top of page

Current Most Read

The Insatiable Greed of the Ultra-Rich: When Billions Aren’t Enough
Elon Musk’s Bid to Acquire OpenAI: A Dangerous Power Grab?
UK Government Pressures Apple for Encrypted Data Access – Security Measure or Privacy Risk?

TikTok ban: An Act of Market Control, Not Freedom

Writer's picture: Connor BanksConnor Banks

The Supreme Court of the United States met on Friday the 10th of January to discuss the imminent TikTok ban in the United States, and it's looking like the Supreme Court is going to uphold the ban. This means that TikTok will have to be sold off to an American company or be banned from America.


Facebook and Tiktok fighting each other. Felt design

The United States has long prided itself on being a champion of innovation and free-market competition. Yet, the recent push to ban TikTok exposes a different reality. While the ban is often framed as a measure to protect American "freedoms," closer scrutiny reveals that the motivations behind it are less about safeguarding national security or personal liberty and more about protecting the dominance of American tech giants who have failed to create a competing product.


The National Security Argument: A Convenient Scapegoat

The primary justification for the TikTok ban centres on national security concerns. Critics argue that TikTok’s ownership by a Chinese company poses risks of data misuse or surveillance by the Chinese government. While these concerns warrant investigation, the evidence presented so far has been largely speculative. Moreover, TikTok has taken significant steps to address these concerns, such as pledging to store U.S. user data domestically and offering unprecedented transparency in its operations.


In contrast, American tech companies, including Facebook and Google, have faced numerous scandals over data breaches and misuse, yet these incidents rarely spark discussions of bans. This double standard suggests that the TikTok ban isn’t truly about protecting users’ data but about something far more self-serving: market control.


A Failure to Innovate: American Companies’ Struggle to Compete

Tiktok logo in a 3d blog with a pink background

TikTok’s meteoric rise exposed a glaring weakness in American tech innovation. Despite their immense resources and influence, companies like Meta (formerly Facebook), Google, and Snapchat have failed to develop a platform that resonates with younger audiences in the same way TikTok does. Meta’s Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts, both designed to mimic TikTok’s short-form video format, have not captured the same cultural zeitgeist or user engagement.


Rather than innovating, these companies have leaned heavily on their lobbying power to stifle competition. The push to ban TikTok can be seen as an attempt to remove a superior competitor from the market, allowing American platforms to reclaim dominance without addressing their own shortcomings. This approach not only stifles competition but also sets a dangerous precedent for using regulatory measures to quash innovative foreign products rather than improving domestic ones.


The Hypocrisy of “Freedom”

American lawmakers have framed the TikTok ban as a measure to protect citizens' freedoms, yet the ban itself directly contradicts the principles of choice and access that underpin those freedoms. TikTok’s success is driven by millions of Americans who have chosen to use the app, finding value in its unique algorithm, diverse content, and engaging user experience. Restricting access to the platform undermines these users’ autonomy, suggesting that their freedoms are secondary to corporate interests.


Furthermore, the United States’ tech landscape is already dominated by monopolies. Companies like Meta, Google, and Amazon control vast swaths of the internet, often using their market power to squash smaller competitors. The TikTok ban does not address this monopolistic behaviour; instead, it reinforces it by eliminating a rare instance of genuine competition in the social media space.


A Global Perspective: The Irony of “Protection”

The ban also highlights a broader irony. For years, American tech companies have championed global free markets, often entering foreign countries and out-competing local businesses. Yet when faced with competition from a foreign company on their own turf, the response has been to cry foul rather than adapt.


This hypocrisy weakens America’s global standing as a proponent of innovation and fair competition. Instead of banning TikTok, the United States could use this moment to examine why its own companies failed to create a comparable product and what can be done to foster domestic innovation.


The Real Solution: Compete, Don’t Constrain

If the goal is to protect American freedoms and ensure data security, a TikTok ban is a shortsighted solution. Instead, lawmakers should focus on regulating data privacy across all platforms, domestic and foreign, to ensure robust protections for users. Simultaneously, the tech industry should be incentivised to innovate rather than rely on protectionist policies.


TikTok’s popularity is a testament to its ability to connect with users in ways that American platforms have failed to replicate. Banning the app does not solve this problem; it simply papers over it. To truly champion freedom, the United States must allow competition to flourish, even when it means facing uncomfortable truths about its own shortcomings.



The push to ban TikTok is less about protecting American freedoms and more about protecting American monopolies. Framed as a national security issue, the campaign against TikTok is ultimately an admission that American tech giants have failed to keep up with their global counterparts. If the U.S. truly values innovation and freedom, it must resist the urge to eliminate competition through regulation and instead focus on fostering a market where the best product, not the most powerful company, wins.

The Insatiable Greed of the Ultra-Rich: When Billions Aren’t Enough

The Insatiable Greed of the Ultra-Rich: When Billions Aren’t Enough

17 February 2025

Connor Banks

Want your article or story on our site? Contact us here


Elon Musk

In today’s world, the sheer amount of wealth concentrated in the hands of a small group of billionaires is beyond comprehension. Figures like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg command fortunes that stretch well into the hundreds of billions, an amount so vast that even losing 99.999% of their wealth would still leave them among the world’s financial elite. Yet, despite this unimaginable level of prosperity, their hunger for more remains insatiable.


Unfathomable Wealth


To put their wealth into perspective, let’s consider the case of Elon Musk, who currently holds a net worth of approximately $394 billion. If he were to lose 99.999% of his fortune, he would still have $3.94 million, a sum that places him in the top 0.2% of global wealth holders. Similarly, Steve Ballmer, the tenth richest billionaire, would retain $1.45 million if subjected to the same hypothetical loss. These figures highlight the extent to which the world’s billionaires operate in an entirely different financial reality than the rest of us.

For the majority of the global population, accumulating even $1 million is an unattainable dream. Roughly 50% of the world lives with less than $10,000 to their name, while nearly 90% have less than $100,000. This disparity makes it clear that the elite’s definition of financial loss is vastly different from what the average person experiences.


The Greed for More


Despite their astronomical wealth, billionaires continue to chase more profits, tax breaks, and financial leverage. Musk, for example, has aggressively expanded his businesses, cutting costs wherever possible, often at the expense of employees. Jeff Bezos, despite owning Amazon, a trillion-dollar empire, has fought against worker unionisation efforts and resisted wage increases. Even Warren Buffett, a so-called "humble billionaire," actively lobbies against higher corporate taxes. Their actions beg the question: How much wealth is enough?


The Ethics of Hoarding Billions


At what point does wealth accumulation become morally indefensible? If one individual possesses more money than entire nations, yet refuses to pay workers a living wage or contribute fairly to social programmes, should they be celebrated as "self-made success stories" or criticised for unchecked greed?

The argument that billionaires have "earned" their fortunes ignores the fact that their wealth is largely built on the labour of others. Without factory workers, warehouse staff, engineers, and countless others, these billionaires would have nothing. Yet, they often do everything in their power to minimise their financial obligations to those same workers, ensuring that the rich stay rich and the poor remain struggling.


The Bottom Line


The world’s billionaires do not just have wealth, they have too much wealth. And the fact that even losing nearly all of it would still leave them in a financial position stronger than 99% of the population shows just how broken the system is. Yet, their pursuit of even greater riches remains relentless. Whether it’s through tax loopholes, stock manipulations, or labour exploitation, the ultra-rich are never satisfied.


At some point, society must ask: Why do we allow so few people to hoard so much, while so many struggle to survive? Until this question is seriously addressed, the wealth gap will continue to grow, at the expense of billions of people who will never even come close to the wealth these individuals could lose overnight without consequence.

bottom of page