Connect with us


How India’s Decision on TikTok Influences US Policy Moves



Here is how India’s bold stance on banning TikTok is influencing the United States’ legal approach towards the app, as stated by FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr.

US Takes Cue from India’s TikTok Ban in Upcoming Legal Challenge

Key Highlights

  • Brendan Carr of the FCC reveals that the US is looking at India’s TikTok ban as a model in its own security concerns.
  • TikTok defends against a US ban by citing free speech, despite international bans for security reasons.
  • US and India share concerns over TikTok, potentially influencing international tech policies.

In a striking revelation, Brendan Carr, a commissioner from the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC), has pointed out that the US is closely observing India’s ban on TikTok for potential leverage in its own legal confrontations with the Chinese-owned app. This observation comes as TikTok faces increasing scrutiny over national security concerns.

Carr, in a recent discussion with the Economic Times, highlighted how India’s decisive move to ban TikTok could serve as a crucial example in American courtrooms. The US government, under President Joe Biden, has issued a directive that might compel ByteDance, the parent company of TikTok, to either sell the app or face a ban within a year.

TikTok Ban: The Core of the US Concern

The US administration argues that the app poses a significant threat to national security, fearing that user data could be misused by Chinese authorities. TikTok, however, maintains that these concerns are baseless and infringe on American freedoms, particularly free speech. TikTok’s CEO, Shou Zi Chew, stated that the company stands firmly on the grounds of fact and the US Constitution in its defense.

TikTok’s Legal Standoff

Country Action Reason
India Ban National Security
US Proposed Ban/Sale National Security, Data Privacy Concerns

TikTok has voiced its apprehensions on its X account, claiming a potential US ban would affect the free speech rights of its 170 million American users. The platform argues that the First Amendment, which protects freedoms like speech and press, should shield it from such actions.

Yet, Carr suggests that this defense might not suffice. He draws parallels with India’s actions, stating, “India’s stance, being a neighbour to China and taking similar measures against TikTok, underlines the concerns aren’t limited to US-China relations but are shared globally.”

The implications of India’s ban are seen as setting a precedent that could sway the US legal stance. Carr’s comments indicate a strategic use of India’s decision in US court filings, aiming to show a collective international response towards TikTok’s operations.

As the situation develops, legal experts and policymakers are keenly watching how TikTok’s arguments will hold up in court. The debate isn’t just about national security but also about the balance between security and personal freedoms in the digital age.


Continue Reading