#20 Gray Area

ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company, took a decisive step to prevent the app’s complete removal from the United States market by finalizing a sale agreement with a consortium led by Oracle. The new structure will include Oracle, Silver Lake, and MGX, an artificial intelligence and investment firm based in Abu Dhabi. Operations within the United States will be consolidated under a new legal entity named TikTok USDS Joint Venture LLC.

The transfer process will be completed on 22 January 2026, just one day before the expiration of the executive order suspending Trump’s Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. One of the most notable technical details of the agreement concerns code oversight. Oracle will be responsible for retraining the algorithm that works on the data of TikTok’s 170 million U.S. users and ensuring that this flow is entirely purged of external manipulation—referring broadly to Chinese interference.

This development should not be seen as a ceasefire in the years-long Technology Cold War between Washington and Beijing, but rather as a victory for the United States’ strategy of digital annexation. Instead of banning TikTok and entering debates over freedom of expression, the United States has opted to institutionalize and technologically Americanize the platform. The previously known Project Texas, a data localization initiative, has now transformed into an actual transfer of sovereignty. A critical point to note is the presence of MGX, owned by the Abu Dhabi-based Emirates. This underscores the role of Arab Gulf capital as a balancing—or leaning toward the U.S.—third party in technology conflicts.

The most critical issue lies in the concept of algorithmic sovereignty. An algorithm of a social media platform is one of the most powerful determinants of what a society discusses, laughs at, and becomes angry about. Considering Oracle’s founder Larry Ellison’s open support for the Trump administration, the process of neutralizing the algorithm reveals an inherent contradiction. The algorithm, freed from the influence of the Chinese Communist Party, may now be subjected to the filters of Silicon Valley’s conservative wing. This represents one of the clearest proofs that the global internet (World Wide Web) is fragmenting into a Splinternet—a digital landscape divided by national borders. Platforms are no longer global; they are becoming national apparatuses aligned with the political elites of the countries in which they operate.

The Chinese government is preparing to implement strict restrictions on internet usage habits among minors under the age of 18. A proposal package, discussed at annual political meetings in Beijing and supported by former NBA star Yao Ming, aims to make this digital detox a legal requirement. Under the draft, at least one day per academic term must be designated as a device-free day, during which students are required to engage in mandatory physical activity.

According to official data, China has 196 million underage internet users. The 2024 Report on the Protection of the Game Industry’s Minor Users indicates that internet access rates among minors have reached 97.3%. Authorities cite rising rates of myopia, obesity, and declining academic performance as justification for tighter controls. However, these proposals are criticized by both students and parents as “out of touch” in an environment where homework and education are heavily digitized. Students speaking to VOA have pointed out that the bans are easily circumvented using adult identities.

Beijing’s move should not be interpreted solely as a public health policy. It is also a manifestation of the Chinese Communist Party’s broader project to mold the ideal citizen, exert comprehensive control over individuals, and shape their habits in the digital age. Previously labeling online gaming as corrupting, the regime now frames social media as a distraction diverting youth from national goals. As China confronts economic slowdown and youth unemployment, it fears the spread of passive resistance movements such as Tang Ping (lying flat/abandoning the struggle). The state demands that young people become disciplined, physically and mentally trained producers who serve China’s growth and development—not passive consumers glued to screens.

Yet a profound contradiction exists here. While China aims to become the world’s leader in artificial intelligence and technology by 2030, it seeks to restrict the relationship between its next generation of innovators and the very technology needed to achieve that goal. The state’s authoritarian stance deepens the cultural divide between the digital-native Z generation and the Party elite. Moreover, practices such as using VPNs and fake identities to bypass restrictions constitute a form of covert civil disobedience among the youth. This reveals that while China’s digital firewall remains strong against external threats, it is insufficient to halt the sociological transformation occurring within its borders.

The terrorist attack targeting Jews at Bondi Beach in Sydney, Australia, and recorded in history as the Bondi Beach Massacre, once again exposed the crisis management capabilities of social media platforms. According to a report published on 30 December by the anti-hate organization Community Security Trust (CST), content glorifying the attackers, sharing images of the victims, and openly promoting ISIS propaganda remained accessible on Facebook (META) for days after the attack.

Following The Guardian’s outreach to Meta officials, some of the content was removed. However, the British media regulator OFCOM emphasized that social media companies have failed to meet their fundamental responsibilities in combating illegal content and terrorist propaganda. The report also noted that terrorists used sophisticated methods to infiltrate Facebook groups and gather intelligence on potential targets.

This case highlights the dangerous point we have reached in the process of social media being weaponized. Terrorist organizations design their attacks not only to inflict physical harm but also to produce visual material designed to go viral online. Facebook’s AI-assisted moderation systems have proven inadequate in keeping pace with the speed at which content spreads in the first 24 hours after an attack. Meta’s defense—that content is removed after being reported—is practically meaningless, as the material has already been shared thousands of times and achieved its radicalization objective.

The core issue is the structural conflict between platform business models and public safety. Algorithms are designed to maximize engagement, and unfortunately, hate speech, fear, and violent content are organically the most engaging types of content. Platforms claim to fight terrorism while operating in a “gray zone” fueled by the traffic generated by such content. While regulations like OFCOM’s and the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) increase pressure on companies to be more transparent, the shortage of human moderators and the failure of AI to understand context continue to render digital platforms the most effective arenas for terrorist propaganda and recruitment.

According to Le Monde, the French government is drafting comprehensive legislation to completely ban social media use by children under the age of 15 by September 2026. Arguing that current digital adulthood laws and parental consent mechanisms are insufficient, the government is preparing to implement the strictest restrictions in Europe to protect children’s mental health. The draft imposes heavy obligations on platforms regarding age verification and proposes fines based on companies’ revenues for noncompliance.

Behind the decision lies the belief that rising problems such as cyberbullying, body image disorders, and attention deficits have reached the level of a public health crisis. The French president has characterized the unchecked influence of social media as the theft of childhood and argues that the state must assume a protective authority role in place of parents. This initiative has the potential to serve as a model for other EU countries and is already being debated in Brussels.

France’s initiative redefines the boundaries of digital paternalism. By accepting the failure of parental oversight and educational awareness, and seeking solutions in a prohibitive state model, it can be viewed as contrary to the normative claims of liberal democracies. Moreover, it is highly likely that the ban will be circumvented through VPN use or fake accounts, potentially rendering the law unenforceable.

Moreover, this development can be interpreted as a reflection of the internet’s evolution from a universal common space into a Splinternet structured by national borders and age-based segmentation. The internet is no longer a global village accessible equally to all; it is now a collection of state-like territories divided by age, geography, and identity. At the same time, this carries a risk: although France acts out of a protective reflex for children, it may inadvertently isolate them from the realities of the digital world, raising a generation that is shielded but unprepared for the digital competencies required in the future.