A ban on TikTok went into effect on January 19—the day before President Trump’s inauguration—after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the company’s appeal. Despite initially pushing for a ban during his first administration, Trump vowed to try to save the company from the ban imposed by the Biden administration.

As part of his effort, Trump issued an executive order providing TikTok a 75-day reprieve and ordering the Attorney General to send letters to companies indemnifying them from any liability for continuing to provide access to TikTok.

I further order the Attorney General to issue a letter to each provider stating that there has been no violation of the statute and that there is no liability for any conduct that occurred during the above-specified period, as well as for any conduct from the effective date of the Act until the issuance of this Executive Order.

According to Bloomberg’s Mark Gurman, Apple has received such a letter and reinstated TikTok in response.

The app can already be found on the App Store.

Linux is the most popular operating systems for data centers, web servers, cloud platforms, and other servers. The OS is also growing on the desktop, closing in on 5% market share. For perspective, Linux has roughly the same share of the desktop market as Apple had in 2009.

Despite its popularity, and despite the fact that Facebook’s entire infrastructure is powered by Linux, Facebook is apparently labeling Linux as malware, banning posts, and taking a hostile approach to Linux user groups.

DistroWatch—a popular site that tracks the popularity of various Linux distros and provides information about the software they contain—discussed the development in a post on its site.

Starting on January 19, 2025 Facebook’s internal policy makers decided that Linux is malware and labelled groups associated with Linux as being “cybersecurity threats”. Any posts mentioning DistroWatch and multiple groups associated with Linux and Linux discussions have either been shut down or had many of their posts removed.

We’ve been hearing all week from readers who say they can no longer post about Linux on Facebook or share links to DistroWatch. Some people have reported their accounts have been locked or limited for posting about Linux.

The sad irony here is that Facebook runs much of its infrastructure on Linux and often posts job ads looking for Linux developers.

Unfortunately, there isn’t anything we can do about this, apart from advising people to get their Linux-related information from sources other than Facebook. I’ve tried to appeal the ban and was told the next day that Linux-related material is staying on the cybersecurity filter. My Facebook account was also locked for my efforts.

The site says users should rely on its RSS news feeds, its weekly newsletters, as well as its new Mastodon account.

The bigger issue is why Facebook is suddenly treating one of the most important operating systems as malware and blocking links to a legitimate, informative website.

When TikTok first faced prospects of a ban under the first Trump administration, Oracle emerged as the likely candidate to take over the platform, along with Walmart. The ban went nowhere and was eventually abandoned, only to be successfully implemented by the Biden administration. TikTok appealed the ban, unsuccessfully fighting its case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Despite originally supporting a ban, President Trump did an about-face, vowing to help save the company from a ban. Shortly after taking office for the second time, Trump issued a 75-day hold, ordering the Attorney General not to enforce the ban during the 75-day reprieve.

According to an NPR exclusive, Oracle is once again taking the lead in a potential takeover of TikTok’s operations. Interestingly, NPR reports that Oracle, along with a group of investors, is in talks to “effectively take control of the app’s global operations.”

“The goal is for Oracle to effectively monitor and provide oversight with what is going on with TikTok,” a person directly involved in the talks told the outlet. “ByteDance wouldn’t completely go away, but it would minimize Chinese ownership.”

Interestingly, the reported talks are a substantial change from what Trump initially proposed. In a Truth Social the day before his inauguration, Trump spoke of a 50-50 ownership solution.

I would like the United States to have a 50% ownership position in a joint venture. By doing this, we save TikTok, keep it in good hands and allow it to say up. Without U.S. approval, there is no Tik Tok. With our approval, it is worth hundreds of billions of dollars – maybe trillions.

Therefore, my initial thought is a joint venture between the current owners and/or new owners whereby the U.S. gets a 50% ownership in a joint venture set up between the U.S. and whichever purchase we so choose.

If NPR’s source is correct, the current talks could be a much tougher sell since China has made clear in the past that it will not allow TikTok to come under U.S. control. While Beijing may conceivably be open to a joint ownership scenario, it’s hard to believe it will be OK with the terms currently being discussed.

Why Oracle Is a Terrifying Option

National security and concerns over Beijing’s access to Americans’ data are the driving issues behind the ongoing TikTok ban efforts. Unfortunately, privacy advocates should be as concerned, if not more so, at the thought of Oracle being involved.

While Oracle is a well-respected U.S. company, a leading cloud and database provider, and is playing a significant roll in powering AI infrastructure, founder Larry Ellison has endorsed ideas that can only be described as 1984-style mass surveillance.

In a company financial meeting in late 2024, Ellison described his vision, using police body cameras as an example. He describes scenarios where an office would need to turn off the camera, such as when using the restroom, saying the cameras would continue to record and simply be labeled ‘private.’

“The police will be on their best behavior because we’re constantly recording and watching everything that’s going on,” Ellison said. “Citizens will be on their best behavior, because we’re constantly recording everything that is going on. And it’s unimpeachable. The cars have cameras on them. We’re using AI to monitor the video.

“It’s not people that are looking at those cameras; it’s AI that’s looking at the cameras.”

Unfortunately, Ellison is not an outlier within Oracle, in terms of his views on surveillance. The company has a history of being accused of mass surveillance, facing a class action lawsuit in 2022. In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs say the company worked to surveil people, with no regard for whether they were Oracle customers or not.

According to Ellison, the purpose of Oracle ID Graph is to predict and influence the future behavior of billions of people. He explained Oracle could achieve this goal by looking at social activity and locations in real time, including “micro location[s].” For example, Ellison has represented that companies will be able to know how much time someone spends in a specific aisle of a specific store and what is in the aisle of the store. “By collecting this data and marrying it to things like micro location information, Internet users’ search histories, websites visits and product comparisons along with their demographic data, and past purchase data, Oracle will be able to predict purchase intent better than anyone.”

Oracle and TikTok Is a Match Made In Privacy Hell

If Oracle is allowed to gain control over TikTok and its data, it could put the company in a terrifying position to move forward with additional surveillance.

TikTok, like all mainstream social media platforms, offers a goldmine of user data. If the lawsuit against Oracle is accurate, and the company is working to surveil even those who are not customers, having control over a major social media platform would help the company do just that. As a result, there are few companies that pose a more terrifying scenario for TikTok ownership than Oracle.

Ultimately, the controversy surrounding TikTok underscores the importance of BlueSky, Mastodon, and other open social media networks.

LinkedIn is owned by Microsoft, a company that is rushing to implement AI across its various platforms. Much like its parent company, LinkedIn has been increasingly rolling out AI features aimed at helping people find jobs, improve their resumes, and more.

As Reuters reports, a proposed class action lawsuit says LinkedIn quietly rolled out a new preference in August that allowed users to enable or block the company from using their personal data to train AI models. The following month, on September 18, LinkedIn changed its privacy policy and FAQ to clarify that opting out would “not affect training that has already taken place.”

The lawsuit says LinkedIn shared private data, including InMail messages, to third parties so that it could be used to train AI. What’s more, as Reuters highlights, the lawsuit says LinkedIn’s updated privacy policy and FAQ is an effort to “cover its tracks” and demonstrates that the company knew it had crossed the line, especially in its promise to only use customer data to improve the platform and provide support.

LinkedIn denies the claims, saying: “These are false claims with no merit.”

Trump told NBC News that he would consider a 90-day extension of the ban that the United States Supreme Court upheld just days before the January 19 ban went into effect.

“I think that would be, certainly, an option that we look at. The 90-day extension is something that will be most likely done, because it’s appropriate. You know, it’s appropriate. We have to look at it carefully. It’s a very big situation,” Trump said the day before the ban.

In one of his first executive orders, Trump outlined his plan for a 75-day reprieve.

I have the unique constitutional responsibility for the national security of the United States, the conduct of foreign policy, and other vital executive functions. To fulfill those responsibilities, I intend to consult with my advisors, including the heads of relevant departments and agencies on the national security concerns posed by TikTok, and to pursue a resolution that protects national security while saving a platform used by 170 million Americans. My Administration must also review sensitive intelligence related to those concerns and evaluate the sufficiency of mitigation measures TikTok has taken to date.

The unfortunate timing of section 2(a) of the Act — one day before I took office as the 47th President of the United States — interferes with my ability to assess the national security and foreign policy implications of the Act’s prohibitions before they take effect. This timing also interferes with my ability to negotiate a resolution to avoid an abrupt shutdown of the TikTok platform while addressing national security concerns. Accordingly, I am instructing the Attorney General not to take any action to enforce the Act for a period of 75 days from today to allow my Administration an opportunity to determine the appropriate course forward in an orderly way that protects national security while avoiding an abrupt shutdown of a communications platform used by millions of Americans.

Trump goes on to say that the Attorney General will issue letters to providers guaranteeing they will not incur any liability for helping TikTok remain operational in the US.

I further order the Attorney General to issue a letter to each provider stating that there has been no violation of the statute and that there is no liability for any conduct that occurred during the above-specified period, as well as for any conduct from the effective date of the Act until the issuance of this Executive Order.

It’s unclear if TikTok can be saved. Although its stance appears to be softening, China has historically been bitterly opposed to any deal that would see ByteDance divest TikTok’s US operations. In contrast, Trump is pushing for at least a joint, 50-50 ownership of TikTok.

TikTok endured one of the shortest bans in US history, with it shuttering its service in the US as the ban went into effect on January 19, only to begin operation again in response to President Trump throwing it a lifeline.

“I think that would be, certainly, an option that we look at. The 90-day extension is something that will be most likely done, because it’s appropriate. You know, it’s appropriate. We have to look at it carefully. It’s a very big situation,” Trump told NBC News in a phone interview.

“If I decide to do that, I’ll probably announce it on Monday,” he added.

On his Truth Social platform, Trump assured companies there would be no repercussions for helping to keep TikTok functional until he could grant the 90-day reprieve. He also held out the option of entering a joint ownership agreement, in which the US would gain a 50% ownership of the platform.

I’m asking companies not to let TikTok stay dark! I will issue an executive order on Monday to extend the period of time before the law’s prohibitions take effect, so that we can make a deal to protect our national security. The order will also confirm that there will be no liability for any company that helped keep TikTok from going dark before my order.

Americans deserve to see our exciting Inauguration on Monday, as well as other events and conversations.

I would like the United States to have a 50% ownership position in a joint venture. By doing this, we save TikTok, keep it in good hands and allow it to say up. Without U.S. approval, there is no Tik Tok. With our approval, it is worth hundreds of billions of dollars – maybe trillions.

Therefore, my initial thought is a joint venture between the current owners and/or new owners whereby the U.S. gets a 50% ownership in a joint venture set up between the U.S. and whichever purchase we so choose.

China’s Response

In response to Trump’s post, China Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Mao Ning signaled the country may be open to a deal, in response to a question by Reuters.

TikTok has operated in the US for years and been very popular with American users. It has played a positive role in boosting US employment and consumption. We hope the US will earnestly listen to the voice of reason and provide an open, fair, just and non-discriminatory business environment for market entities from all countries. When it comes to actions such as the operation and acquisition of businesses, we believe they should be independently decided by companies in accordance with market principles. If it involves Chinese companies, China’s laws and regulations should be observed.

Mao Ning’s response is hardly a full endorsement of a possible deal, but it’s a far cry from China’s previous hardline stance that it would never allow TikTok to be sold, or any ownership be transferred to the US. The statements appears to be a definite softening of China’s previous stance.

The U.S Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia had previously denied an appeal by TikTok challenging the ban passed by lawmakers. The ban is scheduled to go into effect January 19. The Chinese company brought its case to the Supreme Court, but SCOTUS has upheld the ban, shooting down the company’s First Amendment argument.

“There is no doubt that, for more than 170 million Americans, TikTok offers a distinctive and expansive outlet for expression, means of engagement, and source of community,” the justices wrote in an unsigned opinion, via Deadline. “But Congress has determined that divestiture is necessary to address its well-supported national security concerns regarding TikTok’s data collection practices and relationship with a foreign adversary. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the challenged provisions do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.”

The legislation, Protecting Americans from Foreign Controlled Applications Act, was passed with bipartisan support and signed into law by President Biden in 2024. The legislation capped a multi-year effort by both the Trump and Biden administrations to ban the Chinese social media platform.

Lawmakers, governmetn officials, and intelligence agencies have grown increasingly concerned about TikTok, both from a privacy and national security standpoint. ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company, used the platform to surveil Forbes journalists. The company has faced multiple lawsuits for violating the privacy of children, and the company is accused of having an uncomfortably close relationship with Beijing. Lawmakers have also accused the platform of fostering election misinformation.

The Donald Trump Factor

Despite being the one who first pushed for a ban on TikTok, Trump has seemingly done an about-face and wants to work out a deal to keep the app operational in the U.S.

In posts on his Truth Social network, Trump said he had spoken Chairman Xi Jinping about a number of topics, including TikTok.

I just spoke to Chairman Xi Jinping of China. The call was a very good one for both China and the U.S.A. It is my expectation that we will solve many problems together, and starting immediately. We discussed balancing Trade, Fentanyl, TikTok, and many other subjects. President Xi and I will do everything possible to make the World more peaceful and safe!

While Trump has been more vocal in recent weeks about his desire to strike a deal to save TikTok, he was measured in his response to the Supreme Court’s decision, saying he would need time to review the options.

The Supreme Court decision was expected, and everyone must respect it. My decision on TikTok will be made in the not too distant future, but I must have time to review the situation. Stay tuned!

In a note seen by Bloomberg News, CEO Mark Zuckerberg said the company was raising the performance bar and accelerating efforts to remove employees who didn’t meet expectation.

“I’ve decided to raise the bar on performance management and move out low-performers faster,” Zuckerberg said in the note.

“We typically manage out people who aren’t meeting expectations over the course of a year,” he added, “but now we’re going to do more extensive performance-based cuts during this cycle.”

Meta is reportedly targeting a 5% reduction, which would equal approximately 3,600 jobs.

The job cuts fall under “non-regrettable” attrition, the term used for losing employees who are not contributing to a company’s well-being, and whose departure may actually be a net positive. As Bloomberg reports, Meta is targeting a 10% non-regrettable attrition rate for the current performance cycle, a goal that includes 5% from last year.

“This means we are aiming to exit approximately another 5% of our current employees who have been with the company long enough to receive a performance rating,” the company said in a separate note to managers.

Zuckerberg did say that existing employees would receive a “generous severance.”

Many tech companies over-hired during the pandemic and have been working to scale back in the aftermath. Meta is working to position itself for a critical year in which it will be facing new and evolving threats, from regulation to AI. Eliminating roles that are not helping the company is clearly a big part of that endeavor.

On the eve of Trump’s second term as President, Meta is making major changes to its moderation policies. In a blog post announcing the changes, Chief Global Affirs Officer Joel Kaplan framed them in the context of returning the platform to its free speech roots.

In his 2019 speech at Georgetown University, Mark Zuckerberg argued that free expression has been the driving force behind progress in American society and around the world and that inhibiting speech, however well-intentioned the reasons for doing so, often reinforces existing institutions and power structures instead of empowering people. He said: “Some people believe giving more people a voice is driving division rather than bringing us together. More people across the spectrum believe that achieving the political outcomes they think matter is more important than every person having a voice. I think that’s dangerous.”

In recent years we’ve developed increasingly complex systems to manage content across our platforms, partly in response to societal and political pressure to moderate content. This approach has gone too far. As well-intentioned as many of these efforts have been, they have expanded over time to the point where we are making too many mistakes, frustrating our users and too often getting in the way of the free expression we set out to enable. Too much harmless content gets censored, too many people find themselves wrongly locked up in “Facebook jail,” and we are often too slow to respond when they do.

We want to fix that and return to that fundamental commitment to free expression. Today, we’re making some changes to stay true to that ideal.

Kaplan goes on to say that the company’s attempts to fact check didn’t turn out as it hoped, with bias creeping in.

When we launched our independent fact checking program in 2016, we were very clear that we didn’t want to be the arbiters of truth. We made what we thought was the best and most reasonable choice at the time, which was to hand that responsibility over to independent fact checking organizations. The intention of the program was to have these independent experts give people more information about the things they see online, particularly viral hoaxes, so they were able to judge for themselves what they saw and read.

That’s not the way things played out, especially in the United States. Experts, like everyone else, have their own biases and perspectives. This showed up in the choices some made about what to fact check and how. Over time we ended up with too much content being fact checked that people would understand to be legitimate political speech and debate. Our system then attached real consequences in the form of intrusive labels and reduced distribution. A program intended to inform too often became a tool to censor.

We are now changing this approach. We will end the current third party fact checking program in the United States and instead begin moving to a Community Notes program. We’ve seen this approach work on X – where they empower their community to decide when posts are potentially misleading and need more context, and people across a diverse range of perspectives decide what sort of context is helpful for other users to see. We think this could be a better way of achieving our original intention of providing people with information about what they’re seeing – and one that’s less prone to bias.

Kaplan says the company will roll out Community Notes in the coming months and “stop demoting fact checked content.” Instead, the company will show “a much less obtrusive label indicating that there is additional information for those who want to see it.”

Return to Free Speech Roots

Meta is removing some of its existing restrictions on some types of content, instead focusing its moderation efforts on illegal content.

For example, in December 2024, we removed millions of pieces of content every day. While these actions account for less than 1% of content produced every day, we think one to two out of every 10 of these actions may have been mistakes (i.e., the content may not have actually violated our policies). This does not account for actions we take to tackle large-scale adversarial spam attacks. We plan to expand our transparency reporting to share numbers on our mistakes on a regular basis so that people can track our progress. As part of that we’ll also include more details on the mistakes we make when enforcing our spam policies.

We want to undo the mission creep that has made our rules too restrictive and too prone to over-enforcement. We’re getting rid of a number of restrictions on topics like immigration, gender identity and gender that are the subject of frequent political discourse and debate. It’s not right that things can be said on TV or the floor of Congress, but not on our platforms. These policy changes may take a few weeks to be fully implemented.

We’re also going to change how we enforce our policies to reduce the kind of mistakes that account for the vast majority of the censorship on our platforms. Up until now, we have been using automated systems to scan for all policy violations, but this has resulted in too many mistakes and too much content being censored that shouldn’t have been. So, we’re going to continue to focus these systems on tackling illegal and high-severity violations, like terrorism, child sexual exploitation, drugs, fraud and scams.

Changes to Political Moderation

Meta is also making significant changes to how it handles political content after the company started limiting such content in 2021.

Since 2021, we’ve made changes to reduce the amount of civic content people see – posts about elections, politics or social issues – based on the feedback our users gave us that they wanted to see less of this content. But this was a pretty blunt approach. We are going to start phasing this back into Facebook, Instagram and Threads with a more personalized approach so that people who want to see more political content in their feeds can.

We’re continually testing how we deliver personalized experiences and have recently conducted testing around civic content. As a result, we’re going to start treating civic content from people and Pages you follow on Facebook more like any other content in your feed, and we will start ranking and showing you that content based on explicit signals (for example, liking a piece of content) and implicit signals (like viewing posts) that help us predict what’s meaningful to people. We are also going to recommend more political content based on these personalized signals and are expanding the options people have to control how much of this content they see.

Meta’s changes are a significant about-face for the company. While Kaplan frames the changes in the context of free speech, it is hard to dismiss the likelihood that such changes are being made in preparation for Trump’s second term.

Meta and other social media platforms drew strong criticism and threats from Trump and conservatives during the first Trump administration. Ever the salesman, Trump has a well-established reputation for making hard-to-prove claims, as well as ones that are factually incorrect. As a result, he has been a vocal opponent of platforms’ fact-checking, with conservatives at large accusing Meta and other companies of censorship.

Only time will tell if Meta’s changes are enough to placate Trump and keep the company out of the administration’s crosshairs.

The US passed legislation giving parent company ByteDance until January 19 to sell the app’s US business to an American company or be banned. The ban was passed over concerns regarding national security, as ByteDance and TikTok are Chinese companies. As such, the companies are required to cooperate with Beijing’s espionage efforts. In addition to ties to Beijing, ByteDance and TikTok have been involved in one privacy scandal after another, showing little to nor regard for user privacy.

Calls for a ban first began during Trump’s first administration. While those attempts were unsuccessful, the Biden administration succeeded in passing the ban. TikTok has appealed, but U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the ban, shooting down the company’s argument that the ban infringes free speech.

Trump’s Appeal

In the midst of TikTok appealing to SCOTUS, Trump has filed a motion asking the court to hold off on a ruling. In the ruling, Trump’s attorneys argue that the President-elect has a First Amendment concern with the case.

Amicus curiae President Donald J. Trump (“President Trump”) is the 45th and soon to be the 47th President of the United States of America. On January 20, 2025, President Trump will assume responsibility for the United States’ national security, foreign policy, and other vital executive functions. This case presents an unprecedented, novel, and difficult tension between free-speech rights on one side, and foreign policy and national-security concerns on the other. As the incoming Chief Executive, President Trump has a particularly powerful interest in and responsibility for those national-security and foreign-policy questions, and he is the right constitutional actor to resolve the dispute through political means.

President Trump also has a unique interest in the First Amendment issues raised in this case. Through his historic victory on November 5, 2024, President Trump received a powerful electoral mandate from American voters to protect the free-speech rights of all Americans—including the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. President Trump is uniquely situated to vindicate these interests, because “the President and the Vice President of the United States are the only elected officials who represent all the voters in the Nation.” Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 795 (1983).

Moreover, President Trump is one of the most powerful, prolific, and influential users of social media in history. Consistent with his commanding presence in this area, President Trump currently has 14.7 million followers on TikTok with whom he actively communicates, allowing him to evaluate TikTok’s importance as a unique medium for freedom of expression, including core political speech. Indeed, President Trump and his rival both used TikTok to connect with voters during the recent Presidential election campaign, with President Trump doing so much more effectively. As this Court instructs, the First Amendment’s “constitutional guarantee has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office.” Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 162 (2014) (quoting Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265, 272 (1971)).

The brief goes on to tout Trump’s experience as founder of Truth Social—while also overstating its success as “resoundingly successful”—as something that gives him perspective on the case.

Further, President Trump is the founder of another resoundingly successful social-media platform, Truth Social. This gives him an in-depth perspective on the extraordinary government power attempted to be exercised in this case—the power of the federal government to effectively shut down a social-media platform favored by tens of millions of Americans, based in large part on concerns about disfavored content on that platform. President Trump is keenly aware of the historic dangers presented by such a precedent. For example, shortly after the Act was passed, Brazil banned the social-media platform X (formerly known as Twitter) for more than a month, based in large part on that government’s disfavor of political speech on X. See, e.g., Brazil’s Supreme Court Lifts Ban on Social Media Site X, CBS N EWS (Oct. 8, 2024).

The brief claims that—out of all the countless officials, lawyers, judges, and politicians who have tackled the issue—Trump alone the necessary skills to get the job done.

In light of these interests—including, most importantly, his overarching responsibility for the United States’ national security and foreign policy— President Trump opposes banning TikTok in the United States at this juncture, and seeks the ability to resolve the issues at hand through political means once he takes office. On September 4, 2024, President Trump posted on Truth Social, “FOR ALL THOSE THAT WANT TO SAVE TIK TOK IN AMERICA, VOTE TRUMP!”

Furthermore, President Trump alone possesses the consummate dealmaking expertise, the electoral mandate, and the political will to negotiate a resolution to save the platform while addressing the national security concerns expressed by the Government—concerns which President Trump himself has acknowledged. See, e.g., Executive Order No. 13942, Addressing the Threat Posed by TikTok, 85 Fed. Reg. 48637, 48637 (Aug. 6, 2020); Regarding the Acquisition of Musical.ly by ByteDance Ltd., 85 Fed. Reg. 51297, 51297 (Aug. 14, 2020). Indeed, President Trump’s first Term was highlighted by a series of policy triumphs achieved through historic deals, and he has a great prospect of success in this latest national security and foreign policy endeavor.

The First Amendment Question

It is somewhat interesting that Trump’s brief focuses on the First Amendment issue, since this was specifically addressed by the Court of Appeals.

The judges said the law banning TikTok was “carefully crafted to deal with only control by a foreign adversary,” and therefore the First Amendment wasn’t an issue.

“The government acted solely to protect that freedom from a foreign adversary nation and to limit that adversary’s ability to gather data on people in the United States,” the judges continued.

It seems unlikely that SCOTUS will reverse the lower Court’s decision, unless it does so in response to Trump’s request. The issue, however, is that there is no legal basis for the Court to delay a law.

“The fact that the law goes into effect the day before Trump is inaugurated is just too bad for Trump, but a future president cannot ask a court to delay a law,” Alan Rozenshtein, a former DOJ official who now teaches at the University of Minnesota Law School, told Politico. He added that SCOTUS “does not have the authority to pause a law that was written by Congress and enacted” unless it tackles the question of its constitutionality.

When taken together, unless SCOTUS is willing to strike the law down altogether, it seems TikTok’s fate is likely sealed.

To be clear, Twitter always had an issue with people being nice, something the entire social media industry grapple with. Nonetheless, since Musk purchased the platform, many users and groups have complained of an increase in hate speech, misinformation, and a general decline in quality content.

Musk appears to have finally taken notice, asking users to be nicer and post more positive content.

Musk’s plea is ironic, given that he has repeatedly posted misinformation, as well as attacked those who disagree with him. Perhaps, just perhaps, Elon Musk should lead by example.

Premium+ is X’s top-tier subscription, giving users additional features, such as the blue checkmark, ability to monetize accounts, limited in-feed ads, and greater access to the platform’s Grok AI. According to the company, the price hike improves those features, including eliminating in-feed ads altogether.

We’re updating the X Premium+ subscription price on December 21, 2024. New subscribers will pay the updated price starting that day. If you’re an existing subscriber and your next billing cycle starts before January 20, 2025, you’ll be charged at your current rate; otherwise, the new rate will begin with your first billing cycle after that date. See pricing information in the table below. Prices may vary by location, applicable taxes, and your payment method’s fees. For any questions, please message X Premium.

Why the change?

• Ads-free: X Premium+ is now completely ads-free, providing an uninterrupted browsing experience. This significant enhancement is reflected in the new pricing.
• More features: As this update goes into effect today, Premium+ subscribers will enjoy higher priority support from @Premium, access to new features such as Radar, and higher limits on our most cutting-edge Grok AI models, ensuring you’re always ahead of the curve. Increased pricing allows us to invest more into making Premium+ better and better over time.
• Supporting creators: Your subscription now more directly fuels our evolving creator program. We’ve shifted our revenue share model to reward content quality and engagement rather than ad views alone. Your Premium+ subscription fee contributes to this new, more equitable system where creator earnings are tied to the overall value they bring to X, not impressions of ads.

AI companies have been raising prices nearly across the board, so it’s not exactly a surprise that X is following suit.

Threads head Adam Mosseri revealed the news in a post:

We’re testing changes to Insights on Threads, starting with metrics for individual posts. Now that your posts will be shown to more people who follow you, it’s especially important to understand what’s resonating with your existing audience. If you’re in the test, let me know how this helps you reach your community — appreciate the feedback

The new feature should give content creators the ability to better gauge their user engagement.

The Biden administration followed through on what the Trump administration had previously tried, banning TikTok over national security concerns. ByteDance, TikTok’s parent, has until January 19 to sell the social media app’s US operations or it will be banned.

According to The New York Times, the three-judge panel upheld the ban, throwing out an argument by ByteDance that the ban unfairly targeted the app and infringed on users’ First Amendment rights. The judges said the law banning TikTok was “carefully crafted to deal with only control by a foreign adversary,” and therefore the First Amendment wasn’t an issue.

“The government acted solely to protect that freedom from a foreign adversary nation and to limit that adversary’s ability to gather data on people in the United States,” the judges continued.

TikTok has vowed to fight the ban all the way to the Supreme Court.

“The Supreme Court has an established historical record of protecting Americans’ right to free speech, and we expect they will do just that on this important constitutional issue,” said company spokesperson Michael Hughes, saying the ban amounted to “outright censorship of the American people.”

Despite TikTok’s stand, it seems unlikely that the Supreme Court will overturn the ban, especially given the argument presented by the appeals court.

What’s more, there is little hope the incoming Trump administration will overturn the ban. While Trump has hinted at plans to save TikTok, those plans likely involve ByteDance giving up control of its US operations, much like Trump’s initial attempt to ban the app during his first term. In addition, Trump has made escalating the trade war with China a critical theme of his second term, adding to the unlikelihood of any meaningful attempt to reverse the ban.

Either way, the future of TikTok in the US is looking increasingly bleak.

Telegram has a reputation for fighting any and all attempts to moderate content, including resisting attempts by law enforcement to access accounts. The platform’s moderation troubles ultimately led to CEO Pavel Durov’s arrest in France, with the country’s authorities charging the executive with 12 counts related to child pornography, money laundering, and drug trafficking.

In the wake of Durov’s arrest, Telegram has been making sweeping changes to its moderation, giving users the ability to report illegal content, and signaling that it will cooperate with governments, including them them access to data in response to valid legal requests.

In its latest move, the company is joining IWF to specifically combat CSAM on its platform. The IWF announced the move in a press release on its site.

Telegram will deploy new tools to proactively prevent child sexual abuse imagery from being spread in public parts of its platform.

For the first time, the social media platform, which has more than 950million active users a month, will use tools and data from the UK’s Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) in addition to its own to detect, disrupt, remove, and block child sexual abuse imagery.

The IWF is the UK’s front line against child sexual abuse imagery online and one of only a handful of non-law enforcement bodies worldwide with the legal power to pro-actively seek out and remove images and videos of child sexual abuse.

It works with tech companies, social media platforms, Governments, and law enforcement globally to stop the repeated victimisation of people abused in childhood.

Today (December 4) the IWF has announced it has granted Telegram membership in an agreement which will give it access to the IWF’s world-leading datasets and tried and trusted technology to help tackle child sexual abuse imagery on the platform.

“This is a transformational first step on a much longer journey,” said Derek Ray-Hill, Interim CEO at the IWF. “We look forward to seeing what further steps we can take together to create a world in which the spread of online sexual abuse material is virtually impossible and, when it does happen, we are able to remove it very quickly and permanently.

“Child sexual abuse imagery is a horror that blights our world wherever it exists. The children in these images and videos matter. I want to be able to say to every single victim that we will stop at nothing to prevent the images and videos of their suffering being spread online.

“Now, by joining the IWF, Telegram can begin deploying our world-leading tools to help make sure this material cannot be shared on the service. It is an important moment, and we will be working hard with Telegram to make sure this commitment continues and expands to the whole sector.”

Telegram’s Security Catch-22

Telegram is clearing making substantial changes to its business model in an effort to address the legal threats to the platform and its CEO.

As we have pointed out before, much of Telegram’s issue stems from the fact that it does not offer the same security as competing platforms, such as Signal or WhatsApp, despite its claims to the contrary. While those platforms default to end-to-end encryption (E2EE), Telegram requires users to explicitly enable E2EE, meaning the company can access the majority of its users chats and content.

As a result, Telegram could not make the same claim as Signal or WhatsApp that it didn’t have access to illegal content on its platform, meaning any unwillingness to cooperate with law enforcement was just that: unwillingness not inability.

Telegram’s recent changes are sure to help the company avoid any future legal issues, but it remains to be seen if the changes will help or hurt Durov’s case in France. If French authorities were simply trying to force the company’s hand, they have succeeded and may be open to a deal.

On the other hand, if French authorities are looking to make an example out of Durov, then Telegram’s recent changes will actually undermine his defense, since they make it clear that the company had the ability to fight illegal content all along and made a deliberate choice not to.

Conclusion

Regardless of how Telegram’s adjustments—including joining IWF—play out for Durov, the changes are welcome for law enforcement and users alike, and should go a long way toward protecting minors.

As X (formerly Twitter) continues to devolve, the decentralized Bluesky and Meta’s Threads have emerged as the two strongest possibilities for a successor. Threads has more users, by far, with the app reportedly having more than 300 million users. According to Axios, the platform added more than 35 million users in November alone, on top of the 275 million users it had at the end of October. In contrast, Bluesky reportedly has roughly 22 million users.

Despite the disparity in numbers, Bluesky users appear to offer more value. According to Matt Karolian, Bluesky users account for several times more traffic and conversions for The Boston Globe than Threads users.

Traffic from Bluesky to @bostonglobe.com is already 3x that of Threads, and we are seeing 4.5x the conversions to paying digital subscribers.

Matt Karolian | November 26, 2024

The revelation is good news for Bluesky, and reinforces its status as one of the primary candidates for a true Twitter replacement. The numbers also suggest that, while Threads user numbers may benefit from Meta’s existing user base, Bluesky’s users are likely far more engaged.

Despite its colorful name, pig butchering is one of the most dangerous types of scams, as Meta describes in a blog post.

One of the most egregious and sophisticated fraud scams, ‘pig butchering’ is all about building trusted personal relationships online with someone only to manipulate them to deposit more and more money into an investment scheme, often using cryptocurrency, and ultimately lose that money.

The company says the groups behind the scam “are mostly based in Asia,” but they target victims globally and force individuals to work for them.

The scale and sophistication of this threat is unprecedented, with the US Institute of Peace estimating that up to 300,000 people are forced into scamming others around the world by these criminal groups, with about $64 billion dollars stolen worldwide annually as of the end of 2023.

For over two years, our teams have been focused on investigating and disrupting the activities of the criminal scam centers in Southeast Asia. While our initial focus was on scam centers in Cambodia, we have since worked to keep pace with the expansion of these groups as they began to appear in places like Laos, Myanmar and more recently the United Arab Emirates. At the outset, we actively engaged with expert NGOs and law enforcement partners in the US and Southeast Asia to better understand the modus operandi of these criminal groups, including in places like Sihanoukville in Cambodia, which is reported to be a hotbed for Chinese organized crime-linked scams.

Meta has established teams and formed partnerships to disrupt scam operations.

To counter these scam compounds globally, we rely on our DOI policies as the most effective and appropriate set of measures for disrupting organized crime. Using both our internal subject matter expertise and insights from external stakeholders, we are continuously investigating and assessing criminal organizations involved in this activity for designation. Once designated as DOIs, the entities are banned from our platform and subject to a wide range of enforcement tools.

The company is also working with law enforcement agencies to help tackle the threat.

“The Royal Thai Police has been working with Meta on disrupting criminal scam centers for over two years. We’ve been able to share information so they can investigate and take action against the bad guys and help us hold the criminal syndicates behind these scam centers accountable.”

— Police Major General Teeradej Thumsutee, Commander of the Investigation Division of the Metropolitan Police Bureau, Royal Thai Police

Meta is also working with industry peers, including OpenAI, to share threat information and disrupt the operations of scam groups.

When possible, we’re working to share threat information with our industry peers who are focused on preventing criminal syndicates from targeting people on our respective platforms. As an example, recently, our team disrupted malicious activity that appeared to originate from a newly stood up scam compound in Cambodia attempting to target people in Japanese and Chinese languages. We began investigating this activity based on information shared with us by our peers at OpenAI, who detected and disrupted the actors’ efforts to use their tools to generate and translate the scammers’ content. We also shared threat information about the scam centers we have disrupted to enable further investigations across the internet.

In addition, last week, as part of the Tech Against Scams Coalition, we co-convened a Summit on Countering Online Criminal Scam Syndicates. It included international law enforcement, government officials, NGOs and tech companies that came together to discuss ways to make further progress in tackling this transnational threat. The Coalition includes companies across dating apps, social media apps, financial institutions and crypto platforms, like Coinbase, Ripple, Meta and Match Group, the parent company of Tinder and Hinge.

Users visiting Reddit saw the following error:

According to Downdetector, there was a massive spike in reports pertaining to the outage, beginning around 4:00 PM ET.

Fortunately, the company appears to be working on the issue. As of 4:30 PM ET, many subreddits are displaying, although not all posts are displaying and some errors are still being displayed.

Chew’s statements come at a time when TikTok, like many social media giants, faces increased scrutiny over its data practices and the safety of its younger users. “These efforts will take many forms, starting with transparency and a willingness to engage with all stakeholders to share information and allay their concerns,” Chew explained, acknowledging the challenges ahead. He was clear about the need for a collaborative approach, involving both public and private sectors, to tackle the issues surrounding security and safety.

Listen to our conversation on TikTok’s effort to become more trusted!

Safeguarding Younger Users

One of the most significant areas of concern for TikTok is the safety of its youngest users. “One thing we can all agree on is the need to protect younger users online,” Chew said, reflecting on his own role as a parent of three children. “As a parent myself, I feel this responsibility deeply, personally, and I’m proud of the safeguards that TikTok has embedded in our platform.”

TikTok, Chew emphasized, has strict guidelines in place to protect minors. “We don’t allow children under the age of 13 on our platform,” he said. “And we restrict the features available to members of our community who are under 17 years old.” These restrictions mean that younger users experience TikTok differently from adults. “They can still have fun, but their experience on our platform looks very different from mine or yours,” Chew added. For instance, younger users cannot livestream, their screen time is limited, and their content is not promoted to the broader TikTok community. “We establish these guidelines with the help of child development experts, and we empower parents to decide what is appropriate for their own teenagers, allowing them to add additional limits or monitor activity.”

A Focus on Transparency and Collaboration

Chew also underscored TikTok’s broader mission to become an industry leader in online safety and data security. “Meeting these challenges in the future will require a comprehensive, collaborative, ongoing effort across public and private sectors,” he noted. TikTok’s approach, he said, involves not only implementing technological solutions but also collaborating closely with child safety experts, policymakers, and other stakeholders. “As the industry leader when it comes to online safety and data security, TikTok adds significant value to this vital work, along with real-world expertise in creating effective solutions.”

Transparency, according to Chew, is the cornerstone of TikTok’s strategy. “We need to be willing to engage, to share information, and to address the concerns of our users and regulators alike,” he stated. Chew’s emphasis on openness and collaboration signals TikTok’s readiness to go beyond the status quo of the social media industry. The company is actively working to dispel misconceptions and to demonstrate that it is willing to evolve in response to public concerns.

Tackling Inappropriate Content

A critical component of TikTok’s trust-building strategy is its approach to content moderation. “We work really hard to provide a safe online experience for all our users by keeping inappropriate content off our platform,” Chew said. He stressed that TikTok has no tolerance for harmful content: “Content created to misinform and to manipulate, to foment hate and rage, to hurt and to harm — this kind of content has no place on our platform, no place in our community, and we actively and aggressively combat it in all forms.”

Chew’s remarks highlight TikTok’s commitment to reducing the spread of misinformation and hate speech, issues that have plagued social media platforms globally. TikTok’s moderation policies are intended to prevent the proliferation of harmful content while also protecting users’ freedom of expression. “It’s about striking a balance between ensuring safety and preserving the freedom to create and share,” Chew noted.

Building Trust for the Future

TikTok’s path to becoming a trusted platform will not be easy, but Chew expressed confidence in the company’s ability to rise to the challenge. “Now, of course, there are real issues to resolve in terms of security and safety,” he said. “But we are committed to meeting these challenges head-on, through a combination of transparency, innovation, and a collaborative spirit.”

Chew’s appearance at the APEC CEO Summit marks a pivotal moment for TikTok, as it seeks to position itself as a leader in safety and transparency amid global concerns. His message was clear: TikTok is listening, it is evolving, and it is determined to earn the trust of its users. “We are doing everything in our power to try and become one of the most trusted companies in the world,” Chew reiterated, signaling that TikTok is prepared to take the steps necessary to protect its users and gain their confidence.

As TikTok continues its efforts, the company’s actions will be closely watched by regulators, parents, and users worldwide. Whether TikTok can achieve its goal of becoming a trusted platform remains to be seen, but Chew’s commitment to transparency, safety, and collaboration suggests that the company is moving in the right direction.

Bluesky is the decentralized X competitor that was initially backed by Twitter founder Jack Dorsey. As X users have become disenfranchised with Elon Musk’s ownership of the platform, many have left for Bluesky. The platform crossed 10 million users in September 2024, up from one million in September 2023.

According to Bsky Stats, a website that tracks Bluesky’s growth, the platform has added nearly seven million users just two months after it crossed the 10 million threshold.

Several platforms have been vying for disgruntled X users, but Bluesky appears to be solidly in the lead.