Today, Explained — "Trouble at TikTok" (February 4, 2026)

Episode Overview

This episode of Today, Explained dives into the ongoing turmoil at TikTok, following its forced sale to predominantly American investors over data and privacy concerns. Host Jonathan Hill speaks with David Pierce (editor-at-large at The Verge) and Naomi Nix (Washington Post social media reporter) about the app’s technical troubles, censorship allegations, shifting ownership, and looming lawsuits targeting social media’s design and impact on young people.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Fallout of TikTok’s Forced Sale (02:06–04:02)

• Ownership shift: TikTok’s U.S. operations were sold to Oracle, MGX (Abu Dhabi-based investor), and Silver Lake (private equity), each holding 15% in the new “TikTok USDS Joint Venture LLC.” Oracle is the key player, overseeing the algorithm, privacy, and data security.
• Technical woes mistaken for censorship: Users reported censorship after the handoff, such as zero views on posts about Minneapolis events or the term "Epstein" being blocked in DMs.
  • Pierce explains these “censorship” claims stem largely from feelings and technical glitches, specifically a massive Oracle data center outage in Virginia:

    “All of this is more easily and just as successfully explained by normal corporate ineptitude, which is that TikTok's new data center provider, Oracle, had a huge outage.” (03:31)

• Political skepticism: Growing distrust in the American-owned TikTok, especially given the political ties of the new owners and the history of platform manipulation.

2. Comparisons with Other Social Media Takeovers (04:43–05:39)

• Twitter/X as a precedent: Like Elon Musk at Twitter, new ownership often leads to substantial changes—sometimes lauded as pro-free-speech, other times as political.

  “There is a version of this that feels very obvious. It's just that for right now there are better, simpler, sort of Occam's Razor y explanations for what's going on.” (05:35)

3. Political Manipulation & Platform Power (05:39–10:01)

• Gavin Newsom’s response: California’s governor threatened an investigation into TikTok censorship, interpreted as a savvy political move amid rumors about the app’s rightward shift.

• Platform control stakes: There’s concern new ownership could convert TikTok into a platform aligned with right-wing political interests (as engineered via the sale to Trump allies).

  “It would be surprising if it doesn't end up being a politically geared right wing coded platform.” – David Pierce (06:58)

  • “The difference now is... you look around and it's like, okay, it's actually very obvious what the Trump administration is up to and the ways in which they want to control information...” – David Pierce (09:01)

4. Algorithm and Data: What’s Changed? (10:01–12:43)

• New Terms of Service: Users noticed alarming permissions, including collection of location, immigration status, religious beliefs, health data, and more.

  “Your immigration status, your geolocation, your mental health diagnosis. This is the private information that TikTok is now lawfully collecting from you...” – Naomi Nix (10:48)

• Clarification: Pierce points out TikTok has collected this data for some time—the difference is now, Americans are paying closer attention to the terms, especially under new corporate control.
• Algorithm updates: While the soul of TikTok—the “for you” algorithm—remains, the new owners will separate it from Chinese influence and may “retrain” it, though this process will take time.

5. TikTok User Experience (11:33–12:43)

• User insight: For casual viewers hooked on food, beauty, or quirky animal content, not much has changed—yet.

  “The TikTok algorithm is clever enough to have shown them [horse hoof cleaning videos] to us. And that is the thing that actually no other platform has done a good job of replicating.” – David Pierce (11:56)

Lawsuits, Addiction, and Social Media Harm

6. Social Media Addiction Lawsuits (15:02–20:47)

• Wave of litigation: Parents, school districts, and state AGs are suing Meta, YouTube, TikTok, and Snapchat, alleging they designed their products to be addictive and harmful, especially to minors.

  “Hundreds of parents, school districts, and state attorneys general have filed lawsuits alleging that the way tech companies... have made them especially addictive to young people and that that has harmed teenagers and fueled a mental health crisis in today’s young people.” – Naomi Nix (15:11)

• First trials: Jury selection is underway for the first cases, focusing on the impact of features like endless scrolling, autoplay, and notifications.
• Comparison to ‘Big Tobacco’: The lawsuits echo historic cases against tobacco, arguing companies knowingly made products addictive and misled the public.
• TikTok's settlement: Unlike Meta and YouTube, TikTok and Snapchat have already settled out of court.

7. The Murky Science of Social Media Harm (18:30–19:54)

• Mixed evidence: Some studies show a link between heavy social media use and depression among young people, but causation is disputed.

  “There is a body of research... that raises the question about whether social media usage can lead to or contribute to potential harmful mental health outcomes...” – Naomi Nix (18:43)

  • “A study released last month from the University of Oxford found no evidence linking individual Facebook data to a negative well-being.” – David Pierce (19:41)

• Role of parents and environment: The cases may turn on whether platforms or caregivers bear more responsibility.

8. Other Social Media Harms (21:01–22:51)

• Beyond mental health: Sextortion scams, academic decline, and sleep deprivation are highlighted as harms distinct from depression/anxiety.
• School bans: There’s a growing movement to ban phones in schools due to their disruptive influence.

9. Adults and Social Media Risk (22:51–24:57)

• Addiction for all ages: While youth are focus of lawsuits, adults are vulnerable to time-wasting and compulsive use.

  “How do I want to spend my time? What's the best use of it? ...Is it scrolling TikTok for three hours?” – Naomi Nix (23:09)

• Significance of the lawsuits: These cases could open new pathways for holding tech companies liable for their platforms’ impact.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On “feelings” of censorship:

  “Everybody has always believed they're being censored on social media since time immemorial. This is the story of social media.”
  — David Pierce (02:22)

• On Oracle as the new power:

  “Oracle is in charge of the algorithm, it's in charge of the privacy, it's in charge of the data security. All of the things that made this a national security issue in the first place are now up to Oracle to solve.”
  — David Pierce (07:51)

• On algorithm retraining and “For You Page”:

  “The new owners are going to ‘retrain, test and update the algorithm.’ That is a very vague phrase, but it means in some way the algorithm is going to change…”
  — David Pierce (12:24)

• On the original harms of social media:

  “Scams, sextortion scams have been... one area I think regulators are paying increasing attention to... There have been several cases in which... that young child has committed suicide because it was so distressing to have that experience.”
  — Naomi Nix (21:01)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:01–02:06 — Introduction, quick recap of TikTok’s forced sale and incoming user complaints
• 02:06–05:39 — Censorship claims, technical errors, and comparisons to Twitter’s Musk era
• 05:39–10:01 — Political context, Gavin Newsom, new ownership (Oracle, MGX, Silver Lake), and national security framing
• 10:01–12:43 — New terms of service, data privacy, and the algorithm’s evolution
• 15:02–20:47 — Legal battles, social media addiction lawsuits, and research on mental health effects
• 21:01–22:51 — Other social media risks: sextortion, school impacts
• 22:51–24:57 — Broader societal risk, adult vulnerability, and the lawsuits’ possible significance

Tone and Closing Thoughts

The episode balances skepticism and urgency, highlighting how tech issues so often become political, and vice versa. It underscores the deep impact (and confusion) around platform changes, censorship, privacy, and the courts’ evolving approach to technology’s social cost.

End of summary