Abstract –
Spreading of TikTok crises around the world has been resultant of the digital platform as a culturally dominant short-form video platform. This study covers the spread of different effects of TikTok bans, which show how this act affects online governance, individual behavior, and social dynamic. The key idea to the analysis is the terms “affective public”, that explains people’s emotions and social behavior in digital spaces. This study has been designed to examine the different regulatory responses towards the bans and their impact on affective patterns and group behaviors that add up to lots of data showing the intricacy of authority control and virtual communities. The report underscores how TikTok bans exceed beyond censorship to infringe on cultural performance, networking, and online movements. This is even more evident in the necessity of an intricate regulation of the digital domain which has to consider the corresponding societal concerns as well as the individual right to self-realization. More importantly, the paper will scrutinise the geopolitical, cultural, and ethical aspects of TikTok bans, putting much attention to the users’ emotional and social aspect in shaping digital governance. To sum it up, the survey introduces policy schemes that ensure digital rights, lead to equitable online arena and develop space where the dialogue is of real value. It aims to that, through dealing with these issues, it will contribute to the more complex state of knowledge on the digital regulation in modern days.
Introduction –
The meteoric takeover of TikTok, a social media platform which singles out short-form video content, has inaugurated a global dialogue on the repercussion of banning this community and individual behaviors (social dynamics) that are based online. At the core of the mood issue is the concept “affective public,” coined to refer to the reactions of users, i.e. the emotional and social responses of members of the digital sphere (Papacharissi, 2015). This paper uncovers the multidimensional outcomes of TikTok bans as the public policy implications and the technology influence the fans’ emotional engagement and individual/community behaviors on the internet. Governments when it comes to governing digital spaces, need to acknowledge the complex nature of banning, hence, it becomes crucial to understand the crux of the issue. An “affective public” lens brings in greater depth of understanding, details that the affective relational environment in the modern public discourse in the digital era (Meikle, 2018) allows for. The present study tries to bring the light into the intertwined relations between supervising measures and passionate publics on the basis of TikTok bans made in several countries since it provides for the search for answers of the complexities affecting the development of online communities. A closer analysis of the complicated link between TikTok regulating rules and the actual impact on the emotional public will contribute to a better understanding of the multifaceted flows of online governance. Through investigating the consequences of digital rights, users’ experience, cultural expression, and ethical factors related to this topic, this paper offers insight into the development of social regulation in the digital world.
Given the ever-changing relationship between different TikTok ban restrictions and the formation of emotional publics, this paper will attempt to investigate how power methods shape the behaviours and patterns of emotion among online crowds. Affective publics are directly related to the study of the regulatory reaction to TikTok bans. Internet and social media play an increasingly larger role in the public debate of modern society, and this is all to prove that affective publics are significant. Both Zeng and Kaye (2022) and Riaz et al. (2020) examine how rulemaking impacts the nature of platform interaction. Since all of these are interconnected, it’s easy to understand how other nations handle social-political and policy-related matters by looking at TikTok. The societal impact of affective publics is also noticeable when public relations staples like insecurities and conflicts materialize in the actual world. The emotional interactions within online communities are clearly affected by “managing the procedures of banning TikTok,” according to Zeng and Kaye (2022). Users’ interactions with the platform and with one another are shaped in such regulative ways. This is also related to the broader public discussion of the affective public, which has been described as quite turbulent. These dynamics have the potential to impact the public that expressed their disapproval in waves of online and offline community outrage and solidarity when it comes to regulatory actions that directly affect TikTok bans. The ever-evolving link between regulatory measures and affective publics exemplifies the dynamic nature of social media governance, along with its implications for digital rights and online communities.
Secondly, prohibiting TikTok does not only influence the site; but there are also horrible effects on online activism, cultural expression, and networking. As previously said, consumers’ responses indicated that TikTok appeared to affect social behaviours, even though not everyone had one. This section will provide an outline of various parts of society, like digital activism, supported by current research and case studies. With the aid of the latest proofs and study case materials, Groseth (2020) asserted, “Social media platforms, including TikTok, are the political spaces where young people participate and mobilise”. Furthermore, in terms of these distinct channels providing entertaining videos, people can no longer have their own leisure time while scrolling through TikTok. It is also undeniable that people were prevented from contributing into social and political meetings that exhibited support for their reasons. In contrast, Clausius (2022) claims that “TikTok is frequently used to generate and disseminate trends and allow people to showcase their creativity, particularly in rhyme, voice, and user-generated compilations”. When TikTok was banished, individuals lost another system to express themselves creatively, resulting in a cultural disadvantage for the business. TikTok’s death could result in the loss of income for millions of its customers and advertisers. Groseth (2020) reports that the loss of TikTok would significantly damage the content producers’ careers. Creative people on social media earn money from posting online and TikTok’s eradication contributes to the economic imbalance. However, the banning of TikTok is by no means the first time that the prohibition has hurt users’ feelings and minds. The abrupt ban on TikTok shatters large digital social organisational structures, resulting in feelings of isolation, despair, and despondency among hundreds of millions of people, especially teenagers. For example, Clausius (2022) emphasizes the need to take safety into account while social media citizens, as the suspension of TikTok affected mental health amongst the young users who used the platform as their coping mechanism. This is because TikTok allows individuals across the world to express their authentic selves and be unapologetically themselves. TikTok’s comment section has therefore been a safe space for many youngsters and young adults where they feel that they can relate to one another. It further makes one feel that there are so many similar people facing the same thing as them which acts as a form of therapy for some.
Moreover, bans on TikTok have not only sought to eradicate the site from existence, but they have also prompted discussions over the proper structure for regulating online communities. Considering the current climate of fast change within the framework of how governments and regulatory agencies operate. Affective public is used to characterize the way individuals in the digital world feel and interact with one another; this puts the TikTok platform in the spotlight because of its role in facilitating the expression of culture and social engagement (Meikle, 2018). The emotion of fans on the social media platform which gives the rules is now well convincing in recent times with the research focusing on it. When the decision to block TikTok from children’s devices was made, figuring out how to exercise control over these sites became necessary. Keeping people’s rights intact online necessitates striking a compromise between societal expectations and people’s ability to freely express themselves online (Fagan, 2017). According to their size and content control mechanisms, additional platforms may be subject to competing restrictions (Fagan, 2019). Platform managers may benefit from stricter regulations around the handling of user data and the extent to which it can be shared, especially for larger platforms like TikTok. They influence whatever and how individuals feel online because of their vast control over what people see online (Gillespie, 2017). Conversely, specialist groups may thrive in more intimate settings, where smaller platforms offer a better opportunity to build mini rooms (Bucher, 2020). Both the individuals and the platforms wherein the rules will be used must be considered when their creation begins. People are looking for online spaces that prioritize user privacy while also providing various forms of self-expression that encourage creative exploration (Papacharissi, 2016). In this way, the issue of the TikTok ban may be addressed while simultaneously restoring engaging and meaningful online relationships.
Furthermore, different countries’ reactions to TikTok bans show the complex interplay of political, social, and technological variables (Wang, 2020). There is a wide variety of responses from countries around the world as they face these difficulties. These nations’ arguments for the prohibition are strikingly similar; most notably, they all cite concerns for national security. According to Scantton (2023), countries throughout the world are becoming more wary about ownership of data and protection, and the United States was no exception when it banned the app amid fears that foreign users would exploit user data (Clausius, 2022). Experts have speculated that the TikTok bans were a breach of rules pertaining to freedom of speech and a danger to digital advancement, and these reasons have been criticized (Groseth, 2020). Meikle (2018) suggests using the term “affective public” to better understand the social and emotional effects of TikTok bans. People can create their public selves on TikTok and other social media platforms by expressing themselves emotionally, culturally, and socially (Papacharissi, 2016). The implementation of TikTok bans has a chilling effect on users’ capacity to express themselves and join the dynamic online community that the platform has helped to cultivate. India has one of the first and most comprehensive bans on this app, and it was also quite popular and important to the country’s social media scene (Kumar, 2023). In addition to destroying content creators’ incomes, it stunted cross-cultural understanding and the development of online communities. The idea of affective public being applied to the study of TikTok bans can be better understood the interplay between geopolitical variables, cultural norms, and technology governance (Papacharissi, 2016). Data security as well as sovereignty are universal issues, but the manners in which countries experience and apply these bans might differ greatly. Moreover, it can have a better grasp of the larger effects on internet communities as well as social dynamics by considering the emotional and social responses of users to these bans.
Ergo, the TikTok bans have brought out concerns around ethics, including censorship, data privacy and more on the bigger questions such as online rights and democracy. Such digital platforms, governments, and users as they pace through a complex environment conducted by cyber interaction remain in focus, especially in times of regulating actions. Among the long-term effects of these types of actions lie more than the censorship of online content. They have the power to redefine the very foundations of online discourse and social norms. The application of the ethical dimensions of TikTok bans within the paradigm of the affective public, which addresses the emotional connections and impactful sentiments that users entertain regarding digital content, contributes to the in-depth understanding of digital regulation and cultural values. A research conducted by Matin et al. (2021) shows that censorship of real news on social networks may cause trust issues and make less people use these platforms. Another aspect is that the unintended consequence of ban is that it, in turn has restricted the free expression of the different views and also cultural expression. And on the other hand, the problem of this balance between moderation and freedom of speech in online begins to rise (Citron & Keats, 2017). This result is a sort of call to various methods of digital regulation which involves not only ethics matters but also different opinions of the online community as well. Qualitative analysis of Vial (2019), more clearly, demonstrated that indirect offline perception and behavior was affected by the efforts of contents moderators on online platforms. This is because it has become clear that people react and perceive these situations in a matter of different complexities. Beyond that, it also opens the way for developing just digital spaces embedding key ethics that ensure openness, variety, and honesty.
In light of these points, there are a lot of issues with online communities and individual choices when it comes to censoring content from TikTok, and because laws made for TikTok are necessary. When traversing the vast seas and limitless oceans that form the digital world, the question “worth what or why should I care?” receives the straightforward response of “rivers and canals.” As drawing to a close, it becomes abundantly clear that TikTok’s content restrictions stem from its machine learning and touch on issues of online activism, social networking, and cultural expression. There is a strong correlation between hosting platform and competitive strategies, yet the following assignment remains a challenging mission. The objective complexity of sector-specific rules in the context of the Internet has increased during the past few years. Everything points to one thing: the difficult but necessary process of deciphering the intricate network of rules that governs the social, emotional, and digital ecosystem of TikTok. In addition, the rules that host variety among online material must be integrated into internet governance in order to address concerns of cultural representation, democratic principles, and rights to privacy on the internet. Looking ahead, it will be interesting to observe how TikTok influences the digital conversations and societal norms of today’s youth. Since users’ rights and freedoms are secured and a participatory and safe internet society is allowed to thrive, this has re-energized the area of digital governance and legislation. Along with this, it suggests ways to further investigate the moral aspect of digital governance, which involves balancing the rights to censor and free speech. Consequently, the grounds might be expanded into a space where additional conversations regarding the ethics of internet governance as well as digital property compensation, the growth of digital communities, and the alteration of online culture could take place. So, the topic of digital governance can be simplified and create a more inclusive as well as active online world by addressing the processes that digital governance systems solve in this part.
References
Bucher, T. (2019). The algorithmic imaginary: Exploring the ordinary affects of Facebook algorithms. In The social power of algorithms (pp. 30-44). Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781351200677-3/algorithmic-imaginary-exploring-ordinary-affects-facebook-algorithms-taina-bucher
Citron, D. K., & Wittes, B. (2017). The internet will not break: Denying bad samaritans sec. 230 immunity. Fordham L. Rev., 86, 401. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/flr86&div=19&id=&page=
Clausius, M. (2022). The Banning of TikTok, and the Ban of Foreign Software for National Security Purposes. Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev., 21, 273. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/wasglo21&div=19&id=&page=
Fagan, F. (2017). Systemic social media regulation. Duke L. & Tech. Rev., 16, 393. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/dltr16&div=14&id=&page=
Groseth, Cara. “An Economic Analysis of Banning TikTok: How to Weigh the Competing Interests of National Security and Free Speech in Social Media Platforms.” Available at SSRN 3750779 (2020). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3750779
Kumar, A., & Thussu, D. (2023). Media, digital sovereignty and geopolitics: the case of the TikTok ban in India. Media, Culture & Society, 45(8), 1583-1599. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/01634437231174351
Matin, A., Khoshtaria, T., & Tutberidze, G. (2020). The impact of social media engagement on consumers’ trust and purchase intention. International Journal of Technology Marketing, 14(3), 305-323. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346728099_The_impact_of_social_media_engagement_on_consumers’_trust_and_purchase_intention
Meikle, G. (Ed.). (2018). The Routledge companion to media and activism (pp. 5-15). Abingdon: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315475059
Papacharissi, Z. (2016). Affective publics and structures of storytelling: Sentiment, events and mediality. Information, communication & society, 19(3), 307-324. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1109697
Papacharissi, Z. (2015). Affective publics: Sentiment, technology, and politics. Oxford University Press. https://books.google.mu/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ffMVDAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Humphreys,+L.+(2018).+Affective+Publics:+Sentiment,+Technology,+and+Politics.+Oxford+University+Press&ots=_Xmv80c6JK&sig=V11Z-hrqS_Q-ViCeQCBzWqPZCEE&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
Riaz, D., Mathai, M., & Sharma, P. Regulatory tactics to ban TikTok: Case studies from Pakistan, India and United States.https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Danial-Riaz-2/publication/372530301_Regulatory_tactics_to_ban_TikTok_Case_studies_from_Pakistan_India_and_the_US/links/64bcce62c41fb852dd93889d/Regulatory-tactics-to-ban-TikTok-Case-studies-from-Pakistan-India-and-the-US.pdf
Scatton, S. (2023). TikTok Risk or Threat? Competing narratives about risk and threats in the US case. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?dswid=7249&pid=diva2%3A1797783
Vial, G. (2021). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. Managing digital transformation, 13-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003
Wang, J. (2020). From banning to regulating TikTok: Addressing concerns of national security, privacy, and online harms. Policy Brief. The Foundation for Law, Justice and Society. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344584442_From_banning_to_regulating_TikTok_Addressing_concerns_of_national_security_privacy_and_online_harms
Zeng, J., & Kaye, D. B. V. (2022). From content moderation to visibility moderation: A case study of platform governance on TikTok. Policy & Internet, 14(1), 79-95. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/poi3.287
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.