RedNote Rebellion: Why the TikTok Ban Misses the Mark

The Biden administration’s push to ban TikTok, the wildly popular social media platform, has sparked both fervent support and scathing criticism. On the surface, the reasoning seems sound: concerns about national security, data privacy, and influence by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Yet, as the curtain lifts on TikTok’s potential demise, a farcical reality emerges. American leftists, spearheaded by influencers like Taylor Lorenz, are flocking not to domestically owned alternatives but to Xiaohongshu—or RedNote—a social media app entirely owned and operated within the iron grip of Chinese regulatory control.

More than 1.2 million U.S.-based users have downloaded RedNote as the TikTok ban deadline looms. Yet they may find themselves looking for yet another TikTok alternative soon. Chinese officials have already raised the issue with RedNote’s government relations team, warning that the company must ensure China-based users cannot see posts from American users. Meanwhile, RedNote employs not just data tracking but advanced facial and object detection, analyzing users and their surroundings for further scrutiny. All of this information is collected, stored, and ultimately accessible to the Chinese government. This peculiar exodus underscores the futility of banning TikTok in a free society and raises critical questions about government overreach, user autonomy, and the principles of liberty in the digital age.

The TikTok Controversy

TikTok’s rise has been meteoric, captivating millions of users globally with its addictive algorithm and vibrant community. Its parent company, ByteDance, a Beijing-based tech giant, claims a strict firewall between TikTok’s U.S. operations and the Chinese government. It insists that data collected on American users is stored on U.S. soil, inaccessible to the CCP. But skepticism abounds. Critics cite China’s 2017 National Intelligence Law, which obligates companies to cooperate with state intelligence agencies, as evidence that such firewalls may be illusory.

This tension reached a boiling point when the Biden administration threatened to ban TikTok unless ByteDance sold its U.S. operations. The move echoed Trump-era efforts to curb the app’s influence, citing its potential to harvest data on millions of Americans or subtly influence public discourse. National security hawks hailed the decision, but it exposed a fundamental hypocrisy: in an age of digital globalization, can one app truly be isolated from the complex web of international influence?

Enter RedNote: A Case Study in Irony

As TikTok faces extinction in the U.S., a curious phenomenon has unfolded. Left-leaning influencers, many of whom decry government overreach and advocate for digital freedom—ironically, the same voices who cheered government-pressured censorship of conservative voices during the pandemic and election controversies—are migrating en masse to RedNote. This platform—praised for its clean interface and niche focus on lifestyle content—is, unlike TikTok, openly and unabashedly subject to CCP control.

RedNote’s advanced tracking capabilities go far beyond TikTok’s. It employs face and object detection technology, capturing not only user behavior but also their physical surroundings. Every interaction, every upload, every glance at the camera becomes data stored in China and monitored by CCP-approved algorithms. And while TikTok at least claims to protect user autonomy through its supposed separation from Beijing, RedNote offers no such assurances. In their defiant migration, leftist influencers like Lorenz demonstrate either blissful ignorance or willful disregard for these realities.

For instance, searches for politically sensitive topics on RedNote yield predictable results: a sanitized narrative aligned with CCP doctrine. User data is stored in China, moderated by government-mandated content teams, and analyzed with Orwellian precision. RedNote’s seamless censorship and invasive surveillance epitomize the very authoritarianism many progressives claim to resist.

The Futility of Bans in a Free Society

The irony does not end with RedNote. The very act of banning TikTok is itself antithetical to the principles of a free society. While concerns over data security and influence are legitimate, the idea that the U.S. government can dictate which apps its citizens can use sets a dangerous precedent. Today, it’s TikTok; tomorrow, it could be X, Facebook, or another platform deemed undesirable by those in power. Such actions betray a creeping authoritarian impulse more befitting of Beijing than Washington.

Americans should, of course, be informed about the risks associated with foreign-owned platforms. Transparency regarding data collection, storage, and potential misuse is essential. But the solution lies in empowering individuals, not in paternalistic bans. Robust data protection laws and clear guidelines for digital platforms can achieve far more than heavy-handed prohibitions.

Lessons from the Migration to RedNote

The swift embrace of RedNote by leftist influencers reveals the true crux of the issue: cultural rebellion. Many Americans view the TikTok ban not as a matter of national security but as an overreach by an out-of-touch government. RedNote’s appeal stems not just from its functionality but from its symbolic defiance of perceived authoritarianism in U.S. policymaking.

This migration also highlights the limitations of bans in a hyperconnected world. A digital platform is not a monolith; it is part of a sprawling ecosystem. If TikTok disappears, users will simply move to the next best thing, even if it’s owned by the same geopolitical adversary. The focus, therefore, should not be on restricting access but on educating users and fostering a competitive domestic tech landscape.

Historical Parallels: Liberty and Censorship

The debate over TikTok evokes historical struggles between liberty and control. Consider the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which sought to suppress dissent against the Federalist government. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison’s response, the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, championed the rights of states and individuals against federal overreach. Similarly, the move to ban TikTok reflects a federal attempt to exert control over individual choice, cloaked in the language of security.

Even Cicero, in ancient Rome, warned against the dangers of suppressing speech, noting, “Freedom is a possession of inestimable value.” To ban TikTok—or any app—is to flirt with the erosion of this principle. The true threat to liberty lies not in the apps we use but in the government’s ability to dictate our choices under the guise of protection.

Conclusion

The exodus to RedNote exposes the folly of banning TikTok. It demonstrates that, in a free society, bans are not only impractical but counterproductive. Americans, particularly those championing progressive causes, have shown a willingness to embrace platforms with even greater risks to privacy and autonomy when motivated by cultural or political defiance.

The solution lies not in mimicking Beijing’s heavy-handed tactics but in upholding the principles of transparency, education, and individual freedom. If Americans are to truly safeguard their digital future, they must resist the impulse to ban and instead embrace the messy, vibrant, and challenging process of free choice in the marketplace of ideas. For, as history teaches us, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance—not against apps, but against the overreach of those who would decide for us.

If you don't already please follow @amuse on 𝕏 and subscribe to the Deep Dive podcast.