US TikTok investors in limbo as deal set to be delayed again

Political leverage and impact of a ban

• Several comments argue TikTok/ByteDance have most of the leverage: banning an app used by ~1/3 of US adults, and a majority of under‑30s, would be political “suicide,” akin to shutting down the NFL.
• Others counter that “political suicide” is overrated: past controversies that were supposed to be fatal for politicians often weren’t.
• Some think banning all social media would improve society; others say that’s not the motivation any politician would use.

Trump, corruption, and non‑enforcement

• Many see Trump’s repeated deadline extensions as naked self‑dealing to benefit friendly investors (e.g., Ellison and other allies) rather than national security.
• There is frustration that Congress passed a ban, the Supreme Court allowed it, and then the administration simply ignored and bent the law.
• This is cited as evidence that US checks and balances are weak against an administration willing to disregard rules.

National security, free speech, and reciprocity

• One camp emphasizes China as an authoritarian adversary: TikTok’s algorithm and data are framed as tools for influence and surveillance, with CCP “party cells” embedded in companies. They argue the US would be naive not to block or force divestiture.
• Others say this is McCarthy‑style grandstanding: US platforms do the same data harvesting and manipulation, but instead of serious privacy law, the US selectively targets a foreign rival.
• Debate arises over whether the First Amendment should protect foreign‑controlled platforms; some distinguish “free speech as law” from “free speech as ideal.”

Who controls TikTok?

• Disagreement over how “American” TikTok actually is: some claim all core code and decisions are made in China; others point to large US engineering offices and roles.
• Cited documents and lawsuits allege TikTok executives must affirm adherence to China’s “socialist system” and answer to ByteDance leadership in China.

Gaza, Israel, and alleged motives

• A large subthread argues the real driver of the ban was TikTok’s visibility of Israel’s actions in Gaza and the platform’s large pro‑Palestinian user base.
• They point to timelines (pre‑existing bills gaining traction after Oct 7), US and Israeli officials explicitly complaining about TikTok’s Gaza content, and Ellison’s strong pro‑Israel stance.
• Others push back hard, calling this conspiratorial: they say US concerns about Chinese influence and data misuse long predate Gaza and that TikTok’s leadership has lied about data practices.
• Some try to reconcile both: anti‑China security concerns plus political desire to mute pro‑Palestinian content.

Authoritarianism, democracy, and double standards

• Several comments stress China’s repression, censorship, and blocking of Western platforms as justification for reciprocal limits.
• Others note US/Western hypocrisy: domestic platforms bury inconvenient narratives; US foreign policy is described as “uniparty” and increasingly authoritarian.
• A smaller side debate erupts over whether China can meaningfully be called a “democracy,” with sharp disagreement and no consensus.

Investors, platforms, and broader cynicism

• Little sympathy is expressed for TikTok’s investors; some extend this disdain to all big‑tech investors and platforms as “leeches.”
• There’s broad cynicism that, regardless of outcome, control of TikTok will simply shift from one elite faction (CCP‑aligned) to another (US oligarchs, media consolidators), with users and free expression as collateral.