The future of accessing TikTok in the U.S. will be decided by the Supreme Court any moment now. So far, the justices seem inclined to uphold a bipartisan law that would ban the app as soon as Jan. 19.

Why it matters: The wildly popular short-form video app, owned by the Chinese company ByteDance, could imminently vanish from Google and Apple app stores. Beyond disappointing devoted users, the move would also disrupt influencers' multibillion-dollar creator economy.

• During oral arguments last week, most of the high court's justices homed in on the central point that under the law, TikTok could continue operating with a different algorithm than ByteDance's. And as a Chinese company, ByteDance lacks First Amendment protections.

State of play: TikTok will not instantly disappear from a device where it's already downloaded on Jan. 19. But ByteDance won't be able to issue updates to the app — eventually rendering it useless.

• The app could more quickly go dark if Oracle decides to immediately stop hosting TikTok's massive video library. A ban could send the stock plunging since it hosts the company's U.S. data.
• TikTok will not be accessible from an internet browser in the U.S. unless a user employs a VPN, which encrypts internet traffic and hides the user's IP address. VPNs are easily attainable online, but a user may not be able to download updates if their app store account is tied to the U.S.

Zoom in: Some TikTok users and creators are already flocking to other social media apps, based on Axios' review of some newly trending apps.

• Lemon8, which has the same owner as TikTok and is being promoted by the company as a potential alternative for users, features a mix of Instagram-like photo sharing and TikTok-style short videos. This app and other ByteDance apps would be part of the ban.
• Xiaohongshu, also known as RedNote in English, is a short-form video app that has surged to the first place in the social networking category in the U.S. Apple app store. It also has a mix of video and live-streaming features.
• Other platforms that have similar vertical video features are YouTube with its YouTube Shorts and Instagram with its Reels. Some users have been posting TikTok content to both of these platforms.

By the numbers: TikTok has a stunning 170 million users in the U.S., and just 32% of Americans support a ban, according to a Pew Research Center survey.

The big picture: The push to ban TikTok in the U.S. stems from the "Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act," signed into law last April by President Biden.

• The law mandates that ByteDance sell the app by Jan. 19 or face a ban. It gave TikTok up to a year to find an approved buyer for the U.S. version of the app.
• The law stems from the U.S. government's concerns for national security over its ties to China, including the spread of misinformation and espionage.
• ByteDance has contested this law, arguing that forced divestment is unconstitutional and infringes on First Amendment rights.

What's next: The Supreme Court could issue an order at any time.

• President-elect Trump during his first term led initial efforts to ban the app in the U.S. But he's indicated more recently that he's open to trying to save it.

Go deeper: TikTok Supreme Court takeaways

Meta's Mark Zuckerberg, in an appearance on the "Joe Rogan Experience" podcast, criticized the Biden administration for pushing for censorship around COVID-19 vaccines, the media for hounding Facebook to clamp down on misinformation after the 2016 election, and his own company for complying.

Why it matters: Zuckerberg's three-hour interview with Rogan gives a clear window into his thinking during a remarkable week in which Meta loosened its content moderation policies and shut down its DEI programs.

Driving the news: The Meta CEO said a turning point for his approach to censorship came after Biden publicly said social media companies were "killing people" by allowing COVID misinformation to spread, and politicians started coming after the company from all angles.

• Zuckerberg told Rogan, who was a prominent skeptic of the COVID-19 vaccine, that the Biden administration would "call up the guys on our team and yell at them and cursing and threatening repercussions if we don't take down things that are true."
• Zuckerberg said that Biden officials wanted Meta to take down a meme of Leonardo DiCaprio pointing at a TV, with a joke at the expense of people who were vaccinated. Zuckerberg said his company drew the line at removing "humor and satire."
• But he also said his company had gone too far in complying with such requests, and acknowledged that he and others at the company wrongly bought into the idea — which he said the traditional media had been pushing — that misinformation spreading on social media swung the 2016 election to Donald Trump.

What he's saying: Zuckerberg said his own company's fact-checking process was "something out of 1984," and led to a broad belief that the fact-checkers his own company employed "were too biased."

• "It really is a slippery slope, and it just got to a point where it's just, OK, this is destroying so much trust, especially in the United States, to have this program."
• He said he was "worried" from the beginning about "becoming this sort of decider of what is true in the world." Zuckerberg praised X's "community notes" program as superior to Facebook's model.
• He later suggested that social media creators are replacing the government and traditional media as arbiters of truth, becoming "a new kind of cultural elite that people look up to."

The flip side: Under Meta's newly relaxed moderation policies, women can be compared to household objects, ethnic groups can be called "filth," users can call for the exclusion of gay people from certain professions, and people can refer to a transgender or non-binary person as an "it," Axios' Ina Fried reports.

• That policy change unleashed outrage within the company, even before Zuckerberg announced Meta would also be ending DEI programs, as Axios scooped.

Zoom in: In justifying the content moderation rethink, Zuckerberg told Rogan that Facebook's policies would not have allowed someone to post that women should not be allowed in combat roles in the military — even though Trump's pick to run the Pentagon, Pete Hegseth, has publicly called for such a change.

• "If it's OK to say on the floor of Congress, you should probably be able to debate it on social media," Zuckerberg said.

The Federal Communications Commission lacks the authority to restore net neutrality rules that prevented broadband providers from slowing or blocking access to internet content, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday.

Why it matters: The all-Republican panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit handed a blow to the Biden administration, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and other Democrats who've pushed for fair and open internet measures.

Zoom in: Judge Richard Allen Griffin said in the ruling in Cincinnati, Ohio, that broadband internet is an "information service" instead of a "telecommunications service," meaning the FCC lacked authority to impose rules under Title II.

• The judges declared that the FCC did not have the authority to prohibit telecommunications companies from blocking or stifling internet content and creating "fast lanes" for certain web companies that pay a fee.
• The panel pointed to a Supreme Court decision in a 2024 case known as Loper Bright, which overturned Chevron deference that gave deference to government agencies on regulations.
• "Applying Loper Bright means we can end the FCC's vacillations," the court ruled.

Between the lines: Brendan Carr, the incoming FCC chair, has advocated for rolling back net neutrality rules and is a staunch proponent of deregulating legacy industries.

• He said in defense of his vote to end net neutrality rules in 2017 that the decision brought a "great day for consumers, for innovation and for freedom."

What they're saying: "Consumers across the country have told us again and again that they want an internet that is fast, open, and fair," said Jessica Rosenworcel, Democratic FCC chair, in a statement.

• "With this decision it is clear that Congress now needs to heed their call, take up the charge for net neutrality, and put open internet principles in federal law."
• Schumer said in an emailed statement Thursday evening, "Republican appointed judges are choosing to protect profits over middle-class people who rely on the internet for work and entertainment."
• He called the decision a "disappointing consequence of the Republican agenda" and promised that Senate Democrats will "push for a vote to enshrine Net Neutrality into law."

Editor's note: This article has been updated with comment from Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.

A handful of conservative critics of Elon Musk are alleging censorship and claiming they were stripped of their verification badges on X after challenging his views on H-1B visas for highly skilled foreign workers.

Why it matters: The H-1B issue and an X post by Musk ally Vivek Ramaswamy about America's culture of "mediocrity" have sparked an online MAGA civil war over immigration and race. Some supporters of President-elect Trump are now turning on Musk and the tech bros Trump has tapped for key administration roles.

Between the lines: The claims of "censorship" on X are difficult to verify.

• Since Musk purchased Twitter and implemented sweeping staff cuts, it's often been difficult to get answers as to whether or why certain accounts or posts have been minimized. X did not respond to Axios' request for comment.
• Conservatives have long blamed "shadow bans" for censoring them on social media even when there hasn't been explicit proof. However, Musk's X has often been hailed by conservatives as a bastion of free speech.

Driving the news: Trump's conspiracy-minded ally Laura Loomer, New York Young Republican Club president Gavin Wax and InfoWars host Owen Shroyer all said their verification badges disappeared after they criticized Musk's support for H-1B visas, railed against Indian culture and attacked Ramaswamy, Musk's DOGE co-chair.

What they're saying: In response to a user who said replies were being hidden from her posts, Loomer stated that there is a "full censorship of my account simply because I called out H-1B visas. This is anti-American behavior by tech oligarchs."

• "Insane that blue checks are being removed from accounts that have been vocal in their criticism of the H1B racket," Wax said.
• "I just lost my verification...was told my account is 'under review,'" Shroyer said.
• Those updates from the three critics were posted around the same time Thursday night. There has been no official response from Musk or X.

The other side: A few hours before those posts, Musk shared in a post that the X "algorithm is trying to maximize unregretted user-seconds."

• "If far more credible, verified subscriber accounts (not bots) mute/block your account compared to those who like your posts, your reach will decline significantly."
• He later said that "any accounts found to be engaged in coordinated attacks to spam target accounts with mute/blocks will themselves be categorized – correctly – as spam."

How it happened: Loomer helped spark the H-1B debate earlier this week by criticizing a Trump appointee's previous support for allowing more highly skilled workers to enter the U.S.

• Musk weighed in Wednesday, saying America had too few "talented" and "motivated" engineers and needed "to recruit top talent wherever they may be."
• Loomer's stream of posts since then has included criticisms of Musk and racist claims about Indian people. She has also been backed up by Trump-world allies like Steve Bannon in her efforts to split Big Tech and MAGA.
• "Loomer is trolling for attention. Ignore," Musk posted on X.

Flashback: Musk has a history of punishing news organizations and journalists he doesn't like, ostensibly for policy violations.

• He threatened to reassign NPR's account handle last year and marked some links to the site as "unsafe" when users click through.
• Musk also removed the verification badge of The New York Times in 2023.
• X also suspended independent journalist Ken Klippenstein's account after he shared Sen. JD Vance's vetting document from the alleged Iranian hack of Trump's campaign.

Go deeper: MAGA civil war breaks out over American "mediocrity" culture

TikTok asked the Supreme Court on Monday to temporarily block a law that would effectively ban the social media app in the U.S.

Why it matters: This is TikTok's last resort as the request follows a denial by a U.S. Appeals Court to grant an injunction on the ban law until the Supreme Court decides whether or not to take up the case.

Driving the news: TikTok's emergency appeal says the law violates the company's First Amendment rights and its over 170 million American app users.

• "Because TikTok Inc. is a U.S. company exercising editorial discretion over a U.S. speech platform, the First Amendment fully protects it from Congress's attempt to ban its operation of the platform based on its purported susceptibility to foreign influence," lawyers for TikTok wrote.

Zoom out: The TikTok ban law is set to go into effect on Jan. 19. Barring an appeal, tech companies like Google and Apple will be legally required to remove TikTok from their app stores.

• Congress could also choose to repeal the law, but that seems unlikely. President-elect Trump, who has flip-flopped on the issue, could try to urge his DOJ not to enforce the ban.

The law requires TikTok to sell the app to a U.S. company by Jan. 19 to prevent the ban from taking effect, but no potential buyers appear poised to complete a deal by the deadline.

What to watch: Trump said he has a "warm spot" in his "heart for TikTok" and would look at whether to stave off the looming ban.

• However, he doesn't take office until Jan. 20.
• Trump is expected to meet with TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew at Mar-a-Lago today.

Go deeper: What to know about TikTok's future under Trump