iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Alex Turvy @alexturvy.bsky.social · 21/07/2025

New article out with Dr. Crystal Abidin in Policy & Internet: We analyze what happens when young people become internet-famous on TikTok—and neither legal protections nor platform policies are enough to address the risks they face. The gaps are filled, unevenly, by the TikTok public.

180

Alex Turvy @alexturvy.bsky.social · 20/01/2025

think that this point right here is so, so central to what *socio*technical research can offer in this moment. The backend “algorithm” is (sort of) an unknowable black box, but the stuff we can see is far more interesting and relevant.

181

Alex Turvy @alexturvy.bsky.social · 19/01/2025

This is what I get for making predictions.

020

Alex Turvy @alexturvy.bsky.social · 10/01/2025

Sharing @rscarlets.bsky.social and I’s piece again given what’s going on today - such a moment of uncertainty given Trump’s explicit push for the Court to delay vs. their seeming openness to uphold the law today. www.techpolicy.press/the-tiktok-b...

techpolicy.press

The TikTok Ban Paradox: How Platform Restrictions Create What They Aim to Prevent | TechPolicy.Press

Alex Turvy and Dr. Rebecca Scharlach write that the US TikTok ban reveals the limitations of current government regulatory paradigms.

021

Reposted by Alex Turvy

Tom Divon | توم ديفون | תום דיבון @tomdivon.bsky.social · 18/12/2024

My brill friends @rscarlets.bsky.social & @alexturvy.bsky.social remind us that bans "aim to reduce risks but instead fragment oversight, drive users to less regulated spaces, and reduce transparency while claiming to increase security" 🔥👇

243

Alex Turvy @alexturvy.bsky.social · 18/12/2024

Thanks to @blakeplease.bsky.social for help thinking through this piece!

020

Alex Turvy @alexturvy.bsky.social · 18/12/2024

New piece with @rscarlets.bsky.social : The TikTok ban won't work—it'll create exactly what it claims to prevent. Bans don't eliminate platforms, they transform them into less governable forms. Our analysis of the paradox at the heart of platform restrictions: www.techpolicy.press/the-tiktok-b...

techpolicy.press

The TikTok Ban Paradox: How Platform Restrictions Create What They Aim to Prevent | TechPolicy.Press

Alex Turvy and Dr. Rebecca Scharlach write that the US TikTok ban reveals the limitations of current government regulatory paradigms.

2134

In the meantime -- making the use of my daily Research API credits while I still can.

000

What happens next matters. The TikTok ban raises harder questions we can’t ignore: Can democratic governance adapt to networked platforms? What do we lose when policymakers rely on blunt tools like bans? What happens when platforms embody competing cultural logics?

000

The TikTok ban reflects a government grasping for control in an ecosystem it doesn’t fully understand. It’s easier to ban an app than to reckon with the messy realities of: 1. Globalized tech innovation 2. Cross-border data flows 3. Algorithms that shape speech *This* is the real tension.

This case isn’t about TikTok alone. It’s part of a larger shift: Tech built elsewhere now shapes US.culture and economy. The government wants to reassert control. The platform isn’t the problem—it’s what TikTok represents: the decline of US dominance in digital infrastructure.

100

TikTok’s case treats its algorithm like a neutral delivery mechanism. It isn’t. The government fears that mechanism could become a vector for influence. But all platforms—TikTok, Instagram, Facebook—*already* shape speech by design. So: Is free speech a shield, or a way to avoid accountability?

120

TikTok leans on free speech protections. The government warns about “potential manipulation.” Here’s the problem: Platforms don’t just host speech. They organize it—through algorithms, recommendations, and opaque decisions. Whose “speech” is that? The user’s? The platform’s?

100

The government argues “ownership = vulnerability.” TikTok says, “No misuse has happened.” But the deeper issue is harder: Can we separate platforms from the systems that created them? Platforms reflect where—and how—they were built. That’s uncomfortable for everyone.

100

ByteDance’s tech isn’t “made in China”—it’s made through a Chinese model of tech development: Data-driven, hyper-iterative, ecosystem-based. The U.S. government frames this as a risk. TikTok frames it as irrelevant. Neither framing really tells the full story.

TikTok insists it’s a domestic company with 1A rights. True—on paper. But this framing masks something real: TikTok is part of a Chinese innovation ecosystem. Its DNA—recommendation algorithms, product strategy—comes from that context. It’s not neutral, and neither are ANY other platforms.

100

Now that I've done my best impression of a lawyer, I want to offer a few deeper considerations as a researcher: 1️⃣TikTok’s “U.S. company” framing 2️⃣The illusion of free speech neutrality 3️⃣The global power struggle over platforms This case is about way more than TikTok. 🧵

120

TikTok argues the public interest favors allowing the platform to continue operating while the Supreme Court reviews the case, preserving free speech protections.

000

TikTok predicts devastating consequences if the ban is enforced: loss of 170M U.S. users, massive revenue losses, and irreversible damage to its platform ecosystem.

100

TikTok argues the Act violates the Constitution’s Bill of Attainder Clause, which prohibits Congress from singling out individuals or entities for punishment without a judicial trial. This Act explicitly targets TikTok—banning it automatically without procedural protections/evidence of wrongdoing.

100

TikTok argues Congress didn’t consider less severe alternatives—like stronger data protection laws or transparency measures—before enacting a blanket ban.

100

Just after this last point, they specifically point to the incoming administration and the timing of the ban going into effect. Pretty interesting, given that CEO Shou Chew met with Trump yesterday. It's easy to imagine a wink-wink deal that Trump will handle things for them.

100

TikTok highlights the absence of evidence that China has misused the platform for data or content manipulation, arguing the government relies on speculative risks.

100

TikTok claims the ban violates its First Amendment rights. As a U.S.-based platform engaging in "expressive activity," it cannot be banned solely for its connection to ByteDance.

100

As expected, TikTok filed their emergency injunction yesterday. With the disclaimer that I am not a lawyer, here's what they're arguing -- a thread:🧵 www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24...

supremecourt.gov

Alex Turvy @alexturvy.bsky.social · 11/12/2024

Met with Zuckerberg within the last two weeks, now this. Feels like everything about this TikTok ban might hinge on this meeting.

000

Writing up a short piece with @rscarlets.bsky.social about the impending TikTok ban in the US and found this framing super useful! Thanks, Jenny!

120

Newton shows us where debates stand; Ongweso challenges us to think critically about AI’s real-world impacts. Both are useful, but Ongweso’s critique makes the more necessary point.

010

Ongweso points out that defining AI as “real” or “fake” sidesteps bigger questions: Who benefits from AI? What systems of power and exploitation does it entrench? How do we measure harm beyond corporate benchmarks? These questions cut to AI’s political core.

100

Newton’s framing is descriptive—it maps how AI is discussed in broad terms. Ongweso’s critique is critical—it interrogates the material and political realities of AI development. They aren’t debating the same thing, and @bigblackjacobin critique feels deeper and more urgent.

100

Ongweso argues Newton’s binary oversimplifies AI realities: AI can be fake, real, suck, and dangerous simultaneously (e.g., military systems that are lethal but obscure accountability). By focusing on discourse, Newton misses deeper systemic harms tied to power and profit.

100

@caseynewton.bsky.social describes two camps of AI criticism: 1️⃣ External critics focus on flaws and limitations, dismissing AI as “fake and sucks.” 2️⃣ Internal critics argue AI is “real and dangerous,” via present-day capabilities and harms. This framing is useful for mapping discourse.

The phony comforts of useful idiots

A friend (h/t @kjfernelius.bsky.social ) sent me @bigblackjacobin.bsky.social 's (excellent) piece written in response to this -- sharing in case anyone hasn't seen this like me. I actually think both are right, but Ongweso is making a deeper and more critical point. substack.com/home/post/p-...

substack.com

On Casey Newton and the shallowness of anti-skepticism.

111

Factors the court will weigh in deciding whether to grant it: 1️⃣ Irreparable harm: Would TikTok suffer damage that can’t be undone? 2️⃣ Likelihood of success: Does TikTok have a strong case? 3️⃣ Public policy interests: What’s best for the public? TikTok will likely lean heavily on irreparable harm.

000

Here we go - injunction filed, now we wait and see if they grant it.

000

Not trying to say anything *~normative~* here, but as a descriptive claim? He's got it nailed, imo.

000

"This is the ongoing blind spot of the “AI is fake and sucks” crowd. This is the problem with telling people over and over again that it’s all a big bubble...They’re staring at the floor of AI’s current abilities, while each day the actual practitioners are successfully raising the ceiling."

100

The phony comforts of AI skepticism

Great, simple framing from @caseynewton.bsky.social: "The first camp, which I associate with the external critics, holds that AI is fake and sucks. The second camp, which I associate more with the internal critics, believes that AI is real and dangerous." www.platformer.news/ai-skeptics-...

platformer.news

It’s fun to say that artificial intelligence is fake and sucks — but evidence is mounting that it’s real and dangerous

100