Editing Talk:Censorship of TikTok (section)

== Requested move 20 January 2025 ==

<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #efe); color: var(--color-base, inherit); margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color: var(--color-error, red);">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]] '''after''' discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''

The result of the move request was: '''no consensus.''' There does not appear to be consensus on moving this article at this time  '''[[User:Dr_vulpes|<span style="background:#4B0082; color:white;">Dr vulpes</span>]]''' [[User talk:Dr_vulpes|(Talk)]] 05:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
----

[[:Censorship of TikTok]] → {{no redirect|Restrictions on TikTok}} – Per [[WP:PRECISE]] as well as [[WP:NDESC]] and [[WP:NPOVTITLE]]. [[User:Amigao|Amigao]] ([[User talk:Amigao|talk]]) 03:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
* <s>'''Weak Oppose'''</s> '''Strong Oppose''' - TikTok is censored throughout these banned countries, and 'Restrictions' pretty much ruin the entire purpose. Articles like YouTube and Instagram also have a similar page that also says 'censored', so I believe that it shouldn't be renamed per consistency with other articles. [[User:Freedoxm|🗽Freedoxm🗽]]([[User talk:Freedoxm|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Freedoxm|contribs]]) 05:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Definitely won't be moved and will be labled as "no consensus" unless another person supports this. [[User:Freedoxm|🗽Freedoxm🗽]]([[User talk:Freedoxm|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Freedoxm|contribs]]) 09:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nom, while there is censorship on this list it's mostly restrictions—[[user:blindlynx|blindlynx]] 13:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Support''' It is the more neutral title. Restrictions on an app do not always equate to censorship. [[User:Some1|Some1]] ([[User talk:Some1|talk]]) 15:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:* '''Oppose''' - Other articles specifically have "Censorship" in their name. [[Censorship of YouTube]], [[Censorship of Twitter]], and so on. It would make no sense to rename this article to Restrictions on TikTok and let it be a discrepancy to the rest of these articles.
:[[User:Bennett1203|Bennett1203]] ([[User talk:Bennett1203|talk]]) 17:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::These articles do not deal with non-censorship restrictions, such as government device bans. [[User:EarlyRetirement|EarlyRetirement]] ([[User talk:EarlyRetirement|talk]]) 02:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::That's a good point. A ''restriction'' on a government-owned device is not the same as ''censorship''. The two term should not be conflated. - [[User:Amigao|Amigao]] ([[User talk:Amigao|talk]]) 15:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' "Restrictions of..." would be less [[WP:PRECISE|precise]] than "Censorship of..." since censorship is a more specific form of restriction. [[User:AlphaBeta135|<span style="padding:3px;background:#8F8;">AlphaBeta135</span>]][[User talk:AlphaBeta135|<span style="padding:3px;background:#CCC;">talk</span>]] 19:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::I agree. [[User:Freedoxm|🗽Freedoxm🗽]]([[User talk:Freedoxm|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Freedoxm|contribs]]) 20:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::Non-censorship restrictions are included in the article. [[User:EarlyRetirement|EarlyRetirement]] ([[User talk:EarlyRetirement|talk]]) 02:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Ok, if you say so. That won't change my opinion especially since '''you''' were the one who brought this up by moving this page randomly without consensus. [[User:Freedoxm|🗽Freedoxm🗽]]([[User talk:Freedoxm|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Freedoxm|contribs]]) 02:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' per Freedoxm and Bennett1203. Selectively watering down Tiktok's article title by using "restrictions" in lieu of "censorship", which is otherwise the on-wiki standard, amounts to a NPOV issue. [[User:Flipandflopped|<b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b>]][[Special:Contribs/Flipandflopped|<sup style="color:purple">and</sup>]][[User talk:Flipandflopped|<b style="color:lime">Flopped</b>]] [[Wikipedia:Civility|<b style="color:grey"> ツ</b>]] 21:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*:The other "Censorship of YouTube, Censorship of Twitter" articles, etc. could be renamed to "Restrictions on _____". [[User:Some1|Some1]] ([[User talk:Some1|talk]]) 21:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*::That is a long process, and it's less precise. [[User:Freedoxm|🗽Freedoxm🗽]]([[User talk:Freedoxm|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Freedoxm|contribs]]) 21:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*::also since when did we have to mass-move pages from 'censored' to 'restricted'. [[User:Freedoxm|🗽Freedoxm🗽]]([[User talk:Freedoxm|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Freedoxm|contribs]]) 21:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Just curious, what do you think of the title [[Restrictions on TikTok in the United States]]? Is that article title fine or should it be renamed to [[Censorship of TikTok in the United States]]? [[User:Some1|Some1]] ([[User talk:Some1|talk]]) 21:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::That article is fine, as it only applies to Americans. Despite wikipedia being an american website, Wikipedian articles are not just for americans, but many other people. That is also the more common name between censorship and restrictions, unlike articles that say 'censored'. Thank you. [[User:Freedoxm|🗽Freedoxm🗽]]([[User talk:Freedoxm|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Freedoxm|contribs]]) 21:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::There is a scope disconnect between title and content as it is now, if the title remains unchanged then we should removed the stuff that isn't censorship from the article—[[user:blindlynx|blindlynx]] 21:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::If we do, then where are we supposed to put the removed content? Split it into another article? I doubt it. This is pretty controversial, as someone moved this page to 'Restrictions on Tiktok' without a move request. [[User:Freedoxm|🗽Freedoxm🗽]]([[User talk:Freedoxm|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Freedoxm|contribs]]) 21:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::Censorship includes restrictions, but not all restrictions are censorship. So if this article were to be renamed to 'Restrictions on...', then all of the content currently on this article can remain. [[User:Some1|Some1]] ([[User talk:Some1|talk]]) 21:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::Again, per above. I only oppose this per consistency with other articles. Thank you. [[User:Freedoxm|🗽Freedoxm🗽]]([[User talk:Freedoxm|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Freedoxm|contribs]]) 21:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::Unsubscribing due to controversial comments. [[User:Freedoxm|🗽Freedoxm🗽]]([[User talk:Freedoxm|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Freedoxm|contribs]]) 21:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::Subscribing back. [[User:Freedoxm|🗽Freedoxm🗽]]([[User talk:Freedoxm|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Freedoxm|contribs]]) 02:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::If you support consistency i don't understand why you oppose the removal of none censorship stuff.  Other articles similar articles don't have non censorship stuff in them—[[user:blindlynx|blindlynx]] 14:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::The issue is that the content isn't consistent with other articles, this article includes restrictions that aren't censorship such content is not in other censorship of foo articles—[[user:blindlynx|blindlynx]] 23:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::{{u|Blindlynx}}, that's also a reasonable solution here. Content about restrictions, such as government-owned device restrictions, should sit in a separate article and not in one about strictly censorship. - [[User:Amigao|Amigao]] ([[User talk:Amigao|talk]]) 15:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::I'm okay wither either, renameing just seems simpler—[[user:blindlynx|blindlynx]] 16:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::"That article is fine, as it only applies to Americans" does not really seem like a strong [[WP:POLICY|policy]]-based argument. - [[User:Amigao|Amigao]] ([[User talk:Amigao|talk]]) 21:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::Ok, if you say so.. That won't change my opinion though because it ruins the consistency of other articles to this one. [[User:Freedoxm|🗽Freedoxm🗽]]([[User talk:Freedoxm|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Freedoxm|contribs]]) 21:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:'''Strong Support''' The majority of actions taken by governments against TikTok are government device bans, which can't logically be considered censorship. Additionally, the article focusing on US restrictions against TikTok is titled "Restrictions on TikTok in the United States". Censorship also has a strong negative connotation and again (as @[[User:Some1|Some1]] pointed out), not all restrictions applied to TikTok amount to censorship. [[User:EarlyRetirement|EarlyRetirement]] ([[User talk:EarlyRetirement|talk]]) 02:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::'''Oppose -''' While it's true that government device bans don’t directly suppress speech, they still represent a restriction on access to information, which can be a form of indirect censorship. The broader context of actions against TikTok often involves content suppression, surveillance concerns, and outright bans, which align with the definition of censorship. Renaming the article risks downplaying these aspects. As for the [[Restrictions on TikTok in the United States|U.S. article]], its title reflects a specific focus, but this broader article addresses global actions, many of which are far closer to censorship than simple ''restrictions''. The negative connotation of ''censorship'' is appropriate given the nature of many actions described. [[User:Bennett1203|Bennett1203]] ([[User talk:Bennett1203|talk]]) 02:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Benett1203: I don't think that you can voice your opinions twice, but I support your opinion. [[User:Freedoxm|🗽Freedoxm🗽]]([[User talk:Freedoxm|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Freedoxm|contribs]]) 02:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::EarlyRetirement, That's not true. There are more actions taken by gov'ts to ban and/or unbanned TikTok rather than govermentally banning it. Here are the number of countries that banned it or have unbanned it:
::*'''17 countries''' - 7 still banned, 4 de jure banned, and 6 unbanned: 
::<br>
::*Afghanistan
::*Armenia
::*Azerbaijan
::*Bangladesh
::*Djibouti
::*India
::*Indonesia
::*Iran
::*Jordan (not the shoe brand, the hashemite kingdom)
::*Kyrgyzstan
::*North Korea (DPRK)
::*Pakistan
::*Somalia
::*Syria
::*United States
::*Uzbekistan
::*Venezuela
::<br> 
::And in the meantime, only 14 (1 de facto) countries have gov't device bans:
::*Aotearōa (New Zealand)
::*Austria
::*Australia
::*Belgium
::*Canada
::*Denmark
::*Estonia
::*France
::*Ireland
::*Latvia
::*Netherlands
::*Norway
::*Taiwan
::*United Kingdom
::<br>
::This specifies that your argument claiming that we 'should transition from censorship to restrictions' and that the 'majority of gov'ts ban is only reflected on govt's devices ban'  is technically wrong. If you need proof, feel free to check the first and second colored maps. Thank you. [[User:Freedoxm|🗽Freedoxm🗽]]([[User talk:Freedoxm|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Freedoxm|contribs]]) 02:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' "[[Censorship]]" is widely used on Wikipedia to describe removed or restricted content, it's not a political hot potato for saying certain types of censorship are good or bad. I think the article "[[Restrictions on TikTok in the United States]]" was titled that way because it was originally about a [[Donald Trump–TikTok controversy|failed executive order]] and then the [[No TikTok on Government Devices Act|government removing it from government devices]] (obviously that has since [[Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act|escalated]]). Also, "Restrictions on TikTok" could be confused with TikTok's [https://support.tiktok.com/en/safety-hc/account-and-user-safety/restricted-mode Restricted Mode]. <em><sup>[[User:FallingGravity|Falling]]</sup><sub>[[User talk:FallingGravity|Gravity]]</sub></em> 03:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''',Restrictions the use of mobile phones in restaurants only prohibits the use of mobile phones, not the content. When censorship mobile phones in restaurants, someone will look through your SMS and photos, telling you what you can keep and what you must delete. [[Special:Contributions/2400:2200:3DE:7103:2C05:20C1:7A40:5A54|2400:2200:3DE:7103:2C05:20C1:7A40:5A54]] ([[User talk:2400:2200:3DE:7103:2C05:20C1:7A40:5A54|talk]]) 11:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''SUPPORT''' for multiple reasons, first that the most common (but not exclusive) name we see is ban, which is a form of restriction. I would not be posed to ban in the title has that seems to be the most common overall. The term censor is perhaps the least used, and “censorship of” implies the voice of TikTok is being censored, but rather the user of the platform as a whole is being restricted and/or banned. It can also easily be confused with “censorship by” which is already an article.  The voices of the individual users themselves are not “in the context of this article” being censored for any aspect of their actions. The article does not appear to discuss to any manful degrees that the company’s content or voice is being censored, as they are not the publisher but rather a public forum. I do not believe that censor, ban or restriction are more-or-less politically charged then the other, nor is one more neutral, but rather the perception is more in the eyes of the individual readers bias. I would also add that if we said an an English speaking country, if a newspaper was no longer permitted to be published, for censorship reasons, it is generally an indictment of the editor in chief or leadership, not the individual editors, and most certainly no of the op-ed contributors, which might be the best analogy to TikTok. [[User:Tiggerjay|<span style='color:DarkOrange'>'''Tigger'''</span>'''Jay''']]&thinsp;[[User talk:Tiggerjay|<span style="font-size:85%;color:Purple">(talk)</span>]] 03:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: var(--color-error, red);">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from [[Template:Archive bottom]] -->
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div>