Technology

The Supreme Court’s TikTok ruling is an ominous turn for online speech

Published

12 months ago

January 24, 2025

The Supreme Court’s TikTok ruling is an ominous turn for online speech

When the Supreme Court upheld a law that banned TikTok from the US, it seemed well aware that its ruling could resonate far beyond one app. The justices delivered an unsigned opinion with a quote from Justice Felix Frankfurter from 1944: “in considering the application of established legal rules to the ‘totally new problems’ raised by the airplane and radio, we should take care not to ‘embarrass the future.’”

Last Friday, the court tried to accomplish this with a narrow ruling: a decision that upheld the government’s ability to ban one service on a tight timeline, while stressing a limited scope concerning “new technologies with transformative capabilities.” Yet, amid a confounding political circus over TikTok, some legal experts believe the Supreme Court’s ruling could have a broad ripple effect on speech and tech law — they’re just not agreed on what it would be.

“Even though it’s narrowly written, it also seems clear that they want to make a mark on these kinds of questions,” says Sarah Kreps, director of the Tech Policy Institute at Cornell University’s public policy school. University of Chicago law professor Genevieve Lakier put it more bluntly on Bluesky: “The Court tried but failed to make no new law here.”

Lakier’s main concern, echoed by several amicus briefs in the case, is that the Supreme Court is enabling a form of backdoor speech regulation. In oral arguments, the US government insisted that the ban wasn’t a First Amendment issue because it only targeted corporate structure — in this case, TikTok’s foreign ownership. But TikTok argued that lawmakers disliked TikTok and its users’ speech and merely found a pretext for punishing it. At the very least, Lakier and others worry the Supreme Court ruling could let something like that happen to other communications platforms.

“The Court tried but failed to make no new law here.”

“The very worst part of the opinion (I think right now) is that it gives [governments] space to whitewash bad content-based motivations by tacking on plausible-sounding content-neutral ones,” Lakier wrote. The court determined that selling a business isn’t an expressive act, but she argues this conflicts with one of its most widely known rulings: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which found that an act that doesn’t explicitly involve speech (donating to political campaigns) could still count as a form of speech.

Then there’s the ruling’s decision that national security could justify potential speech suppression. The court “has weakened the First Amendment and markedly expanded the government’s power to restrict speech in the name of national security,” said Jameel Jaffer, Knight First Amendment Institute executive director. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) National Security Project deputy director Patrick Toomey echoed these concerns: “the Supreme Court is giving the executive branch unprecedented power to silence speech it doesn’t like, increasing the danger that sweeping invocations of ‘national security’ will trump our constitutional rights.”

“American-owned platforms are still covered pretty aggressively under Section 230.”

Kreps thinks the ruling is unlikely to bring a wave of censorship for US-based companies, though. “I think that part of the opinion was indeed narrow, and was very careful that this foreign ownership puts it into a very different category,” she says. “American-owned platforms are still covered pretty aggressively under Section 230.”

But if nothing else, the decision will “make it more difficult for the United States to challenge the increasing number of censorial speech regulations targeting U.S.-based platforms in other countries,” writes Jacob Mchangama, executive director of The Future of Free Speech, a nonpartisan think tank at Vanderbilt University.

While some fear a future of speech regulations wrapped in national security rhetoric, others make the opposite argument: that it will stop businesses from dodging regulation by hiding behind the First Amendment.

“Corporations may not hide behind flimsy First Amendment arguments in order to avoid regulation carte blanche”

The Open Markets Institute, which advocates for stronger antitrust enforcement, took a positive view of the ruling — despite being unconvinced of the law’s merits. “The Supreme Court reaffirms an important precedent that Congress maintains fundamental legislative authority to regulate corporations,” senior legal analyst Daniel Hanley says in a statement. “In other words, corporations may not hide behind flimsy First Amendment arguments in order to avoid regulation carte blanche.”

University of Colorado Law School professor Blake Reid says the ruling is unlikely to affect some baseline legal questions, like how the court decides whether future tech laws raise First Amendment concerns. He believes TikTok made a weak argument for its own speech interests, particularly because the law’s penalties apply to app stores and hosting services, not TikTok itself. “TikTok had a harder job than it seemed to think it did in establishing how its speech was getting implicated,” says Reid. “When your speech is contingent on the speech of platforms who are not going to show up and fight the government on your behalf, that’s a tough place to be in.”

Other platforms have made similar arguments convincingly, though — Reid pointed, for instance, to the 2024 NetChoice rulings that recognized content moderation as expressive speech.

The TikTok ruling could change how courts across the country address one crucial issue: the level of scrutiny applied to lawsuits that allege First Amendment violations, a decision that dramatically impacts their likelihood of success. The government put forward two separate rationales for its ban: concerns that China was collecting US data and that it could manipulate TikTok’s algorithm for propaganda purposes. The court seemed skeptical of the latter argument, and it decided data collection alone justified upholding the law. “The court was pretty open here to saying, we’re going to look past the justification we might have some more concerns about and look for the one that seems legitimate,” Reid says. Lower courts, he predicts, could decide “maybe we can be a little bit more solicitous” of the claims legislators make about why they’re passing internet regulation.

It’s a balancing act the Supreme Court will have to make again later this year. Last week, the court held arguments in Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, which pits First Amendment rights against state legislatures’ concerns about children’s access to pornography. That decision will hinge on what level of scrutiny the court applies — and its ruling could overturn a two-decade-old precedent and age-gate parts of the internet.

Even so, Reid sees the TikTok ruling’s role as “a pretty small change on the margins” in the grand scheme of things. In the end, Reid says, “the biggest thing about this case is just the impact on TikTok itself.”

Technology

Meta expands nuclear power ambitions to include Bill Gates’ startup

Published

5 hours ago

January 9, 2026

Press Room

Meta expands nuclear power ambitions to include Bill Gates’ startup

These AI projects include Prometheus, the first of several supercluster computing systems, which is expected to come online in New Albany, Ohio, sometime this year. Meta is funding the construction of new nuclear reactors as part of the agreements, the first of which may come online “as early as 2030.” These announcements are part of Meta’s ongoing goal to support its future AI operations with nuclear energy, having previously signed a deal with Constellation to revive an aging nuclear power plant last year.

Financial information for the agreements hasn’t been released, but Meta says that it will “pay the full costs for energy used by our data centers so consumers don’t bear these expenses.”

“Our agreements with Vistra, TerraPower, Oklo, and Constellation make Meta one of the most significant corporate purchasers of nuclear energy in American history,” Meta’s chief global affairs officer, Joel Kaplan, said in the announcement. “State-of-the-art data centers and AI infrastructure are essential to securing America’s position as a global leader in AI.”

Technology

Why January is the best time to remove personal data online

Published

5 hours ago

January 9, 2026

Press Room

Why January is the best time to remove personal data online

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

January feels like a reset. A new calendar. New goals. New habits. While you clean out your inbox, organize paperwork or set resolutions, however, scammers also hit reset, and they start with your personal data.

That is because January is one of the most important months for online privacy. This is when data brokers refresh profiles and scammers rebuild their target lists.

As a result, the longer your information stays online, the more complete and valuable your profile becomes. To help address this, institutions like the U.S. Department of the Treasury have released advisories urging people to stay vigilant and avoid data-related scams.

For that reason, taking action early in the year can significantly reduce scam attempts, lower identity theft risks, and limit unwanted exposure for the rest of the year.

Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy Report
Get my best tech tips, urgent security alerts and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide – free when you join my CYBERGUY.COM newsletter.

January is when data brokers refresh profiles and scammers rebuild target lists, making early action critical for online privacy. (iStock)

STOP DATA BROKERS FROM SELLING YOUR INFORMATION ONLINE

Why personal data does not expire and keeps compounding online

Many people assume old information eventually becomes useless. Unfortunately, that’s not how data brokers work.

Data brokers don’t just store a snapshot of who you are today. They build living profiles that grow over time, pulling from:

Public records (property sales, court filings, voter registrations)
Retail purchases and loyalty programs
App usage and location data
Past addresses, phone numbers, and relatives
Marketing databases and online activity.

Each year adds another layer. A new address. A changed phone number. A family connection. A retirement milestone. On its own, one data point doesn’t mean much. But together, they create a detailed identity profile that scammers can use to convincingly impersonate you. That’s why waiting makes things worse, not better.

Why scammers ‘rebuild’ targets at the start of the year

Scammers don’t randomly target people. They work from lists. At the beginning of the year, those lists get refreshed.

Why January matters so much:

Data brokers update and resell profiles after year-end records close
New public filings from the previous year become searchable
Marketing databases reset campaigns and audience segments
Scam networks repackage data into “fresh” target lists.

Think of it like the upcoming spring cleaning, except it’s criminals organizing identities to exploit for the next 12 months.

If your data is still widely exposed in January, you’re far more likely to:

Once your profile is flagged as responsive or profitable, it often stays in circulation.

As personal information accumulates across databases, digital profiles grow more detailed and more valuable to scammers over time. (Kurt “CyberGuy” Knutsson)

Why taking action in January protects you all year long

Removing your data early isn’t just about stopping scams today; it’s about cutting off the supply chain that fuels them. When your information is removed from data broker databases:

It’s harder for scammers to find accurate contact details
Phishing messages become less convincing
Impersonation attempts fail more often
Your identity becomes less valuable to resell.

This has a compounding benefit in the opposite direction. The fewer lists you appear on in January, the fewer times your data gets reused, resold, and recycled throughout the year. That’s why I consistently recommend addressing data exposure before problems start, not after.

Why retirees and families feel the impact first

January is especially important for retirees and families because they’re more likely to become targets of fraud, scams, and other crimes.

Retirees often have:

Long addresses and employment histories
Stable credit profiles
Fewer active credit applications
Public retirement and property records

Families add another layer of risk:

Relatives are linked together in broker profiles
One exposed family member can expose others
Shared addresses and phone plans increase visibility

Scammers know this. That’s why households with established financial histories are prioritized early in the year.

Why quick fixes don’t work

Many people try to “start fresh” in January by:

Those steps help, but they don’t remove your data from broker databases. Credit monitoring services alert you after something goes wrong. Password changes don’t affect public profiles. And unsubscribing doesn’t stop data resale. If your personal information is still sitting in hundreds of databases, scammers can find you.

The January privacy reset that actually works

If you want fewer scam attempts for the rest of the year, the most effective step is removing your personal data at the source.

You can do this in one of two ways. You can submit removal requests yourself, or you can use a professional data removal service to handle the process for you.

Removing your data yourself

Manually removing your data means identifying dozens or even hundreds of data broker websites, finding their opt-out forms and submitting removal requests one by one. You also need to verify your identity, track responses and repeat the process whenever your information reappears.

This approach works, but it requires time, organization, and ongoing follow-up.

Using a data removal service

A data removal service handles this process on your behalf. These services typically:

Send legal data removal requests to large networks of data brokers
Monitor for reposted information and submit follow-up removals
Continue tracking your exposure throughout the year
Manage a process that most people cannot realistically maintain on their own

Removing your data at the start of the year helps reduce scam attempts, phishing messages and identity theft risks all year long. (iStock)

Because these services handle sensitive personal information, it is important to choose one that follows strict security standards and uses verified removal methods.

While no service can guarantee the complete removal of your data from the internet, a data removal service is really a smart choice. They aren’t cheap, and neither is your privacy. These services do all the work for you by actively monitoring and systematically erasing your personal information from hundreds of websites. It’s what gives me peace of mind and has proven to be the most effective way to erase your personal data from the internet. By limiting the information available, you reduce the risk of scammers cross-referencing data from breaches with information they might find on the dark web, making it harder for them to target you.

RETIREES LOSE MILLIONS TO FAKE HOLIDAY CHARITIES AS SCAMMERS EXPLOIT SEASONAL GENEROSITY

Check out my top picks for data removal services and get a free scan to find out if your personal information is already out on the web by visiting Cyberguy.com.

Get a free scan to find out if your personal information is already out on the web: Cyberguy.com.

Kurt’s key takeaways

Scammers don’t wait for mistakes. They wait for exposed data. January is when profiles are refreshed, lists are rebuilt, and targets are chosen for the year ahead. The longer your personal information stays online, the more complete-and dangerous-your digital profile becomes. The good news? You can stop the cycle. Removing your data now reduces scam attempts, protects your identity, and gives you a quieter, safer year ahead. If you’re going to make one privacy move this year, make it early-and make it count.

Have you ever been surprised by how much of your personal information was already online? Let us know by writing to us at Cyberguy.com.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Kurt “CyberGuy” Knutsson is an award-winning tech journalist who has a deep love of technology, gear and gadgets that make life better with his contributions for Fox News & FOX Business beginning mornings on “FOX & Friends.” Got a tech question? Get Kurt’s free CyberGuy Newsletter, share your voice, a story idea or comment at CyberGuy.com.

Technology

Xbox’s Towerborne is switching from a free-to-play game to a paid one

Published

17 hours ago

January 9, 2026

Press Room

Xbox’s Towerborne is switching from a free-to-play game to a paid one

Towerborne, a side-scrolling action RPG published by Xbox Game Studios that has been available in early access, will officially launch on February 26th. But instead of launching as a free-to-play, always-on online game as originally planned, Towerborne is instead going to be a paid game that you can play offline.

“You will own the complete experience permanently, with offline play and online co-op,” Trisha Stouffer, CEO and president of Towerborne developer Stoic, says in an Xbox Wire blog post. “This change required deep structural rebuilding over the past year, transforming systems originally designed around constant connectivity. The result is a stronger, more accessible, and more player-friendly version of Towerborne — one we’re incredibly proud to bring to launch.”

“After listening to our community during Early Access and Game Preview, we learned players wanted a complete, polished experience without ongoing monetization mechanics,” according to an FAQ. “Moving to a premium model lets us deliver the full game upfront—no live-service grind, no pay-to-win systems—just the best version of Towerborne.”

With the popular live service games like Fortnite and Roblox getting harder to usurp, Towerborne’s switch to a premium, offline-playable experience could make it more enticing for players who don’t want to jump into another time-sucking forever game. It makes Towerborne more appealing to me, at least.

With the 1.0 release of the game, Towerborne will have a “complete” story, new bosses, and a “reworked” difficulty system. You’ll also be able to acquire all in-game cosmetics for free through gameplay, with “no more cosmetic purchasing.” Players who are already part of early access will still be able to play the game.

Towerborne will launch on February 26th on Xbox Series X / S, Xbox on PC, Game Pass, Steam, and PS5. The standard edition will cost $24.99, while the deluxe edition will cost $29.99.