Eric Smalley, The Conversation and Matt Williams, The Conversation

The U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 17, 2025, upheld a law requiring TikTok’s China-based parent company, ByteDance, to sell the video app by Jan. 19, 2025, or face a nationwide ban on the app. In a unanimous decision, the court rejected TikTok’s claim that the law violates its First Amendment rights.

The court’s ruling is the latest development in a lengthy saga over the fate of an app that is widely popular, especially among young Americans, but that many politicians in Washington say is a security risk.

The ruling is unlikely to be the end of the story. President Joe Biden said that he will not enforce the law in the waning hours of his administration. President-elect Donald Trump said he will reverse the ban and is reportedly considering an executive order to do so.

But why is TikTok controversial? Are the claims of it being a national security risk valid? And what will the case mean for free speech? The Conversation’s contributors have been on hand to answer these questions.

1. An agent of the Chinese state?

Politicians who wanted to ban TikTok, or at least sever its links to China, fear that the app provides a way for the Chinese Communist Party to influence Americans or use their data for malicious purposes. But how much influence does the Chinese government have on TikTok? That question is addressed by Shaomin Li, a scholar of China’s political economy and business at Old Dominion University.

Li explains that the relationship between TikTok, ByteDance and the Chinese Communist Party is nuanced – it isn’t simply a matter of officials in Beijing telling ByteDance to jump and the parent company dictating how high its subsidiary will leap. Rather, as with all companies in China, employees are under certain obligations when it comes to advancing national interests. In China, private enterprises, such as ByteDance, operate as joint ventures with the state.

“Regardless of whether ByteDance has formal ties with the party, there will be the tacit understanding that the management is working for two bosses: the investors of the company and, more importantly, their political overseers that represent the party,” Li writes. “But most importantly, when the interests of the two bosses conflict, the party trumps.”

Advertisement

2. Exploiting user data

The risks TikTok poses to U.S. users are similar to the risks posed by many popular apps, principally that the app collects data about you. That data, which includes contact information and website tracking, plus all data you post and messages you send through the app, is available to use or misuse by ByteDance and any other entity that has or gains access to it.

Iowa State University cybersecurity researcher Doug Jacobson writes that U.S. officials and lawmakers are concerned that the Chinese government could exploit TikTok user data to spy on U.S. citizens. Government hackers could use the TikTok data to trick users into revealing more personal information.

But if the goal is to counter Chinese hackers, banning TikTok is likely to prove too little, too late. “By some estimates, the Chinese government has already collected personal information on at least 80% of the U.S. population via various means,” Jacobson writes. “The Chinese government – along with anyone else with money – also has access to the large market for personal data.”

3. The security risks of a ban

Banning TikTok could also make U.S. users more vulnerable to hackers of all stripes. Rochester Institute of Technology computer security expert Robert Olson writes that many of the 170 million U.S. TikTok users could try to get around a ban on the app, with negative consequences for their digital safety.

If TikTok ends up banned from Apple’s and Google’s app stores, users could try to access the app elsewhere via sideloading. This practice of getting around the Apple and Google app stores leaves users vulnerable to malware posing as the TikTok app. TikTok users might also be motivated to circumvent Apple and Google security controls in order to keep the app installed, a move that would make users’ phones more vulnerable.

“I find it unlikely that a TikTok ban (is) technologically enforceable,” Olson writes. “This … legislation – aimed at improving cybersecurity – could motivate users to engage in riskier digital behavior.”

4. First Amendment concerns

In its legal challenge to the U.S. government, ByteDance claimed the government is violating its First Amendment rights. Technology law scholars Anupam Chander of Georgetown University and Gautam Hans of Cornell University write that ByteDance had grounds for its claim, and that the implications go beyond this case.

Advertisement

TikTok is a publisher – an online publisher of users’ videos. Forcing ByteDance to divest TikTok is a form of prior restraint – the government preventing speech before it occurs, Chander and Hans write.

“By forcing the sale of TikTok to an entity without ties to the Chinese Communist Party, Congress’ intent with the law is to change the nature of the platform,” they write. “That kind of government action implicates the core concerns that the First Amendment was designed to protect against: government interference in the speech of private parties.”

5. What about the others?

Security and legal issues aside, the forced sale to a U.S.-based company or ban of TikTok in the United States is a questionable approach to solving the problems the law aims to address: potential Chinese government influence in the U.S., harm to teens and data privacy violations, writes Arizona State media scholar Sarah Florini.

The Chinese government – and other U.S. adversaries – have long used social media apps owned by U.S. companies to attempt to influence American public opinion. TikTok is hardly alone in posing harm to teens, as the Facebook whistleblower case amply demonstrated. And vast amounts of Americans’ personal data are already available to any buyer on the open and black markets.

“Concerns about TikTok are not unfounded, but they are also not unique. Each threat posed by TikTok has also been posed by U.S.-based social media for over a decade,” Florini writes.

This is an updated version of an article originally published on Sept. 16, 2024.

Eric Smalley, Science + Technology Editor, The Conversation and Matt Williams, Senior International Editor, The Conversation

Advertisement

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

David Arditi, University of Texas at Arlington

When members of a reality TV show’s cast sign a contract to participate in a show, they typically do so more for the exposure than the pay – and in many cases they do not earn a dime.

Employers get away with what may appear to be a violation of basic labor laws because those contestants are classified as independent contractors, not employees. In the eyes of the law, they do not have the same protections most workers get with just about any other kind of job, such as the freedom to join unions.

It also means that the National Labor Relations Board does not have jurisdiction over them. This may soon change after the government agency filed a complaint against Delirium TV and Kinetic Content, the producers of “Love Is Blind.”

The NLRB complaint states that reality TV contestants are employees and therefore have the right to join a union. Former “Love Is Blind” contestants Renee Poche and Nicholas Thompson had filed a petition requesting this action. In addition to not being able to join a union, they couldn’t even discuss the terms of their contracts due to nondisclosure agreements.

As a sociologist who studies popular culture and labor, I have argued for years that reality TV stars and musicians should be classified as employees.

Reality TV participants, including many of the stars of those shows, are essentially the unpaid interns of the entertainment industry, even though it’s their stories, personalities and talent that attract and hook viewers.

Offering contestants paltry pay

Today’s economy is saturated with precarious employment practices where many corporations classify workers as independent contractors. From musicians to influencers, people work gig jobs where there is no guarantee of pay or employment.

Advertisement

“Cupcake Wars,” “Love Is Blind” and other reality TV shows thrive thanks to a simple business model: They are cheap to produce. One reason for that is most participants are independent contractors who work for free or earn paltry pay under the guise of chasing their dreams or gaining exposure.

This arrangement might change after the new NLRB complaint. The NLRB was created during President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal as an independent government agency tasked with protecting and regulating workers’ rights.

One of its key responsibilities is regulating unions and determining workers’ right to strike. It determines who can join a union and whether a strike is legal.

Providing a gold mine for networks

To conduct research for my book “Getting Signed: Record Contracts, Musicians, and Power in Society,” I interviewed contestants on “The Voice.”

Former contestants repeatedly told me that the television exposure did little to help their careers.

Prior to joining the show, many of the musicians were trying to scratch out a living through touring or performing. They put their developing careers on pause to chase their dreams.

However, the show’s contracts have stipulated that contestants cannot perform, sell their name, image and likeness, or record new music while on “The Voice.”

Advertisement

Furthermore, viewers might not realize just how profitable these reality shows are.

Take “House Hunters.” The show follows a prospective homebuyer as they tour three homes. Homebuyers featured on the show have noted that they earn only US$500 for their work, and the episodes take three to five days and about 30 hours to film.

The show’s producers don’t pay the real estate agents to be on it.

The low pay for people on reality TV shows matches the low budget for these shows. A former participant wrote that episodes of “House Hunters” cost about $50,000 to shoot. Prime-time sitcoms, by comparison, have a budget of up to $3 million per episode.

Organizing unions within reality TV

That massive budget gap between reality TV and sitcoms is not simply due to an absence of star actors.

Many scripted television shows are based in Los Angeles, where camera crews, stunt doubles, costume artisans, makeup artists and hair stylists are unionized. But shows like “House Hunters,” which are filmed across the country, recruit crews from right-to-work states.

Advertisement

Employees in those places cannot be compelled to join a union or pay union dues as a condition of employment. For these reasons, unions have far less power in these states than they do in places traditionally associated with show business, such as California and New York.

I think reality TV might become the next show business labor battle. If the NLRB forces “Love Is Blind” to treat its stars and other on-screen participants as employees, it could cascade.

Reality TV production companies could someday be required to pay all contestants wages and limit the hours they work. The Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, the union known as SAG-AFTRA, could begin to recruit those workers as dues-paying members.

But it’s not certain that any of this will happen. There are many hearings, court cases and appeals in store before it becomes enforceable. And since President-elect Donald Trump will take office before the hearing is scheduled to occur, his appointees could change course.

Still, I think the NLRB’s action demonstrates that reality TV contestants are finally becoming recognized as workers who deserve to be treated better by their employers.

Some portions of this article first appeared in an article published on Sept. 21, 2023.

David Arditi, Professor of Sociology, University of Texas at Arlington

Advertisement

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Premier Family-Friendly Entertainment Destination Completes 2024 With Multiple Franchise Agreements

DALLAS, Jan. 14, 2025 /PRNewswire/ — Altitude Trampoline Park, the leading family-friendly entertainment franchise, is celebrating a remarkable year of development. In 2024, the franchise continues to grow with more agreements, extending its reach to new and existing markets, including Long Island, South Florida, and the Bay Area, continuing its mission to deliver unforgettable family experiences.

Throughout the year, Altitude Trampoline Park strengthened its presence with multi-unit agreements in Connecticut and South Carolina, paving the way for three new parks in each state. The year also saw multiple park openings in California, Florida, Texas and Georgia, driving the brand’s continued growth.

“Altitude Trampoline Park continues to solidify its position as an attractive franchise opportunity, with 2024 being an impressive year for the brand,” said Chris Kuehn, President of Altitude Trampoline Park. “We’ve signed several multi-unit franchise agreements that will bring our parks to new communities and currently have several locations under construction. This momentum reflects the growing demand for family-friendly entertainment, and we’re eager to continue developing our pipeline in 2025.”

Building on its momentum, the company is expanding both its corporate team and franchise network. Chris Kuehn has been named President and Jessica McDonald has been promoted to Vice President of Marketing. In addition, Sean Naughton recently joined as Chief Financial Officer, strengthening the leadership team. On the franchise side, five existing owners have committed to growing their footprint, and 11 new franchisees have joined the system.

In 2025, Altitude will continue to grow with grand openings coming soon in West Palm Beach, Florida; Chicago, Illinois; Cary, North Carolina; Spartanburg, South Carolina; Anaheim, California; and more.

Altitude Trampoline Park is owned by Indoor Active Brands, a platform company that focuses on indoor entertainment concepts. In 2024, Indoor Active Brands launched its latest brand, The Pickle Pad, an indoor pickleball playground featuring a chef-inspired restaurant and bar – Crave Social Eatery, as well as yard and social games for all ages. Established by NRD Capital, Indoor Active Brands utilizes vast FEC and restaurant industry experience to support and assist its franchisees. 

The brand is actively seeking qualified candidates to help grow its footprint throughout the U.S. in Kansas City, MO, Minneapolis, MN, Las Vegas, NV, Denver, CO, among others. To learn more about franchise opportunities and upcoming store openings, contact [email protected] or visit www.altitudefranchise.com.

Advertisement

About Altitude Trampoline Park 

Altitude Trampoline Park is a premier indoor adventure park offering cutting edge trampolines, games, programs, and celebrations for all ages. Altitude is the home for active family fun! The brand’s successful $10 Endless Jumps Pass, is where members get the max. Guests can, in fact, Jump Happy! with unlimited use of trampolines, soft play, basketball, dodgeball, interactive games and more providing a great way for families to stay together and play together all year long. Nearing 100 locations worldwide, Altitude parks are centrally located and easily accessible, making it the convenient, budget friendly choice for families in 202. 5. More information can be found at altitudetrampolinepark.com. 

About Indoor Active Brands
Indoor Active Brands is a platform company focused on owning and operating franchising concepts in the indoor family entertainment and restaurant industry. Created by NRD Capital, Indoor Active Brands currently consists of Altitude Trampoline Park, The Pickle Pad, and Crave Social Eatery. Indoor Active Brands leverages years of experience in the family entertainment and restaurant industries to provide unmatched support for its franchisees. For more information about Indoor Active Brands visit www.indooractivebrands.com.

SOURCE Altitude Trampoline Park