Photo illustration of a Tumblr logo displayed on a smartphone with a COVID 19 sample image in the background.

After X's ban in Brazil, Tumblr reports ~350% user growth

by with No Comment Tech

Photo illustration of a Tumblr logo displayed on a smartphone with a COVID 19 sample image in the background.

Image Credits: Omar Marques/SOPA Images/LightRocket / Getty Images

Bluesky isn’t the only social networking service to benefit from X’s ban in Brazil, now under legal penalties. Tumblr this week is also reporting an increase in both active users and blog creation, the company tells TechCrunch.

According to Tumblr, in the days since the X ban in Brazil, the site saw 222.99% growth in communities and 349.55% growth in users. More specifically, Tumblr’s daily active users in Brazil have shot up by 30% from the 110,000 it was seeing, on average, in the days ahead of the ban.

What’s more, the new users aren’t just visiting the site, they’re creating accounts, too, Tumblr claims. The company says blog creation and community joins have also increased. (The company didn’t provide metrics on this front, however.)

Of those users who joined communities, Tumblr found that the percentage of daily active users in Brazil was also five times higher than those in the rest of the world.

The increase on Tumblr is not as significant as what’s been happening on Bluesky, however. Following X’s ban in the country, large numbers of Brazilian users began establishing accounts on the decentralized social networking startup. At one point, half a million users had joined Bluesky’s service over a two-day period. The company that had just 6 million users as of May 2024 has topped 10 million and continues to grow.

Still, any jump in usage could be beneficial for Tumblr, presuming it wants to continue to sell ads in the long term. The age-old blogging site and social platform was acquired by WordPress.com maker Automattic in 2022 for $3 million, down from the $1 billion Yahoo (TechCrunch’s parent company) once paid for it back in 2017. Since then, the company has been losing money at a rate of $30 million per year, CEO Matt Mullenweg said last July. As a result, Automattic absorbed nearly 140 people from Tumblr’s staff, reassigning them to other projects at the company. More recently, it said it would move Tumblr’s half a billion blogs to WordPress on the back end to improve efficiencies.

Elon Musk

Musk dodged Brazil's X ban by 'coincidence,' says Cloudflare CEO

by with No Comment Tech

Elon Musk

Image Credits: Axelle/Bauer-Griffin/FilmMagic / Getty Images

X went back online in Brazil earlier this week, three weeks after Elon Musk’s platform was blocked under orders from Brazil’s Supreme Court. That prompted Brazil’s top court to fine X Corp. nearly $1 million for every day the platform remained accessible in the country.

However, Cloudflare’s CEO Matthew Prince tells TechCrunch that X going back online in Brazil this week was all a “coincidence.”

“I don’t think anything about this change was intentional to overcome a block in Brazil,” said Prince in an interview with TechCrunch. “This was literally just [X] switching from one IT vendor to another IT vendor.”

Some months ago, Prince said, Cloudflare won a deal to provide X with cloud computing services in several regions across the globe, including Brazil. X had previously used Fastly, a competitor to Cloudflare, and the social media platform is currently in the process of rolling out that switch. Changing providers also changed IP addresses associated with X, which disrupted how Brazilian internet service providers were blocking the X platform.

“We have never talked with [X] about helping them get around the Brazilian dam,” said Prince. “They happened to transition a bunch of their traffic from Fastly over to us, especially in the Latin American region, over the last week.”

Prince describes this as wild coincidence, where his sales team won a deal, and as a result ended up inadvertently “wading into some geopolitical Elon Musk vortex of craziness” months later. Some may find that a bit hard to believe, given that Elon Musk has tried multiple avenues already to skirt Brazil’s ban on X. Musk tried delivering X directly to Brazilians through his Starlink satellites earlier this month, but later backed down.

A spokesperson for X says the platform changed network providers when Brazil shut down X weeks ago, which disrupted its infrastructure throughout the rest of Latin America, in a statement posted on its Global Government Affairs account. So is the timing of all this truly a coincidence? You be the judge.

However, Brazilian regulators say Cloudflare has been extremely cooperative in helping to get X reblocked, according to The New York Times.

Brazil implemented its block by requiring ISPs to block traffic to certain IP addresses. When X switched from Fastly to Cloudflare, therefore, the block was no longer in effect. However, Prince claims his company did not know this was going to happen, and even says he doesn’t think X was actively trying to circumvent Brazil’s ban. He even knocked Brazil for using an insufficient strategy to block X.

“They chose to implement it in a way which is kind of kludgy, and very fragile,” said Prince. “That assumes that X, Twitter, or whatever we call it, will always be on that IP address… It changed because they switched to Cloudflare, but if X were trying to play games here, they could have switched their IP address very easily without switching to Cloudflare.”

an illustration of patterned 100 dollar bills on a green background

Should we ban ransom payments?

by with No Comment Tech

an illustration of patterned 100 dollar bills on a green background

Image Credits: zf L / Getty Images

As cybercriminals continue to reap the financial rewards of their attacks, talk of a federal ban on ransom payments is getting louder.

U.S. officials have long urged against paying ransom demands. But while several U.S. states — including North Carolina and Florida — have made it illegal for local government entities to pay ransom demands, the Biden administration as recently as last fall decided against an outright national ban on ransom payments.

It’s easy to see why. Not only would banning ransom payment be difficult to enforce and require complex mechanisms not yet in place, but critics argue that criminalizing payments to hackers ultimately punishes the victims of cybercrime who could ultimately face legal repercussions for doing what they deem necessary to protect — or, in some cases, save — their business.

Although challenges persist, it appears the U.S. government’s mindset might be starting to shift.

In October 2023, a U.S.-led alliance of more than 40 countries vowed as governments not to pay ransoms to cybercriminals in a bid to starve the hackers from their source of income.

Since then, just as talk of a potential ransom payment ban has gotten louder, so has the ransomware activity.

In 2024 alone, we’ve seen financially driven hackers brazenly mass-exploiting flaws in various remote access tools to deploy ransomware; notorious ransomware groups bounce back from government takedowns; and disruption at healthcare providers across the U.S. after a ransomware attack on prescription processing giant Change Healthcare.

Is a ban on ransom payments the solution? It’s not that simple.

To ban or not to ban?

On the face of it, a ransom payment ban makes logical sense. If victim organizations are prohibited from paying, attackers will have less of a financial incentive to steal their data. In theory, this means those seeking to get rich quick will be forced to go elsewhere — and that ransomware attacks could become a thing of the past.

The other side is that many believe making ransom payments illegal is an over-simplistic solution to a complex problem.

Ransomware is a global problem. For a ban on ransom payments to be successful, international and universal regulation would need to be implemented — which, given varying international standards around ransom payments, would be almost impossible to enforce. It would also require governments that grant safe harbor to cybercriminals — Russia gets an obvious namecheck — to crack down within their own borders, which they’re not incentivized to do.

A blanket ban on ransom payments would also likely necessitate exceptions in dire circumstances, such as ransomware attacks involving the risk of loss of life in medical facilities or threats to national critical infrastructure.

These exceptions, while logical, would also apply to the hackers behind these attacks, which could lead to an assault on the nation’s critical infrastructure. And as long as cybercriminals continue to make money, ransomware and extortion threats won’t go away.

Some also argue that if a ransom payment ban were imposed in the U.S. or any other highly victimized country, companies would likely stop reporting these incidents to the authorities, effectively reversing all of the past cooperation between victims and law enforcement.

Allan Liska, a ransomware expert and threat intelligence analyst at Recorded Future, told TechCrunch that before a blanket ban on payments to ransomware groups — or a ban with some exceptions — is enforced, we need to make a concerted effort to better catalog the number of ransomware attacks “so we can make an informed decision on the best steps.”

“In the United States, we actually have two test cases that prove this point,” said Liska. “Both North Carolina and Florida have implemented bans on public entities paying ransom to ransomware groups. In both cases, looking at the data from a year before the laws went into effect and the year after, there has been no discernible change in the number of publicly reported ransomware attacks against public organizations in those States.”

Would a ban even work?

There’s also the issue of how effective a ransom payment ban would be.

As history has shown, hackers have little regard for rules. Even when an organization does relent to an attacker’s ransom demand, the victim’s data is not always deleted — as demonstrated by the recent lawful takedown of the LockBit ransomware gang.

Given the brazen nature of these attackers, it’s unlikely that they would be deterred by a ban on ransom payments. Rather, criminalizing payment would likely push it further underground and would likely encourage attackers to change tactics, becoming more covert in their operations and transactions.

“Are ransom payments bad? Yes, there is no net good to society that comes from paying ransomware groups, in fact, there is a direct net harm to society by paying these threat actors,” said Liska.

“Will banning ransom payments stop ransomware groups from carrying out attacks? The answer to that is unequivocally no.”

Read more on TechCrunch:

Why extortion is the new ransomware threatWhy ransomware victims can’t stop paying off hackersDo government sanctions against ransomware groups work?Why are ransomware gangs making so much money?

Why are ransomware gangs making so much money?

people holding signs outside US Capitol supporting TikTok

The bill that could ban TikTok passes in the House

by with No Comment Tech

people holding signs outside US Capitol supporting TikTok

Image Credits: Anna Moneymaker / Staff / Getty Images

The House voted on Wednesday in favor of a bill to require TikTok to sever its connection with parent company ByteDance or face a ban, moving the legislation forward with surprising speed. President Joe Biden has already said that he would support the legislation, but TikTok faces an uncertain fate as the bill heads to the Senate.

The bill received bipartisan backing with a 352-65 vote.

TikTok said in a statement, “We are hopeful that the Senate will consider the facts, listen to their constituents, and realize the impact on the economy, 7 million small businesses, and the 170 million Americans who use our service.”

The bill’s supporters decline to describe it as a “ban,” but if passed it would create two possible outcomes. In one scenario, TikTok strikes a deal to split with its Chinese ownership within six months and continues to operate in the U.S. under that arrangement. In the more dire outcome, ByteDance refuses to sell TikTok and it becomes illegal for software marketplaces like Apple’s App Store and Google Play to distribute the software in the U.S.

The plan to force ByteDance to sell TikTok began during the Trump administration as an executive order. Oracle and Microsoft both had their hats in the ring at the time, but ultimately the plot to force a sale unraveled as former President Donald Trump left the White House. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella later described the whole ordeal as the “strangest thing I’ve ever worked on.”

Trump has since changed his tune. While maintaining that TikTok still poses a national security risk, Trump now opposes the ban, at least in part because Facebook stands to benefit from seeing its biggest competitor regulated. “Without TikTok, you can make Facebook bigger, and I consider Facebook to be an enemy of the people,” Trump said.

Other Republican legislators echoed Trump’s new stance. Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) remarked that the bill “could also be named the Facebook Protection and Enhancement Act.”

In opposition, Representative Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-IL) spoke about the impact that the bill could have on creatives and small businesses.

“Creatives, artists, content creators and businesses in my district will get caught in the crossfire of this bill and deserve better than federal overreach as a substitute for a thoughtful and incisive solution,” Kamlager-Dove said on the House floor.

This is similar to the sentiments that TikTok itself has been pushing since last year, when it brought content creators to lobby in the Capitol to oppose a ban.

Regardless of how Wednesday’s vote played out in the House, the bill’s fate in the Senate is yet to be determined. While many of his peers have yet to weigh in, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has stated his opposition to a Senate version of the bill. “I don’t think Congress should be trying to take away the First Amendment rights of [170] million Americans,” Paul told The Washington Post.

With an election around the corner, it’s very possible that the Senate wouldn’t have the appetite for going after TikTok — even with President Biden backing the legislation. Without a companion bill in the Senate, the House’s efforts would be doomed to stall.

China has also previously stated that it would oppose a forced sale of TikTok, which is well within its rights after an update to the country’s export rules in late 2020.

The bill’s quick progress out of committee last week to a full House vote appears to have caught TikTok by surprise. The company scrambled to rally its 170 million U.S. users to its side, sending a message directly through the app that urged them to call their representatives. TikTok CEO Shou Chew also headed to Capitol Hill to drum up opposition to the bill before Wednesday’s vote.

This story is developing…

China reminds US that it can and will kill a forced TikTok sale

‘So infuriating’: TikTokers are fuming over potential ban

Worldcoin Project Co-founders Alex Blania (L) and Sam Altman (R)

Worldcoin hit with another ban order in Europe citing risks to kids

by with No Comment Tech

Worldcoin Project Co-founders Alex Blania (L) and Sam Altman (R)

Image Credits: Worldcoin (opens in a new window)

Controversial crypto biometrics venture Worldcoin has been almost entirely booted out of Europe after being hit with another temporary ban — this time in Portugal. The order from the country’s data protection authority comes hard on the heels of a similar-looking three-month stop-processing order from Spain’s DPA earlier this month.

Portugal was one of just two European countries left where Worldcoin was still operating its proprietary eyeball-scanning orbs after Spain’s ban. This leaves Germany as the only market where it’s currently able to harvest biometrics in Europe as privacy watchdogs take urgent action to respond to local concerns.

Portugal’s data protection authority said it issued the three-month ban on Worldcoin’s local ops Tuesday after receiving complaints Worldcoin had scanned children’s eyeballs.

Other complaints cited in its press release announcing the suspension, which it notes was issued Monday, also mirror Spain’s DPA’s concerns — including insufficient information being provided to users about the processing of their sensitive biometric data; and the inability of users to delete their data or revoke consent to Worldcoin’s processing.

The venture’s use of blockchain technology to store tokens derived from scanned biometrics means the system is designed to retain personal data permanently — without recourse for people to erase their information after the fact.

By contrast, EU data protection law gives people in the region a suite of rights over their personal data, including the ability to have data about them corrected, amended or deleted. So there’s an inherent legal conflict with Worldcoin’s approach — even before you consider other problematic issues like the quasi-financial incentive it offers to encourage people to get scanned; the highly sensitive biometric data involved; and its overarching goal of building and operating an identity layer for “humanness”.

The controversial project is backed by Sam Altman, of OpenAI fame, who is simultaneously supercharging the boom in generative AI tools that are making it harder for people to distinguish between artificial (machine-produced) and human activity online in the first place. Next stop: Rent collection on every online human on Earth?

The Portuguese authority, the CNPD, said it took action after receiving “dozens” of complaints about Worldcoin last month.

It estimates more than 300,000 people in Portugal have submitted to having their irises scanned by its proprietary Orbs in exchange for some Worldcoin, a cryptocurrency also devised by the company, noting that the number of locations where it was offering eyeball-scanning almost doubled in six months. It added that the large influx of people trying to take up the offer of cryptocurrency in exchange for an eye-scan led to Worldcoin instigating a pre-booking system for scanning in the market.

On risks to children’s data, the CNPD notes Worldcoin’s orb operators had no age verification in place — suggesting it was not taking robust steps to prevent children from accessing the technology.

“Biometric data qualifies as special data under GDPR [General Data Protection Regulation] and therefore enjoys increased protection, with the risks of its treatment being high,” it wrote [in Portuguese, this is a machine translation]. “On the other hand, minors are particularly vulnerable and are also subject to special protection under national and European law, as they may be less aware of the risks and consequences of the processing of their personal data, as well as their rights.”

The Portuguese authority gave Worldcoin 24 hours to comply with the local stop processing order.

Given the Worldcoin.org website no longer includes Portugal in the dwindling list of countries where eyeball scans can be booked (as noted above Germany is the only European country left, alongside Argentina, Chile, Japan, Singapore and the U.S.) it appears to have complied with the deadline.

Coincidentally or not, Germany is the EU market where Worldcoin developer, Tools for Humanity, has a regional base. Its co-founder, Alex Blania, is also German. Bavaria’s data protection authority, which leads on data protection oversight of the company in some other cases and has been investigating Worldcoin since last year, has yet to take any public intervention despite peer authorities in Southern Europe making urgent interventions to protect citizens in their own markets.

Worldcoin failed to get an injunction against the Spanish order earlier this month, although its appeal against the DPA’s action continues. It’s not clear whether it intends to try to appeal Portugal’s order.

Tools for Humanity (TFH) was contacted for a response to the latest ban order in the EU. Spokeswoman, Rebecca Hahn, has now sent a statement (below) attributed to Jannick Preiwisch, data protection officer, at the Worldcoin Foundation, in which it claims to be “fully compliant with all laws and regulations governing the collection and transfer of biometric data, including Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation”.

“The Worldcoin Foundation has the utmost respect for the role and responsibilities of data protection authorities, in the CNPD in Portugal,” he adds. “Since offering humanness verification services in Portugal, we have been completely transparent and happy to address CNPD’s questions or concerns. The report from CNPD is the first time we are hearing from them regarding many of these matters, including reports of underage sign-ups in Portugal, for which we have zero tolerance for and are working to address in all instances, even if a matter of a few reports.”

We also reached out to the Bavarian DPA for an update on its investigation. A spokesperson for the authority told us its probe remains ongoing. “Based on our role as lead supervisory authority for World Coin Foundation we are in contact with the controller to establish as quick as possible reliable precautionary measures stopping possible misuse of the services and violations of the terms of services,” they added, saying they are currently examining more than 20 complaints from data subjects in Spain which touch on the question of processing minors’ data.

As TFH’s lead DPA, under the one-stop-shop (OSS) mechanism in bloc’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), it is responsible for investigating a number of privacy and data protection complaints about the company.

This structure means the Bavarian DPA will produce a draft decision on its Worldcoin GDPR investigation for peer authorities to review. Other authorities will then have the chance to object if they do not agree with its findings. The regulation requires majority backing for decisions on cross-border cases, which allows for weaker enforcements to be overruled where there is a consensus that stronger measures are warranted. This in turn allows for forum shopping risks inherent to the GDPR’s OSS mechanism to be mitigated, albeit over a longer time-frame.

The GDPR’s Article 66 powers, which Spain is using for its temporary, local ban on Worldcoin, also provide authorities with tools to respond to urgent risks in cases where a lead authority has yet to act and/or is dragging its feet.

However Portugal’s DPA told us it is not relying Article 66 powers in this case. Rather it said it instigated its own volition enquiry into the Worldcoin project, back in August 2023, when it was not clear to it which of the various involved entities was legally responsible for the data processing.

“Based on the declarations provided by both companies… [Cayman Island-based] Worldcoin Foundation presents itself as data controller of the biometric data and other related data processing with the World ID, and [US-based] Tools for Humanity Corporation is the processor for that data processing and it is the controller for the World App data processing,” a spokesperson for the authority told us. “Therefore, since Worldcoin Foundation is the controller of the biometric data from July 24, 2023, and TFH is only the processor, we did not refer any complaint to Germany as the one-stop-shop does not apply to this specific data processing.”

Neither the Spanish nor Portuguese authority has explicitly called out the Bavarian authority for taking too long to investigate TFH. But the fact of other DPAs making their own urgent interventions speaks volumes.

“Given the current circumstances, in which there is an illegality in the processing of biometric data of minors, associated with potential violations of other GDPR standards, the CNPD understood that the risk to citizens’ fundamental rights is high, justifying urgent intervention to prevent serious or irreparable harm,” the Portuguese authority noted, saying it will continue to investigate Worldcoin’s local activity.

In a statement, the CNPD’s president, Paula Meira Lourenço, added: “This order to temporarily limit the collection of biometric data by the Worldcoin Foundation is, at this moment, an indispensable and justified measure to obtain the useful effect of defending the public interest in safeguarding fundamental rights, especially of minors.”

This report was updated with comment from Worldcoin and the Bavarian DPA. We also made a correction after Portugal’s DPA told us it is not relying on the GDPR’s Article 66 powers for its stop-processing order, as we originally reported. It said this is because it identified US- and Cayman Island-based entities attached to the local Worldcoin operations as the responsible entities in this case — meaning the one-stop-shop does not apply 

Worldcoin fails to get injunction against Spain’s privacy suspension

Worldcoin says it’s paused services in Spain, after filing legal challenge to temporary ban

TikTok logo encircled by a "prohibited" symbol

Senate passes a bill that would ban TikTok if ByteDance doesn't sell it

by with No Comment Tech

TikTok logo encircled by a "prohibited" symbol

Image Credits: TechCrunch

The Senate passed a bill, included with the foreign aid package, that will ban TikTok if its owner, ByteDance, doesn’t sell it within a year. Senators passed the bill 79-18 Tuesday after the House passed it with overwhelming majority over the weekend.

President Joe Biden will have to sign the bill to make it law. He intends to do so on Wednesday, according to the White House.

Notably, the House in March passed a similar standalone bill to ban TikTok or force its sale with a six-month time limit. However, the Senate never took that bill up. This time, as the bill was tied with critical foreign aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, the Senate had to make a decision.

https://techcrunch.com/2024/03/14/will-congress-ban-tiktok/

TikTok didn’t immediately release a statement. However, Michael Beckerman, the company’s head of public policy for the Americas, said that the company plans to challenge the move in courts, according to Bloomberg.

“This is an unprecedented deal worked out between the Republican Speaker and President Biden. The stage that the bill is signed, we will move to the courts for a legal challenge,” he said in a memo to TikTok’s U.S. staff earlier this week.

The bill gives ByteDance nine months to force a sale with a 90-day extension, which is effectively a year to complete the deal.

Last week, when the House passed the bill, TikTok said it was “unfortunate” that the House was using the cover of important foreign and humanitarian assistance to jam through a ban bill that restricts the “free speech rights of 170 million Americans.”

While TikTok operates out of Singapore, the U.S. has been concerned about the data of its citizens, given the Chinese ownership of the social media platform. TikTok has continually tried to assure the government that it doesn’t give out U.S. user data to China with different campaigns.

TikTok has also attempted to make a point that the platform is essential for creators and small businesses in the U.S. Earlier this month, the company released an economic impact report stating that TikTok generated $14.7 billion for small to mid-sized companies in the country. The report also noted that more than 7 million U.S.-based businesses rely on the platform.

Civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have opposed the app’s ban. Last month, creators also voiced concern about a potential TikTok ban impacting their incomes.

Despite expressing security concerns over the app, Biden joined TikTok in February, potentially to reach young voters. Inversely, Donald Trump, who made moves to put sanctions on TikTok as president, has rallied against the ban.

tiktok ban

Biden signs bill that would ban TikTok if ByteDance fails to sell the app

by with No Comment Tech

tiktok ban

Image Credits: TechCrunch

President Biden has signed a bill that would ban TikTok if its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, fails to sell it within a year. The bill, which includes aid for Ukraine and Israel, was passed by the U.S. Senate in a 79-18 vote late Tuesday after the House passed it with overwhelming majority over the weekend.

The bill gives ByteDance nine months to divest TikTok, with a 90-day extension available to complete a deal. If ByteDance doesn’t sell TikTok, it would become illegal for app stores to distribute the app in the U.S.

In an emailed statement to TechCrunch, TikTok said it would challenge the “unconstitutional law” in court.

“We believe the facts and the law are clearly on our side, and we will ultimately prevail,” the statement reads. “The fact is, we have invested billions of dollars to keep U.S. data safe and our platform free from outside influence and manipulation. This ban would devastate 7 million businesses and silence 170 million Americans. As we continue to challenge this unconstitutional ban, we will continue investing and innovating to ensure TikTok remains a space where Americans of all walks of life can safely come to share their experiences, find joy, and be inspired.”

TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew shared his own video response on Wednesday, calling the news “a disappointing moment” and stating that TikTok “will keep fighting.”

Back in March, the House passed a similar standalone bill to ban TikTok or force its sale within six-months time, but the Senate never took that bill up. This time, the House packaged the TikTok bill with foreign aid to U.S. allies, which essentially forced the Senate to make a decision.

TikTok has spent the last few months arguing that its platform is essential for creators and small businesses in the United States. A few weeks ago, the company released an economic impact report revealing that TikTok generated $14.7 billion for small to mid-sized companies in the U.S.

The ban would not be a first for TikTok. Four years ago, India banned the app following a military battle along the India-China border, and both Google and Meta quickly seized the opportunity to capture both local creators and TikTok users via their respective copycat products, YouTube Shorts and Instagram’s Reels.

Numerous other countries also banned the service, including Senegal, Nepal, Afghanistan, Somalia and Iran.

TikTok logo encircled by a "prohibited" symbol

The impact of TikTok's ban in other countries could signal what's ahead for the US

by with No Comment Tech

TikTok logo encircled by a "prohibited" symbol

Image Credits: TechCrunch

On April 24, U.S. President Joe Biden signed a bill that would ban TikTok if its owner ByteDance doesn’t sell the app. The bill requires ByteDance to secure a deal within nine months, with a 90-day extension available to close it. After this deadline, the U.S. will bar app stores from listing the app.

TikTok will challenge this decision in courts with a long legal battle ahead of us. But many countries worldwide have already banned the app, and ByteDance hasn’t had a chance to revive it. These moves impacted ByteDance’s operations in those countries, creators, as well as startups related to the creator economy.

How a TikTok ban is playing out in other countries

India: 

This is perhaps the most well-known TikTok ban as India is one of the biggest consumer markets in the world. In June 2020, the Indian government banned the short video app along with many other Chinese apps citing national security reasons. ByteDance’s other popular app Helo was also a part of the list of banned apps at that time.

Members of the Working Journalist of India (WJI) hold placards urging citizens to remove Chinese apps and stop using Chinese products during a demonstration against the Chinese newspaper Global Times, in New Delhi on June 30, 2020. Image Credits: Photo by PRAKASH SINGH/AFP via Getty Images

Afghanistan:

In 2022, the Taliban banned TikTok along with PlayerUnkown’s Battleground (PUBG) for “misleading youth.” In February, Wired reported that many creators in the country used VPNs to make videos and reach different audiences through TikTok. The report noted that TikTok users in Afghanistan were estimated to be anywhere between 325,000 to 2 million.

Uzbekistan: 

Uzbekistan has placed restrictions on TikTok’s usage in the country since July 2021. In 2022, lawmakers proposed a complete ban after several people used VPNs to use the service.

Senegal:

In August 2023, Senegal blocked TikTok in the aftermath of the sentencing of opposition leader Ousmane Sonko. Citizens used the platform to register dissent resulting in a ban. In October, authorities demanded that ByteDance create a way for officials to remove accounts.

Somalia: 

Somalia banned TikTok — along with Telegram and betting site 1xBet — around the same time as Senegal. However, Somali authorities cited that these platforms were used to “spread horrific content and misinformation to the public.”

Kyrgyzstan: 

August 2023 wasn’t a great month for TikTok. Kyrgyz authorities also barred the platform, deeming it harmful to “the health and development of children.” The country’s culture ministry added that teens were trying to reenact certain videos, causing danger to their lives.

Nepal:

Nepal banned TikTok in November 2023 because the government believed the app disrupted “social harmony” and had an impact on “family and social structures.” The authorities were also concerned about growing cybercrime on the platform, with local media reporting 1,600 TikTok-related cases in the last four years. According to a BBC Media action report published in 2023, TikTok was the country’s third most popular social media platform after YouTube and Facebook.

Other bans: 

Iran has banned most major social networks in the country, including TikTok. However, the exact date of the ban is unknown. Apart from that, several countries and regions, including the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Belgium, the EU, New Zealand and Australia have barred TikTok from official devices.

The impact of TikTok bans

Multiple reports have captured the impact of the TikTok ban on creators who were reliant on the short video platform for reach and even money-making. Many small businesses also use TikTok to promote their brands in different ways.

In many ways, India banning TikTok was a pivotal moment as Instagram rushed to release Reels in India to replace the platform. Meta (then Facebook) launched Reels in the U.S. a few months later. YouTube also followed suit by introducing Shorts in India.

However, TikTok’s ban also gave rise to many local short video apps. Twitter and Google-backed local social network ShareChat released Moj; Verse Innovation (parent company of news aggregator DailyHunt) launched Josh; Times Internet launched MX Takatak and eventually merged it with Moj in 2022; ad company InMobi released Roposo with other rivals like Mitron, Chingari and Trell also trying to capture the market.

Developers in Nepal also launched a TikTok rival called Ramailo in November 2023, but its lifespan was short-lived.

Because of multiple apps, creators have had to invest in putting their content on multiple platforms. Critically, these platforms might not be putting short videos front and center like TikTok, and their recommendation algorithm might also differ, causing creators to lose their audience. A similar impact could occur in the U.S., as creators scramble to find a new platform or platforms for their work — even if only to hedge against the possibility that TikTok’s influence wanes under the threat of a ban.

In the aftermath of India banning TikTok, ByteDance had to scale back its operations. Earlier this year, the company’s music streaming service, Resso, was also shut down in India after the government asked app stores to pull the app.

Aside from the impact on creators, digital rights activists have also made arguments that banning platforms like TikTok curtails free speech. Some of these angles might play out in the U.S., too, as the government and ByteDance will indulge in legal battles.

Last year, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr said that India set an “incredibly important precedent” by banning TikTok in 2020. Carr mentioned at that time that the U.S. needs to follow India’s lead to remove nefarious apps.