WASHINGTON − On Friday, the Supreme Court examined differing opinions regarding the government’s ability to ban a social media platform that 170 million Americans use. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether the China-based company ByteDance is utilizing TikTok to incite conflict among Americans.

“If that’s the case, I’d say they’re succeeding,” Roberts remarked, to laughter from the court attendees.

However, among the justices, there appeared to be minimal disagreement about their positions.

Before the two-and-a-half hours of discussions commenced, experts anticipated that the court would be more influenced by the government’s national security arguments than by TikTok’s assertion that being forced to sever ties with ByteDance or face a ban infringes on the 1^st Amendment rights of TikTok and its users.

The justices predominantly challenged TikTok’s arguments rather than debating with Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who was supporting the sell-or-be-banned legislation that Congress passed last year and was endorsed by President Joe Biden.

Adding to the uncertainty was what could unfold after President-elect Donald Trump assumes office on January 20, the day TikTok is required to divest.

Trump, who attempted to ban TikTok during his initial time in office, has now pledged to “save” the platform.

Here are the key points from Friday’s discussions.

Is TikTok a genuine threat?

According to Prelogar, TikTok is perceived as a national security risk due to the vast amounts of data it shares with its parent company, ByteDance, based in China.

“It’s alarming,” Prelogar stated. “This presents a significant vulnerability because once that information is in China, the Chinese government can demand ByteDance hand over that data, and they can do so without transparency.”

Roberts emphasized that Congress has determined ByteDance must comply with Chinese laws that compel it to assist the government with intelligence operations.

“Should we really disregard that the main parent company has to engage in intelligence tasks for the Chinese government?” Roberts inquired of TikTok’s lawyer. “It appears that you may be dismissing Congress’s principal concern regarding Chinese interference with content and the collection of data.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh remarked that there are worries from Congress and the president that China might collect data on Americans over time, potentially using that information to build espionage capabilities and leverage blackmail in the future.

“That indeed is a significant concern for our country’s future,” Kavanaugh stated.

Debate over ByteDance’s control of TikTok

Justice Neil Gorsuch pointed out that there is a disagreement between the government and TikTok regarding the extent of China’s control over the company, and inquired what the available evidence indicates.

“Someone’s perspective has to be more accurate than the other,” he expressed.

Noel Francisco, an attorney for TikTok, indicated that while it may be financially unwise for the company to ignore ByteDance’s algorithm, it still has the right to resist any unethical demands from China.

“Even if China had significant influence over TikTok compared to ByteDance, I believe that wouldn’t alter the legal considerations,” stated Francisco.

Can Trump decide not to enforce the law?

Kavanaugh explored whether Trump would have the option to avoid enforcing the ban once he takes office on January 20.

The lawyer from the Justice Department, Prelogar, commented that typically, presidents have some leeway in how they enforce laws. Trump would likely need to evaluate all national security data collected during his absence from office before making a decision regarding the ban, she explained.

Kavanaugh pointed out that companies like Apple and Google may not feel assured that a presidential order to refrain from enforcing the law would shield them from its severe consequences.

“They’re not going to take that chance unless they have solid confirmation that a presidential statement not to enforce will be dependable, given the potential risks,” Kavanaugh pointed out.

Prelogar mentioned that if third-party providers choose to stop offering TikTok, it could encourage ByteDance to rethink selling the app.

Alito asks if the court can halt the law temporarily

Justice Samuel Alito inquired whether the court could delay the law’s implementation, which is set for January 19.

Prelogar emphasized that the court should refrain from doing so unless TikTok has a strong possibility of victory based on its First Amendment claim to distribute its content. However, she noted that this was unlikely as the action was not just a result of executive decision, but part of a bipartisan effort in Congress.

“Honestly, I don’t see any strong case for you to conclude that there is a likelihood of success,” she said.

Alito further questioned if the court had the ability to suspend the law administratively for a while. Prelogar expressed that she would leave that to the justices regarding whether they have enough time to consider the case, adding that both parties were prepared to argue the case come Friday.

“I believe it’s important for Congress’ work and our national security to address this case and allow the statute to be enacted,” she mentioned.

Justice Department claims TikTok is playing a risky game

TikTok’s lawyer stated that the company won’t be able to comply with the law’s divestiture requirement by January 19, thus, the app will shut down in the U.S. if the law is not blocked.

“To my understanding, we essentially would be out of operation,” Francisco remarked. “The platform would go dark.”

The Justice Department suggested that TikTok might be engaging in a risky game with the government.

“TikTok is hoping that the U.S. will back down first, either through the court system or the executive branch hesitating to enforce the law,” Prelogar noted.

However, she cautioned that when the restrictions are enforced come January 19, TikTok might discover that it can divest after all.

Are First Amendment rights in jeopardy?

The two parties debated whether the ban violates the First Amendment rights of TikTok as an American company or its users.

Francisco, who served as a former solicitor general for TikTok, argued that the app’s algorithm is crucial for providing users with tailored content. If the ByteDance algorithm is lost due to a sale, it would diminish the app’s capability to serve its audience.

Additionally, Jeffrey Fisher, representing TikTok creators, emphasized that Americans historically have enjoyed the freedom to collaborate with foreign publishers.

The government’s fears that China could secretly control content on TikTok do not sufficiently address the First Amendment concerns, according to Fisher.

“Simply having an idea is not a threat to national security,” Fisher commented, adding that limiting speech for the sake of preserving confidence in U.S. leaders or democratic processes “is precisely what our foes would do.”

Prelogar countered that the First Amendment would only be relevant if Congress aimed to discriminate against specific topics or viewpoints.

“In this case, Congress is trying to eliminate (the People’s Republic of China) from the situation entirely while allowing all the same discourse to occur on the platform,” Prelogar stated.

Are there better approaches to address the government’s worries?

Lawyers representing TikTok and the platform’s creators insisted that the government could explore less extreme methods to tackle its concerns regarding hidden content manipulation or data harvesting.

The government could mandate alerts to users about the risks of potential Chinese government interference and could ban TikTok from disclosing sensitive user information to foreign entities, they suggested.

However, Prelogar stated that a “vague notice” wouldn’t effectively alert users to instances of manipulation. She likened it to a store sign warning shoppers that one out of a million items might be hazardous.

She was also taken aback by TikTok’s attorney suggesting that blocking data sharing with ByteDance is feasible. Throughout the lengthy negotiations between the government and TikTok, she noted that the company never indicated a possibility of establishing a “genuine barrier.”

Moreover, Prelogar emphasized that ByteDance is “not a reliable partner.”

Alito: Does TikTok possess a ‘magical algorithm’?

Justice Alito raised questions about what makes TikTok unique, speculating whether other social media platforms like Meta might leap at the chance to enter the lucrative market. He wondered if the loyalty of TikTok’s creators is merely akin to a fondness for a well-worn shirt.

“I’m curious if it’s simply a fondness for a familiar piece of clothing,” Alito remarked. “Is there any basis for believing that only ByteDance has come up with this exceptional algorithm?”

In response, Fisher, an attorney for TikTok creators, stated that competitors have attempted for years to replicate TikTok’s success but have consistently fallen significantly short.

TikTok users reflect on a future without the app

As the justices deliberated TikTok’s future, users who rely on the platform for news, entertainment, or their livelihoods contemplated a world without it.

Callie Goodwin, who traveled from South Carolina with another TikTok creator to witness the oral arguments, mentioned that up to 98% of her sales from her greeting card and personalized gift company originate from TikTok users discovering her business on the app.

She shared that during the peak of the holiday shopping season several months ago, she made over $30,000 in sales through the app in just nine days.

“If we lose TikTok, I genuinely worry for the future of my business,” Goodwin expressed to YSL News.

On the other hand, Eli Benson, a college student, noted that a ban on TikTok might prompt him to reduce his social media use.

“Maybe this is a sign for me to step away,” Benson stated. “I would welcome a slight reduction in my social media presence.”