TikTok reshuffled its US content council, adding conservative and pro-free speech voices to the lineup
TikTok has shaken up its US Content Advisory Council, adding new voices who support broad free-speech protections and have been critical of government pressure on online platforms.
The eight-person council, formed in 2020, brings in independent experts on technology and safety to advise on TikTok's policies around child protection, hate speech, misinformation, and bullying.
The reshuffle added three new members, with two of them having libertarian or conservative backgrounds. The three members who left the council brought expertise in technology policy, tech ethics, and political communication.
The change appears to have occurred in the last two months. According to the Wayback Machine, an internet archive tool, a previous version of the page listing the former members was live as recently as March.
One of the new members is David Inserra, a fellow for free expression and technology at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.
According to his bio, he researches issues like "online content policies and moderation, and the harmful impacts of censorship on individuals, companies, technology, and society." In a 2024 Cato blog post he coauthored, Inserra argued that "the First Amendment does protect misinformation and hate speech."
Inserra previously spent nearly eight years at the Heritage Foundation as a policy analyst focused on homeland security and cyber policy. In 2023 — after Inserra left — the Heritage Foundation published Project 2025, a 900-plus-page conservative policy agenda that includes proposals to eliminate the Department of Education and restrict federal efforts to combat misinformation. On LinkedIn, he describes himself as an "Advocate for free expression online."
Corbin Barthold, internet policy counsel and director of appellate litigation at TechFreedom, also joined the council. TechFreedom is a libertarian-leaning think tank focused on tech policy.
Barthold has been critical of the Trump administration's policies and outspoken against efforts to ban TikTok, especially the national security rationale behind it. In a January post on X, he wrote: "'National security' in this context is code for 'afraid of speech.'"
The third new member is Desmond Upton Patton, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and founding director of the research initiative SAFElab. His work focuses on how social media affects mental health, trauma, grief, and violence, particularly for youth and adults of color.
TikTok, Barthold, and Patton did not respond to BI requests for comment. Inserra was not immediately available for comment.
On its website, TikTok says the council "represents a diverse array of backgrounds and perspectives" and includes experts in youth safety, free expression, hate speech, and other safety issues.
The company adds that the council helps inform its policies, product features, and safety processes, stating: "We work to ensure our policies and processes are informed by a diversity of perspectives, expertise, and lived experiences."
It's not just TikTok
The TikTok council reshuffle follows recent moves by other social platforms to reframe their approaches to free speech and content moderation, especially under increased political scrutiny.
In January, Meta replaced its US third-party fact- checking program with a community-notes system modeled after the one used by Elon Musk's X — a shift many observers saw as a political repositioning.
That same month, Meta appointed UFC CEO and longtime Donald Trump ally Dana White to its board of directors.
Like Meta and X, TikTok is testing more transparent alternatives to content takedowns. In April, TikTok began piloting " Footnotes", a tool that lets eligible users add clarifying context beneath videos without removing them.
The feature is being trialled in the US and will work alongside TikTok's existing partnerships with its existing fact-checking network.
TikTok's future in the US has remained uncertain since April 2024, when Congress passed a law requiring ByteDance to divest its US operations or face a nationwide ban.
Trump, who once pushed to ban TikTok, told NBC's Meet the Press earlier this month that he has a " warm spot in his heart" for the app, and suggested he might grant another extension if the company fails to find a buyer before the revised June 19 deadline.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Arizona teachers could be sued for what they say in classroom under bill on Hobbs' desk
A bill on the governor's desk would allow students and their parents to sue K-12 and university teachers and could make the instructors pay damages for teaching or promoting antisemitism. The proposal has provoked concern from public-school advocates about exacerbating the teacher shortage and has raised red flags about First Amendment violations due to what the proposed law considers "antisemitism." But supporters, such as bill sponsor Rep. Michael Way, R-Queen Creek, say it's needed because existing anti-discrimination laws "either weren't clear enough or didn't contain the necessary enforcement mechanism to address this problem." House Bill 2867 would prohibit teachers, administrators, contractors and volunteers at K-12 public schools and public or private universities from: teaching or promoting antisemitism; requiring students to advocate for anti-Semitic points of view; and receiving professional development "in any antisemitism" that creates a "discriminatory" or "hostile" environment. The bill includes specific examples of speech the state would prohibit, such as calling the existence of Israel "racist" or comparing Israeli policy to that of Nazis. But when Texas Gov. Greg Abbott tried to punish university student groups for the same type of speech, a Federal District Court in Texas said it amounted to "viewpoint discrimination that chills speech in violation of the First Amendment." That might bode poorly for the constitutionality of Arizona's bill. Some supporters have contended the bill doesn't violate the First Amendment because it targets teachers, not students. However, one provision of the Arizona bill does target students groups — a fact one First Amendment expert said was an obvious violation. Other sections of the bill raise concerns about the free speech rights of teachers and private universities. Way said his bill was prompted by concerns ignited by Hamas' attack against Israel on October 7. It comes amid a wave of similar proposals from lawmakers nationwide who also have tried to combat antisemitism. The efforts have come under fire by free speech advocates for using antisemitism to punish people for criticizing the Israeli government or for supporting the Palestinian people. The Arizona Education Association, the main teacher's union in the state, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona have urged Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, to veto the bill. The teacher's union, in a letter also signed by the National Council of Jewish Women Arizona, told Hobbs the proposal "weaponizes legitimate concerns about antisemitism to attack public education" by stripping teachers of professional liability protections. That would "incentivize bad-faith litigation by outside groups with unlimited resources, leaving Arizona educators, who already earn some of the lowest salaries in the nation, with few avenues to defend themselves." The ACLU of Arizona wrote to Hobbs that signing it "will chill the First Amendment rights of students, teachers, speakers and administrators," and targets those who criticize Israel. State Rep. Walt Blackman, R-Snowflake, who supported the bill, rejected that idea. The bill wasn't about limiting speech but rather protecting a threatened group, he said. He urged other lawmakers to stand their ground and protect a persecuted community, pondering how such a law may have helped Black Americans in the past. "If you study your history, this sort of thing in schools were happening to Black Americans. And there wasn't a law to protect Black Americans from anti-Black speech in schools, particularly in the South," Blackman said. "This group of people, the Jewish community, this is a long time coming — to protect their identity, their community, their demographics," he said. In addition to banning antisemitic instruction in the classroom, the bill also seeks to restrict the use of public funding for training that promotes antisemitism and bans schools from penalizing or discriminating against a teacher who refuses to teach or promote antisemitism. The bill lays out a formal investigation and appeal process, involving school officials, governing boards and state education agencies. Any member of the public could file a complaint to kick-off the process. Accused officials found in violation could face consequences ranging from formal reprimands to suspension without pay to termination and losing their teaching certificate. The proposal also allows students and their parents to pursue civil litigation after an investigation ends, and says officials can be held personally responsible to pay damages or attorneys fees, if a court awards them. It is unclear who would pay the costs if a public institution itself was found in violation by a court. The bill says taxpayers funds could not be used. Way — who refused to answer questions when reached by phone and insisted on communication by email — told The Arizona Republic that decision would be left to the courts. There are varying opinions on how much of the proposed law, or which portions, would violate the First Amendment. If it became law and was challenged, courts could strike down parts of it and let others take effect. First Amendment expert Eugene Volokh, professor emeritus at the UCLA School of Law, said the parts of the bill banning what teachers couldn't teach in K-12 were probably OK. However, courts could find the bill's definition of antisemitism too vague to warrant punishment like termination, he added. The provision targeting university student groups, however, was "pretty clearly unconstitutional," Volokh said. "Generally speaking, the government can control what is taught in the public schools. It's sort of the government speech," he said. That dynamic changes in higher education, though. "Courts have recognized indeed that faculty members have very broad rights to speak out in public and in their scholarship. And in-part because we're talking not about kids as students but adults as students, that you can't just fire a faculty member simply on the grounds that the speech he said causes tension with people or disrupts morale ... . It would have to be very, very high bar," Volokh said. A few sections that appeared to restrict teachers' speech outside of the classroom also are constitutionally questionable. Volokh pointed to a section that would ban teachers or officials from calling for the genocide of a group of people or the "murder of members of a particular group." Because that section didn't specifically indicate that doing so was banned while teaching, it might be a First Amendment violation, Volokkh said. The First Amendment prohibits the government from banning speech, including offensive and uncomfortable ideas. Those protections are limited when the speech, by its very utterance, incites a clear and present danger — a high threshold. Hobbs, a Democrat whose 2026 re-election chances are widely seen as at risk, has not indicated her position on the bill. She is required to sign or veto it by June 10. It passed the Arizona Senate on May 28 along party lines, with Republicans in support. The House of Representatives passed it June 4, with Democrats Alma and Consuelo Hernandez of Tucson and Lydia Hernandez of Phoenix joining the Republicans. The Hernandez sisters, who are Jewish, are vocal proponents of laws that clamp down on antisemitism. Alma Hernandez, before casting her vote of approval, said the law was needed to address issues like schools displaying Palestinian flags. "That flag is not a flag of a country. That flag is a political statement, which should not be allowed in our public schools," Hernandez said. Taylor Seely is a First Amendment Reporting Fellow at The Arizona Republic / Do you have a story about the government infringing on your First Amendment rights? Reach her at tseely@ or by phone at 480-476-6116. Seely's role is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input. This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Arizona bill to ban teaching of antisemitism is First Amendment issue
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Video of Man Calling US a Dictatorship Viewed Over 25 Million Times
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Footage of a man describing the U.S. as a dictatorship has gone viral and been viewed millions of times. "It is a dictatorship, and there is not much we can do about it right now," creator @longlivejudah says in the TikTok video shared to his page. The footage, which lasts for nearly 7 minutes, has amassed over 26.1 million views online, and sees the creator share criticisms and concerns about the state of American politics, with the text overlay "The USA is a dictatorship." Newsweek has reached out to longlivejudah via email for comment. Why It Matters The term "dictatorship," is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as "Autocratic rule, control, or leadership," and "A form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique," and "a government organization or group in which absolute power is concentrated." President Donald Trump gestures while speaking in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington, D.C., on April 2, 2025. President Donald Trump gestures while speaking in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington, D.C., on April 2, Donald Trump has been described as a dictator on multiple occasions. In April, a survey conducted by the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) found that 52 percent of Americans agreed that Trump is a "dangerous dictator whose power should be limited before he destroys American democracy." There was a split down party lines in terms of agreement with this statement though, with 87 percent of Democrats agreeing, compared with 56 percent of independents, and 17 percent of Republicans. What To Know The video from @longlivejudah was shared last week and shows him talking to camera about the current state of politics for 6 minutes and 51 seconds. He makes a number of arguments and statements throughout the video, referencing Elon Musk, ICE deportations and book bans, among other things. "All of these alarm bells are ringing, federal court judge blocks this but all this s*** is happening, why?" he asks in the video, in what appears to be a reference to legal setbacks faced by the president on a number of matters, after judges have moved to block executive orders from the administration. "In what type of society does that happen? A dictatorship," he adds. Later in the video, he says: "They're trying to float bills that will ban books." Book bans have been on the rise in recent years, with conservative states more likely to restrict access to some books in schools. More than 3,000 books have been banned across various states, with Florida leading the charge, primarily brought on by debates over race, gender identity, and LGBTQ+ rights. PEN America recorded 3,362 instances of books being banned in the 2022-23 academic year, an increase of 33 percent from the previous year. After this, @longlivejudah references deportations, stating: "They said we're going after the worst of the worst criminals, we're gonna get 'em all out of here. And then, they revoke people with legal status. And then they have ICE agents waiting at courthouses for people going through the legal process." Trump has pledged to carry out the biggest mass deportations in U.S. history, and numerous ICE raids have been conducted. Some of these have swept up individuals who held proper documentation. Though the raids follow legal directives, protests and opposition to these raids has been prominent. In Los Angeles, protests about the deportations has led to clashes with law enforcement, highlighting deepening rifts between sanctuary jurisdictions and federal immigration policy. What People Are Saying @longlivejudah, speaking in the viral TikTok video: "It's a dictatorship. It's not pre, it's not upcoming, it's here." TikTok user @🇺🇸kindsonly314🇺🇸 in a response liked over 334,000 times said: "PEOPLE ARE NOT NEARLY FRIGHTENED ENOUGH." TikTok user @Angel said: "Keep talking! Never silence yourself for Trump!!" What's Next Toward the end of the video, @longlivejudah states: "It genuinely does not matter if you're on the right, left, Republican, Democrat, it just should be a collective, universal, unanimous, 'What the f*** is this?'"
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Homan: Newsom, Bass haven't crossed line but ‘not above the law'
Border czar Tom Homan said on Monday that California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass (D) have not crossed the line amid tensions between law enforcement and immigration raid protesters, but they, like everyone else, are 'not above the law.' In an interview on MSNBC's 'Morning Joe,' Homan sought to clarify earlier remarks that he said were taken 'out of context' by news outlets reporting that he declined to rule out arresting Newsom and Bass amid a clash between the federal and state leaders over the best approach to quelling protests in Los Angeles. Homan said his previous remarks initially focused on the protesters. 'Here's what I said: They have a right to protest, they have the First Amendment rights, but they can't cross that line. They can't cross that line of impediment. They can't cross that line of putting their hands on officers. They can't cross the line of knowing and concealing an illegal alien,' Homan said. 'These are all federal crimes, and they're in statute, and they will be prosecuted.' Homan said a reporter then asked him whether those rules apply to Newsom and Bass. 'He asked the question, 'Does that include Mayor Bass and Governor Newsom?' and I was clear they haven't crossed the line, but they're not above the law either,' Homan said, stressing that he noted Newsom and Bass would face prosecution only 'if they commit a crime.' The remarks came in an interview early Monday, when Homan was asked to respond to Newsom's dare late Sunday to arrest him. Newsom had been responding to reports that Homan threatened to do so if he or Bass interfered in immigration enforcement efforts. 'Come after me, arrest me. Let's just get it over with, tough guy, you know? I don't give a damn. But I care about my community. I care about this community,' Newsom told NBC News on Sunday. 'So, Tom, arrest me. Let's go,' Newsom added. But Homan, on Monday, brushed off the remarks. 'I'm not biting on that,' Homan said. After he clarified his earlier remarks, Homan said, 'That's what was happening. I never threatened to arrest Governor Newsom.'
