WASHINGTON − During Friday’s Supreme Court proceedings, justices explored the contentious issue of whether the government can impose a ban on TikTok, a platform that has gained 170 million users in the U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts provocatively questioned if ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company based in China, is inciting divisions among Americans.

“If that’s the case, then they are succeeding,” Roberts remarked, eliciting laughter from those present in the courtroom.

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

Prior to the nearly two-and-a-half-hour-long discussion, analysts speculated that the court would prioritize the government’s national security fears over TikTok’s assertion that separating the app from ByteDance or facing a ban infringes on the 1^st Amendment rights of the platform and its users.

The justices indeed seemed to focus more on challenging TikTok’s arguments rather than engaging with Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who defended the sell-or-be-banned law enacted by Congress last year and supported by President Joe Biden.

Additionally, the potential implications of a change in administration following President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration on January 20 were palpable, especially concerning the deadline for TikTok to be divested.

Trump previously attempted to ban TikTok during his first term, but has since vowed to “save” it.

Here are the key points from Friday’s discussions.

Is TikTok truly a threat?

According to Prelogar, TikTok poses a national security risk primarily due to the extensive data it shares with ByteDance, its Chinese parent company.

“This situation is alarming,” Prelogar remarked. “It creates a significant vulnerability because once that data is accessible in China, the PRC (People’s Republic of China) can require ByteDance to surrender that data and do so discreetly.”

Roberts noted that Congress concluded ByteDance is “subject to Chinese laws that compel it to assist or cooperate with the Chinese government’s intelligence operations.”

“Should we disregard the fact that the parent company is required to perform intelligence functions for the Chinese government?” Roberts inquired of TikTok’s attorney. “It seems you’re overlooking a crucial concern identified by Congress, specifically regarding potential Chinese manipulation of content and data collection.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed that both Congress and the president have expressed concern that China is gathering information on Americans to build espionage networks and potentially blackmail individuals in the future.

“That appears to be a significant issue for our nation’s future,” Kavanaugh stated.

Debate over ByteDance’s influence and China’s role

Justice Neil Gorsuch highlighted the differing perspectives on the extent of China’s control over TikTok and questioned the existing evidence supporting these claims.

“Someone must be right and someone must be wrong about this situation,” he remarked.

Noel Francisco, an attorney for TikTok, noted that while it would be unwise for the company not to utilize ByteDance’s algorithm, it still has the ability to resist any inappropriate demands from China.

“Even if China could significantly influence TikTok compared to ByteDance, I don’t believe that fundamentally alters the legal situation,” Francisco stated.

Could Trump opt not to implement the law?

Justice Kavanaugh inquired whether Trump could bypass enforcing the ban once he assumes office on January 20.

The lawyer for the Justice Department, Prelogar, remarked that presidents typically possess discretion in how to carry out laws. She indicated that Trump would need to review all the national security intelligence gathered since his previous tenure before making a decision about the enforcement of the ban.

Kavanaugh raised concerns that Apple, Google, and other platforms for the app likely would not feel secure enough relying solely on a presidential order to ignore the law’s severe penalties.

“They won’t take that chance unless they have solid confirmation that a presidential instruction against enforcement is genuinely dependable, as the stakes are quite high otherwise, correct?” Kavanaugh questioned.

Prelogar suggested that if third-party companies opted not to carry TikTok, this wouldn’t be a permanent decision, but it could motivate ByteDance to contemplate selling TikTok seriously.

Alito questions if the court could delay the law

Justice Samuel Alito queried if the court could pause the law’s enforcement starting January 19.

Prelogar argued that the court should refrain from such action unless TikTok is convincingly likely to succeed in its First Amendment claim regarding content distribution. However, she pointed out that this seemed improbable since the action was not solely executive but also involved bipartisan support from Congress.

“Honestly, I see no basis for arguing that you should find a likelihood of success,” Prelogar added.

Alito also questioned whether the court could administratively suspend the law temporarily. Prelogar would leave it up to the justices to decide if they have adequate time to rule on the case, although both parties are prepared to present arguments on Friday.

“Resolving this case is essential for Congress’ efforts and our national security, enabling the statute to go into effect,” she stated.

Justice Department claimed TikTok may be playing a risky game

TikTok’s lawyer asserted that the platform would not meet the law’s requirement for divestiture by January 19, which would result in TikTok being unavailable in the U.S. unless the law is halted.

“As I see it, we are going to go dark,” stated Francisco. “The platform will effectively shut down.”

The Justice Department suggested that TikTok may be indulging in a risky game of chicken with the government.

“TikTok appears to be counting on the United States to back down first, either through a court ruling or through the executive branch delaying enforcement of the law,” Prelogar noted.

Yet, she added that when the restrictions are officially enacted on January 19, TikTok may discover that it can indeed divest after all.

Are First Amendment rights in jeopardy?

The arguments centered around whether the ban violates the First Amendment rights of TikTok as an American entity or those of its users.

Francisco, a former solicitor general representing TikTok, argued that it is the algorithm that dictates the optimal content mix. Selling TikTok without the ByteDance algorithm would hinder the app’s capacity to deliver effective services to its users.

Additionally, Jeffrey Fisher, an attorney for TikTok creators, emphasized that Americans have historically had the right to collaborate with foreign publishers.

According to Fisher, the government’s fears regarding China’s potential to secretly influence content on TikTok do not adequately address issues concerning the First Amendment.

He stated, “Just ideas alone are not a national security threat,” and restricting speech due to concerns it may challenge U.S. leaders or undermine democracy “is precisely the type of action our adversaries would engage in.”

However, Prelogar pointed out that the First Amendment considerations would only arise if Congress aimed to discriminate against specific topics or viewpoints.

“In this instance, Congress simply wishes to eliminate the (People’s Republic of China) from the mix while allowing all other speech to persist on the platform,” Prelogar noted.

Could there be alternative solutions for the government’s worries?

Lawyers representing TikTok and its content creators suggested that the government has less extreme options to address concerns about hidden content manipulation and data collection.

For instance, they proposed that the government could issue warnings to users about the risks of manipulation by the Chinese government and prohibit TikTok from sharing sensitive user information with foreign entities.

Nevertheless, Prelogar argued that a “broad, vague notification” would not effectively inform users when manipulations occur. She likened it to a sign in a shop notifying customers that one of the countless items may cause cancer.

Furthermore, Prelogar expressed disbelief at TikTok’s attorney claiming that blocking TikTok from sharing data with ByteDance is feasible. In their years of negotiations, she asserted TikTok never indicated that a “true firewall” could be established.

She also stated that ByteDance “is not a reliable associate.”

Alito: What is special about TikTok’s ‘magical algorithm’?

Justice Alito inquired about what makes TikTok unique. He speculated whether other social media platforms like Meta might want to capitalize on this highly profitable market and pondered if the loyalty of content creators was akin to a preference for an old garment.

“I’m curious if this is similar to someone’s affection for an old piece of clothing,” Alito remarked. “Is there any indication that only ByteDance has created this extraordinary algorithm?”

In response, Fisher, a lawyer for TikTok creators, argued that competitors have tried for years to replicate TikTok’s popularity but have repeatedly “fallen significantly short.”

TikTok users consider life after TikTok

While justices discussed TikTok’s future, users who rely on the platform for news, entertainment, or income were contemplating a world without it.

Callie Goodwin, who traveled from South Carolina with a friend and fellow TikTok creator to attend the oral arguments, shared that as much as 98% of her greeting card and personalized gift store sales originate from TikTok exposure.

Reflecting on the previous holiday season, she noted selling over $30,000 in products through the app in just nine days.

“If TikTok disappears, I genuinely worry for the survival of my business,” Goodwin expressed to YSL News.

Conversely, college student Eli Benson mentioned that a TikTok ban might prompt him to reduce his social media usage.

“Maybe this is a hint for me to step away,” Benson suggested. “I would welcome a little less social media.”