Connect with us

Business

TikTok Restores Service After US Shutdown Amid Trump Deal

Published

3 minute read

logo

By

President Trump’s intervention signals a lifeline for TikTok amid escalating tensions over its future in the US.

Barely half a day after TikTok went offline across the United States, the widely popular video-sharing platform is beginning to come back online. This swift reversal follows a statement from TikTok announcing its efforts to restore service, facilitated by new assurances from the Trump administration.
“In agreement with our service providers, TikTok is in the process of restoring service,” the company confirmed. “We thank President Trump for providing the necessary clarity and assurance to our service providers that they will face no penalties providing TikTok to over 170 million Americans and allowing over 7 million small businesses to thrive.”

TikTok’s abrupt shutdown came as a law targeting its operations in the US was set to take effect. The legislation, passed under President Joe Biden’s administration, required TikTok’s Chinese parent company, ByteDance, to sell the app or face a nationwide ban. It also prohibited American companies from offering services essential to the app’s distribution or maintenance. As uncertainty loomed, TikTok ceased functioning late Saturday night and disappeared from the Apple and Google Play app stores.

In a dramatic turn of events, President-elect Donald Trump addressed the issue Sunday morning, promising executive action to delay the ban. He stated his intention to ensure TikTok’s return and suggested the importance of the app being operational for Americans to enjoy his Inauguration Day celebrations.

“Americans deserve to see our exciting Inauguration on Monday,” Trump wrote, adding that his executive order would confirm no legal repercussions for companies that facilitated TikTok’s operations before his intervention.

These reassurances appeared to be sufficient for TikTok and its partners, as users began regaining access to the app shortly after the announcement. While some devices experienced restored functionality, TikTok’s absence from major app stores persisted as of early Sunday afternoon.

Trump also floated an idea for a resolution to the app’s future in the United States, suggesting a joint venture that would grant the US a 50% ownership stake. TikTok has expressed willingness to collaborate, stating it is committed to working with the Trump administration on a long-term solution to ensure the app’s continued presence in the country.

In an NBC interview, Trump confirmed he is considering granting TikTok a 90-day extension to comply with the divestment requirement, a decision he plans to announce imminently. “The 90-day extension is something that will be most likely done because it’s appropriate,” Trump remarked. “It’s a very big situation.”

As political wrangling continues, TikTok remains at the center of a contentious debate over free speech, economic interests, and national security.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

The EU Insists Its X Fine Isn’t About Censorship. Here’s Why It Is.

Published on

logo

By

Europe calls it transparency, but it looks a lot like teaching the internet who’s allowed to speak.

When the European Commission fined X €120 million on December 5, officials could not have been clearer. This, they said, was not about censorship. It was just about “transparency.”
They repeat it so often you start to wonder why.
The fine marks the first major enforcement of the Digital Services Act, Europe’s new censorship-driven internet rulebook.
It was sold as a consumer protection measure, designed to make online platforms safer and more accountable, and included a whole list of censorship requirements, fining platforms that don’t comply.
The Commission charged X with three violations: the paid blue checkmark system, the lack of advertising data, and restricted data access for researchers.
None of these touches direct content censorship. But all of them shape visibility, credibility, and surveillance, just in more polite language.
Musk’s decision to turn blue checks into a subscription feature ended the old system where establishment figures, journalists, politicians, and legacy celebrities got verification.
The EU called Musk’s decision “deceptive design.” The old version, apparently, was honesty itself. Before, a blue badge meant you were important. After, it meant you paid. Brussels prefers the former, where approved institutions get algorithmic priority, and the rest of the population stays in the queue.
The new system threatened that hierarchy. Now, anyone could buy verification, diluting the aura of authority once reserved for anointed voices.
Reclaim The Net is sustained by its readers.
Your support fuels the fight for privacy, free speech and digital civil liberties while giving you access to exclusive content, practical how to guides, premium features and deeper dives into freedom-focused tech.
Become a supporter here.
However, that’s not the full story. Under the old Twitter system, verification was sold as a public service, but in reality it worked more like a back-room favor and a status purchase.
The main application process was shut down in 2010, so unless you were already famous, the only way to get a blue check was to spend enough money on advertising or to be important enough to trigger impersonation problems.
Ad Age reported that advertisers who spent at least fifteen thousand dollars over three months could get verified, and Twitter sales reps told clients the same thing. That meant verification was effectively a perk reserved for major media brands, public figures, and anyone willing to pay. It was a symbol of influence rationed through informal criteria and private deals, creating a hierarchy shaped by cronyism rather than transparency.
Under the new X rules, everyone is on a level playing field.
Government officials and agencies now sport gray badges, symbols of credibility that can’t be purchased. These are the state’s chosen voices, publicly marked as incorruptible. To the EU, that should be a safeguard.
The second and third violations show how “transparency” doubles as a surveillance mechanism. X was fined for limiting access to advertising data and for restricting researchers from scraping platform content. Regulators called that obstruction. Musk called it refusing to feed the censorship machine.
The EU’s preferred researchers aren’t neutral archivists. Many have been documented coordinating with governments, NGOs, and “fact-checking” networks that flagged political content for takedown during previous election cycles.
They call it “fighting disinformation.” Critics call it outsourcing censorship pressure to academics.
Under the DSA, these same groups now have the legal right to demand data from platforms like X to study “systemic risks,” a phrase broad enough to include whatever speech bureaucrats find undesirable this month.
The result is a permanent state of observation where every algorithmic change, viral post, or trending topic becomes a potential regulatory case.
The advertising issue completes the loop. Brussels says it wants ad libraries to be fully searchable so users can see who’s paying for what. It gives regulators and activists a live feed of messaging, ready for pressure campaigns.
The DSA doesn’t delete ads; it just makes it easier for someone else to demand they be deleted.
That’s how this form of censorship works: not through bans, but through endless exposure to scrutiny until platforms remove the risk voluntarily.
The Commission insists, again and again, that the fine has “nothing to do with content.”
That may be true on a direct level, but the rules shape content all the same. When governments decide who counts as authentic, who qualifies as a researcher, and how visibility gets distributed, speech control doesn’t need to be explicit. It’s baked into the system.
Brussels calls it user protection. Musk calls it punishment for disobedience. This particular DSA fine isn’t about what you can say, it’s about who’s allowed to be heard saying it.
TikTok escaped similar scrutiny by promising to comply. X didn’t, and that’s the difference. The EU prefers companies that surrender before the hearing. When they don’t, “transparency” becomes the pretext for a financial hammer.
The €120 million fine is small by tech standards, but symbolically it’s huge.
It tells every platform that “noncompliance” means questioning the structure of speech the EU has already defined as safe.
In the official language of Brussels, this is a regulation. But it’s managed discourse, control through design, moderation through paperwork, censorship through transparency.
And the louder they insist it isn’t, the clearer it becomes that it is.
Reclaim The Net Needs Your Help
With your help, we can do more than hold the line. We can push back. We can expose censorship, highlight surveillance overreach, and amplify the voices of those being silenced.
If you have found value in our work, please consider becoming a supporter.
Your support does more than keep us independent. It also gives you access to exclusive content, deep dive exploration of freedom focused technology, member-only features, and practical how-to posts that help you protect your rights in the real world.
You help us expand our reach, educate more people, and continue this fight.
Please become a supporter today.
Thank you for your support.
Continue Reading

Business

Loblaws Owes Canadians Up to $500 Million in “Secret” Bread Cash

Published on

Continue Reading

Trending

X