 2015, The Wire has done just that.
But we can continue only with your support.
Contribute now
After years of mounting scrutiny over TikTok's data practices, in 2024 the Chinese video platform was threatened with a forced sale in the US or a nationwide ban. With the deadline looming on June 19, US–China tech rivalry has entered a new and more aggressive phase. TikTok vowed to fight forced divestment, claiming it would 'trample' free speech.
But what started as a controversy over data privacy now has global implications. This conflict is about more than just an app. It represents a shift in the balance of digital power — one that could redefine how nations view national security, economic sovereignty and the internet itself.
In light of my research on AI bias, algorithmic fairness, and the societal impact of digital platforms and my experience advising government on AI regulation and digital ethics, I see TikTok as the flashpoint of a broader, more dangerous trend. Digital spaces are becoming battlefronts for geopolitical influence.
TikTok has evolved from a social media app to – in the eyes of some policymakers – a digital weapon. Its massive global following has made it a cultural juggernaut. But this viral success has also made it a prime target in the escalating US-China tech war.
US politicians worry that its owner, ByteDance, could be forced by the Chinese government to hand over American user data, or manipulate TikTok's algorithm to serve Beijing's political agenda.
The concerns are serious, even if not proven. Platforms have been used to sway political sentiment before — as with Facebook in the Cambridge Analytica scandal. But TikTok is different. Its algorithm isn't like those of other social platforms that rely on a user's social graph (what you follow, who you know) to connect people, organisations and places.
Instead, TikTok uses a real-time recommendation system based on micro-interactions: how long you watch a video, whether you pause or replay it and even your swipe patterns. The result is an ultra-addictive content stream. This gives TikTok an almost unprecedented power to shape opinions, whether intentionally or not.
TikTok in the US: three possible scenarios
There are three potential outcomes for TikTok. The first is a forced sale to a US-based entity, which could satisfy lawmakers but likely provoke severe retaliation from China.
The second is a ban, which may be more symbolic than effective, but would send a strong message. The third, and perhaps most likely, is a long, drawn-out legal battle that results in a stalemate. Trump seems set to extend the June 19 deadline, after all.
But there's a deeper issue here. The world is becoming increasingly divided along digital lines. The US and China are building rival digital ecosystems, each suspicious of the other's platforms.
Like past restrictions on Huawei and Nvidia chip exports, this case signals how national security and economic policy are merging in the digital age. This threatens to splinter the internet, with countries choosing sides for their suppliers based on political and economic allegiances rather than technical merit.
For China, TikTok is a symbol of national pride. It's one of the few Chinese apps to achieve global success and become a household name in western markets. Forcing ByteDance to sell TikTok, or banning it, could be seen as an affront to China's ambitions on the global digital stage. It's no longer just about a platform — it's about control over the future of technology.
TikTok's defenders argue that banning the app would undermine free speech, stifle creativity and unfairly target a foreign-owned platform. These concerns are valid, but the broader landscape of digital platforms is far from straightforward.
Other platforms have faced criticism over allegations of spreading misinformation, amplifying bias and contributing to social harm. However, the key distinction with TikTok lies in its algorithm and its ability to sway opinions on a global scale.
TikTok's 'for you' feed tracks micro-interactions, serving up personalised content with an addictive intensity. As a result, users can find themselves pulled deeper into curated content streams without realising the extent to which their preferences are being shaped.
While its competitors might be able to spread misinformation and stoke division in more traditional ways, TikTok could potentially do so through the finely tuned manipulation of the user's attention. This is a potent tool in the world of digital politics.
It also raises critical questions about how the US approaches regulation. Is TikTok a genuine national security threat or simply a symbol of the growing strategic competition between two superpowers?
Rather than relying on bans and trade wars, what is needed is robust, cross-border frameworks that prioritise transparency, data protection, algorithmic accountability and the mitigation of online harms.
Concerns about harassment, disinformation, addictive design and algorithms that amplify toxic content are not unique to TikTok. US legislation such as the Kids Online Safety Act and the proposed Platform Accountability and Transparency Act signal growing concern. But these efforts remain piecemeal.
The EU's Digital Services Act is a welcome model for accountability. But global coordination is now essential. Without it, there is the risk of further fragmentation of the internet (what has been called the 'splinternet' — where access is determined by geopolitics rather than universal principles).
The digital world has long been dominated by a handful of powerful corporations. Now it is increasingly shaped by state rivalries. The battle over TikTok is a harbinger of deeper tensions around how data, influence and trust are distributed online.
The real question now is not whether TikTok survives, but whether nations can craft a digital future that prioritises democratic values, cross-border collaboration and the public good. This isn't just about national security or free speech. It's a defining moment in the battle for the future of the internet.
This article was originally published on The Conversation.
The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
Make a contribution to Independent Journalism
Related News
Two Systems, Two Spheres: The Slow, Painful Divorce of the US and China
Weakened Russia, Rising China and an Unsteady US: A Strategic Triangle That India Must Navigate
China Agrees to Supply US With Rare Earths: Trump
US-China Trade Talks to Move Forward After Trump-Xi Call
Officials of ED Are Evolving by Expanding Their Powers Day by Day: Madras HC
Post Op Sindoor, Experts Say India Should Look Beyond Traditional Suppliers For Defence Procurement
'Same Sex Marriage Not Legalised But Couples Can Very Well Form A Family': Madras HC
Number of Companies Awaiting Licences From China For Importing Rare-Earth Magnets Double in Two Weeks
LA Protests: Trump's Decision to Deploy Military Criticised, California Governor Terms Move 'Deranged'
About Us
Contact Us
Support Us
© Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
13 minutes ago
- News18
Iranians Must Reverse Their History For Redemption
Iranians have never been themselves since they ceased to be Persians, but it's never too late to reverse history. Now is the time On June 18, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a stark warning to the United States, declaring, 'Iran will never surrender". He said any American intervention in the ongoing Israel-Iran conflict would result in 'irreparable damage". He further vowed that Israel would face punishment, marking the sixth day of an unprecedented aerial war that has claimed hundreds of lives and targeted critical infrastructure across Iran. Indeed, Iran is proving no mean force in the conflict, as Tel Aviv, ravaged by Iranian missiles, bears witness to. Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), forged in the Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988), may be weakened but not eradicated. The defiant Iranian stance comes amid escalating tensions in West Asia, fuelled by inflammatory remarks from US President Donald Trump and Israel's initiation of a relentless bombing campaign, including strikes on Tehran's nuclear and military facilities. As Israel targets a generation tied to the 1979 revolution, it needs to be seen whether resident Iranians would turn pro-US, as the Iranian diaspora has. Does Khamenei's tough talk echo a broader narrative about the resilience of his nation and its people? Nations are fundamentally defined by their natives, some of whom possess an indomitable spirit that defies defeat, even if they cannot always be ruled. Do Iranians have it in them? Certain peoples of certain lands cannot be defeated, only ruled with difficulty, as evident in Iran's current defiance amid extreme adversity. Russians, for example, fight like they play football — no great technique but brute force and sheer tenacity. The more they get killed, the more soldiers they send to the battlefield, as Stalingrad witnessed towards the end of WWII! Afghans and some Africans can be defeated but not ruled over. They will stay as anarchic as they have always been, whether under democracy, communism, monarchy or dictatorship. It's the essential culture that cannot be defeated in India. Even under some foreign influence, its basic Hindu nature cannot be obliterated. Is the Iranian mind similarly shaped? One is not sure. On the one hand, the Iranian diaspora is longing for assimilation with American society, their four-decade-old home. On the other, the world hardly gets to hear voices from resident Iranians, but have they been any better? IRANIANS HAVE HISTORICALLY BEEN GULLIBLE Iran's history offers a complex backdrop to the question. Once the heart of the Persian Empire and a bastion of Zoroastrianism under the Sasanian Empire (224–651 CE), Iran underwent a profound transformation following the Arab Muslim invasion in 651 CE. The rise of Islam led to a steep decline in Zoroastrian followers, with their numbers dwindling to between 15,000 and 25,000 by 2012 in a population exceeding 82 million. The imposition of the jizyah tax and restrictive dhimmī laws under the Abbasids forced many Zoroastrians to convert or flee and seek refuge in India. This historical shift marked the beginning of Iran's transition from Persia to an Islamic identity, a change that was accelerated by foreign influences rather than an organic evolution. The 20th century brought further upheaval. The Pahlavi dynasty, particularly under Mohammad Reza Shah, sought to revive Iran's pre-Islamic heritage, valuing Zoroastrian contributions and enacting reforms to elevate minority status. However, the 1979 Islamic Revolution, led by Khomeini — backed by the CIA that went to the extent of hiring Saddam Hussein to assassinate the Shah, an attempt that failed — reversed these efforts, establishing a theocratic regime that suppressed secular and pre-Islamic traditions. This 'revolution' saw many Iranians — much like Kashmiri Pandits from the Kashmir valley since the reign of Sikandar Shah Miri (alias Butshikan) — flee abroad, diluting their cultural practices in diaspora. A contemporary dimension of this identity struggle must be highlighted: The role of US intervention. Recent protests, such as those sparked by Mahsa Amini's death in 2022 over the mandatory hijab law, were amplified by Western media and the Pentagon's propaganda machine as a ploy to undermine Iran's theocracy. While these protests symbolised resistance — women burning hijabs and cutting their hair in public — they subsided perhaps when the US deemed the ploy insufficient to topple the regime. Washington must be asked why it stopped echoing the voices of 'suppressed' Iranian women? Has the mission to free them been accomplished? Contrary to the media narrative, Iranian women are among the 'free-est" in the Islamic world, with minimal police action against hijab violations in rural areas, challenging the narrative pushed by some US-based Iranians who celebrate Israeli attacks. IRAN MUST TURN AROUND Drawing parallels with the tenacity of Russians, the anarchic resilience of Afghans and the enduring Hindu essence of Indian culture, a critical question must be raised about Iranians: Are they as resolute? Why did the people of Iran lose their pre-Islamic Persian identity, for example, not resisting the Abbasid invaders? If, today, some Iranian-Americans are praying for an end to the Islamic regime, have they forgotten that the country they are domiciled in now is the country that had orchestrated the fall of the Shah and replaced the secular leader with Ayatollah Khomeini in 1977-79? Are the Iranians destined to remain pawns in a geopolitical chess game forever? Will this pattern of foreign exploitation, where Iran's internal dissent is co-opted for geopolitical gain, reverse now, even after the dismantling of Iran's proxies, such as Hezbollah and the Assad regime in Syria, which has left Tehran vulnerable? Will the historically non-existent resilience of Iranians prove a wildcard? Iran's future hinges on its people's ability to reconcile their Persian and Islamic identities. To whatever extent the Mahsa Amini protests were true, external manipulation notwithstanding, it reflected a genuine yearning for freedom, aligning with a broader rejection of theocratic rule. The caveat that must be issued here is that US-backed regime changes warn against external solutions. Look at the pattern of American interventions wherever they succeeded: The US 'lost' Vietnam which was, thus, spared the horror. One of the worst students of the respective sociologies of other nations, the Americans have always left a nation-state they interfered in worse off when they left. Iran's liberation, if it comes, must depend on an internal awakening, drawing on its Zoroastrian and Persian roots, much like India's enduring Hindu culture. Speaking from an Indian perspective, neither the continuation of the pro-Pakistan, Islamist Iran that conventionally voted against New Delhi in UN forums on the question of Kashmir, nor a US-backed government that would never let India into the Chabahar port to counterbalance the Sino-Pakistani Gwadar port, is good. A CALL FOR SELF-DETERMINATION top videos View all As the aerial war rages and Khamenei's words resonate, Iran stands at a crossroads. If its people find resilience that they never did in the past, the world may get back glorious Persia, the people of which were essentially farmers but whose king build roads and ports, the language of which was influenced by fellow Indo-European Sanskrit, the science of which made one wonder how it could turn into an Islamic fundamentalist regime, and the economy of which, supported by King Darius' standardised currency, traded goods with India, China and the Roman Empire. (The author is a senior journalist and writer. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views) tags : Israel Iran tension Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: June 22, 2025, 20:39 IST News opinion Opinion | Iranians Must Reverse Their History For Redemption
NDTV
14 minutes ago
- NDTV
Despite Clashes With US Presidents, Netanyahu Usually Gets His Way
Jerusalem: A little over a month ago, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared to have been shunted to the shadows by US President Donald Trump, who hopscotched the Middle East without visiting Israel, traditionally Washington's closest regional ally. Worse still, from Netanyahu's perspective, Trump lifted sanctions on neighbouring Syria - something Israel opposed - and talked up the prospects of securing a nuclear deal with Iran, something the prime minister has always cautioned against. Fast forward five weeks and the United States has bombed Iran's main nuclear installations, fulfilling a decades-old dream of Netanyahu to convince Washington to bring its full military might to thwart Tehran's atomic ambitions. The US attack underscores a broader truth that has defined Netanyahu's career: no matter how fraught his relationships with successive presidents, he normally ends up getting what he wants. For over three decades, Netanyahu has clashed - often spectacularly - with American leaders. He has lectured them, defied them, embarrassed them publicly and privately. And yet, across Democratic and Republican administrations, US military aid has flowed largely uninterrupted to Israel. Washington remains Israel's chief arms supplier and diplomatic shield. "He probably has concluded that he always gets away with it," said a senior United Nations official in Jerusalem who declined to be named. "It's hard to argue otherwise." Just one month ago, opposition leader Yair Lapid accused Netanyahu of destroying Israel's relations with the United States. This weekend's action represents the closest US-Israeli military alignment yet against a common adversary. Withstanding Pressure Netanyahu's belief in his ability to advance his agenda, and withstand American pressure when needed, has deep roots. Barely a month after becoming prime minister for the first time in 1996, he met President Bill Clinton in Washington and immediately rubbed him up the wrong way. "Who the f--- does he think he is? Who's the f---ing superpower here?" Clinton asked his aides afterwards, according to US diplomat Aaron David Miller, who was present. But vital US aid to Israel continued to flow - something that would remain a constant over the years. Netanyahu was voted out of office in a 1999 election and did not return to power until a decade later, by which time Barack Obama, a Democrat like Clinton, was in the White House. Relations between the two turned openly hostile, initially over Israeli settlement building in occupied territory that Palestinians claim for a future stake - a constant thorn in US-Israeli relations. Matters deteriorated further as Obama entered negotiations with Iran to curb its nuclear drive - a project that Israel said is aimed at creating atomic bombs and that Tehran has said is for purely civilian purposes. Netanyahu spoke to Congress in 2015 at the invitation of Republicans to denounce the prospective deal, without informing the White House. "(The accord) doesn't block Iran's path to the bomb; it paves Iran's path to the bomb," he said. Obama was widely reported to have been furious, but still, the following year Washington delivered the largest military aid package to Israel in US history - $38 billion over 10 years. Political analysts say Netanyahu takes US support as a given, confident that backing from evangelical Christians and the small Jewish-American community will guarantee that Israel remains well-armed, however much he antagonises the White House. Convincing Trump When Hamas militants launched a surprise attack on Israel in October 2023, then-President Joe Biden flew to Israel to show his support, authorising a huge flow of weapons to help with the conflict unleashed in Gaza. But relations between Netanyahu, a right-winger, and Biden, a Democrat, deteriorated rapidly, as Washington grew alarmed by the spiralling number of civilian deaths and the burgeoning humanitarian crisis in the Palestinian enclave. Biden held back on some heavy munitions deliveries and imposed sanctions on a number of violent Israeli settlers, so his defeat at the hands of Trump in last November's presidential election was celebrated by Netanyahu. Finally, he had a Republican in office at a crucial moment for Israel. However, things did not go smoothly, at least to start with. Like Biden before him, Trump was unhappy at the protracted conflict in Gaza and then he blindsided Netanyahu during a meeting on April 7, when he revealed that he was launching direct talks with Tehran aimed at finding a diplomatic solution to the protracted nuclear stand-off with Iran. But while Trump publicly positioned himself as a peacemaker, Netanyahu consistently pushed for military intervention. Although it is unclear if Netanyahu ever got him to say "yes" to Israel's war plans, it was at least not a "no", according to two senior US officials and a senior Israeli source. As soon as Israel launched its aerial war on Iran in the early hours of June 13, Israel pushed the United States to join in, urging Trump to be on the winning side of history, two Israeli officials said last week. "Mr President, Finish the job!" read large billboards that have popped up in Tel Aviv. The sense of relief when the US bombers struck Iran's most protected nuclear sites on Sunday was palpable. "Congratulations, President Trump. Your bold decision to target Iran's nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might of the United States will change history," Netanyahu said in a brief video address. "May God bless our unshakeable alliance, our unbreakable faith," he concluded.
New Indian Express
16 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
US strikes on Iran mark a dangerous turning point for the region and the world: Here's why
NEW DELHI: The American airstrikes targeting Natanz, Isfahan, and the fortified Fordow facility in Iran represent a dramatic escalation in the region's tensions. This could reshape the geopolitical landscape of West Asia, with wide-ranging consequences for diplomacy, regional stability, global oil markets, and India's energy security. What Are Iran's Options Now? Iran has several possible responses, each fraught with risk: Diplomatic De-escalation Iran could return to negotiations, potentially under the framework of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which the Trump administration previously abandoned. However, this route faces resistance from Iran's hardliners, who view the U.S. strikes as a humiliation and a betrayal of diplomacy. Tehran could also withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Closure of the Strait of Hormuz Iran's most potent non-military leverage is the Strait of Hormuz—a narrow maritime chokepoint through which over 20 million barrels of oil and a large volume of liquefied natural gas (LNG) pass daily. Iranian parliament has backed the proposal to close the strait while the final decision is yet to be made by Iran's top security body. The closure of Hormuz could trigger an oil price surge and widespread economic ripple effects. But this move would also harm Iran. Its own oil exports pass through Hormuz, and a closure would likely provoke military responses from Gulf Arab states and lead to further Western sanctions. Still, the threat alone could cause panic in energy markets. Military Counterstrike A more dangerous path is retaliation. Iran's military and political leadership have warned of striking U.S. military bases and naval assets in the region. Hossein Shariatmadari, editor of the hardline Kayhan newspaper, stated ominously: 'It is now our turn.' Iran possesses short-range ballistic missiles, drones, and naval assets that could be used in asymmetric attacks. The U.S., anticipating a reaction, has dispersed its forces and bolstered regional air defenses.
