Banning an app with more than 100 million active users in the US alone was bound to spark a vicious outrage, especially if it means platform-loyal and forever-thirsty for social recognition Gen-Zers don’t know what to do with their lipsyncs. But a bill barring Tiktok, which in the larger view would be targetting its parent company, ByteDance, from operating in the US holds so much more than meets the eye. A cursory look may make one side with the Capitol Hill. After all, it is not the first time that the American government has viewed Chinese-owned companies with suspicion. Because the application has well moved past the initial stages where its users would scroll through makeup tutorials or viral challenges, its users continue to add to its strength with a treasure trove of their personal data, which could easily be exploited in a blatant violation of America’s sovereignty and privacy. President Joe Biden, for one, seems particularly worried about sensitive information trickling across seas or Beijing twisting its tools to spread disinformation in an election year. However, China refuses to buy the apprehensions, accusing Washington of unjustly suppressing foreign companies while condemning the ban as a result of a “bandit” mentality. Because, as of now, no concrete evidence of any such threat materialising in the US has been found, the government would have been far better off evaluating the dangers on a more empirical basis, publishing the findings and then acting accordingly. Monitoring social media platforms for any potential dangers and outright banning them are two entirely different approaches. Banning TikTok might result in unintended consequences as the move could rightly be seen as an infringement of the rights of users who use the app for legitimate purposes. Additionally, the ban may not necessarily address the underlying issues of data privacy and security that the government is concerned about. Quite ironically, our experiences with the digital age envisioned to eliminate all geographical boundaries and establish a global community are forcing us to move right back into our shells. At least a country that spends an unimaginably large amount of its time tooting the horn of its leadership of the free, developed world should not resort to the confined tactics of dictating to its citizens what they can or cannot do to practice their freedom of speech. *