The TikTok algorithm could be split to provide a US-only version, claims a new report, which would possibly allow the popular social media app to avoid an upcoming ban. Meanwhile, developer ByteDance says the report is not accurate.
In March, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the “Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act,” which is legislation that would force TikTok owner ByteDance to sell the social media network or face a ban in the United States. The Senate later passed the bill, and President Biden signed off on the bill.
TikTok is now suing the US government to put a stop to the new legislation requiring ByteDance to sell TikTok to a company outside of China or face a ban in the United States.
While the sale may be blocked by the courts, US investors are gearing up for a buyout.
However, the Chinese government has placed a legal block on the algorithm being sold to a US company and TikTok owner ByteDance has said it would rather shut down the U.S. version of the social network than sell it to a U.S. company
A Reuters report claims that Bytedance is working on a US-only version of the algorithm.
TikTok is working on a clone of its recommendation algorithm for its 170 million U.S. users that may result in a version that operates independently of its Chinese parent and be more palatable to American lawmakers who want to ban it, according to sources with direct knowledge of the efforts.
The work on splitting the source code ordered by TikTok’s Chinese parent ByteDance late last year predated a bill to force a sale of TikTok’s U.S. operations that began gaining steam in Congress this year.
Now the TikTok Policy account on X has termed the report to be inaccurate.
The Reuters story published today is misleading and factually inaccurate. As we said in our court filing, the ‘qualified divestiture’ demanded by the Act to allow TikTok to continue operating in the United States is simply not possible: not commercially, not technologically, not legally. And certainly not on the 270-day timeline required by the Act.
However, the company does not specify which parts of the report are wrong, and the wording appears to simply restate the position it has previously taken: That the forced sale cannot happen for both legal and technical reasons.