On January 18, 2025, the Supreme Court enforced a ban on TikTok, one of the world’s largest social media platforms. This led TikTok to briefly suspend its U.S. services before the ban was set to take effect. Speaking from experience, Prem Dhillon ’28 reflects on this development and says, “I was very shocked and disappointed when I first heard about the ban because I didn’t think that the government would actually ban it.” The ban was prompted due to speculation about potential national security risks, given that TikTok is a Chinese company that possesses significant user data of Americans. However, there is no evidence that TikTok has been sending data to the Chinese government. In reality, security issues have been raised due to a large number of TikTok users considering that the company is not American-based. In April 2024, President Biden signed a law passed by Congress that bans TikTok unless its US operations are sold to a non-Chinese owner. This law was championed by bipartisan lawmakers, including Mike Gallagher and Mark Warner. However, after multiple delays from the Trump administration, the ban on TikTok is now delayed until January 23, 2026. This delay was granted by a potential deal where TikTok’s US operation would be sold to a US-based company, including its data and the majority of the ownership. Although the official delay is set to be on January 23 this year, there are no signs that indicate this date would be the official ban of TikTok.
As an app with around 136 million users in America alone, there has been a heated debate surrounding the legitimacy of the ban, which can be seen within our school community. GS sophomore Michael Zhu 28’ believes that the ban is “very unnecessary,” stating that “there are a lot of alternative apps to TikTok that operate the same way.” Prem Dhillon 28’ further supports this argument by saying that “a lot of people use it as a platform for their career, such as streamers and influencers. Banning it will put a lot of them out of business.” On the other hand, Rayan Shah 28’ understands the concerns and approves the ban regarding TikTok, stating, “Considering that TikTok is a foreign company with countless data points that can threaten our security, the ban is reasonable.” Trying to find a medium, holistic health teacher Martha Holland proposes the idea of “regulation and oversight” rather than “complete social media censorship.” When asked about the reason for the ban, Prem and Rayan acknowledge the danger of data security, saying that “it allows a company that was connected to the government of the Chinese Communist Party to access information regarding Americans.” However, Michael believes that the claim that TikTok gives data to China is “absurd.”
Robert Mooney, a religious department teacher at George school, acknowledges that there is no exact evidence of TikTok’s security issues. Hence, Robert feels that he is not educated enough on the topic to draw a conclusion on the potential data for the Chinese government. On the other hand, the main argument against the ban on TikTok is the violation of the First Amendment right. Coinciding with the idea, both Michael and Prem see the ban as a form of censorship that undermines the rights of a US citizen, saying, “A lot of people post their opinions and beliefs on TikTok.” Rayan, acknowledging both the pros and cons of the ban, says, “It (TikTok) does serve as a platform of free speech; however, it does also serve as a premier forum for misinformation.”
Although privacy issues are a major concern on TikTok, it is not the sole reason why people are against it. Many people, especially adults, are increasingly worried about the widespread use of TikTok and the addiction that comes along with it. Since the start of the school year, George School has implemented the cell phone policy partly due to concerns about social media addiction. As a teacher, Martha expresses her observations on students after TikTok became popular, noting that “I have noticed that my students’ attention spans are way shorter than they used to be, and some of them seem genuinely addicted to their phones.” According to NPR, it only takes around 260 videos to form an addiction to TikTok. Considering that TikTok is a “rapid-fire” platform, a person becomes addicted to TikTok in around 35 minutes. Concerned about this issue, Martha emphasizes the danger of TikTok and its effects by saying, “The company was aware that its many features designed to keep young people on the app led to a constant and irresistible urge to keep opening the app.” Not only speaking on her own opinion, but Martha also gathered sources to demonstrate the consequences of TikTok addiction and the company’s negligence regarding it. She tells me, “I have done a bit of research on the issue, and according to Suit, compulsive usage with the app will interfere with mental health and essential personal responsibilities like sufficient sleep, work/school responsibilities, and connecting with loved ones.”
When speaking on the specific negatives of TikTok, Martha focused on the widespread misinformation and data collection that may undermine users’ privacy. Martha is increasingly concerned about the spread of false and misleading information on TikTok. She highlighted, “Companies shouldn’t profit from spreading lies, yet that is exactly what is happening,” a common yet wrong phenomenon in contemporary society. With the emergence of a platform like TikTok, Martha discusses a serious issue: “When all of us exist in our own little social media echo chambers and none of us can tell what’s real anymore, humanity will be in big trouble.” As to the danger of data collection, she recognizes that people’s lives are being tracked and monitored in a concerning way. Thus, she wishes that “Congress would seriously address the issue. Tech companies shouldn’t need to collect every single piece of data they can. They should be taxed or charged a fee based on how much data they collect, and the type of data should be restricted. It should be easier for users to opt out of being tracked and for us to opt out of hyper-personalized algorithms. I don’t want to be manipulated—nobody does. Yet that is what is happening across all these platforms.”
Finally, when asking teachers about their roles on the issue and some advice that they have for GS students and teenagers in general, Robert feels that “our role as teachers should be to ensure that young people have the intellectual ability to thoroughly understand the platforms with which they interact.” Martha, who restricts her own time on her cell phone and social media, suggests that students ask themselves some basic but essential questions: “ What makes me happy? What is worthy of my attention? Time is shorter than we realize; how do I want to spend what limited time I have? How does this app make my life better?” She also advises students to reduce their screen time with a little help: “ I use an app called Brick, which lets me disable distracting apps for a period of time by tapping my phone on a physical device called a Brick. Another tap on the device restores full usage of the apps when I’m ready. It works well, and is something that I believe would be worth having in every building at GS so students could manage their own distractions throughout the day.”
The TikTok ban is not just another piece of breaking news, but rather a mirror reflecting our society’s complicated relationship with social media, which may have a tremendous impact on human society, especially the future generations. The debate surrounding TikTok at George School highlights the tension between national security concerns, First Amendment rights, and the increasingly visible effects of digital addiction. Students like Prem and Michael see the ban as unnecessary censorship that threatens careers and creative expression, while others, like Rayan, acknowledge the legitimate worries about data collection by a foreign-owned company. The teachers also express their unique perspectives as they emphasize both the threats of misinformation and the harmful impact on students. As Martha Holland warns, “When all of us exist in our own little social media echo chambers, and none of us can tell what’s real anymore, humanity will be in big trouble.” Ultimately, the TikTok ban pushes us to confront a larger question: not just whether one app should be banned, but how we as individuals and communities choose to use, regulate, and protect ourselves from the digital platforms shaping our lives.
