Current Most Read

The End of the Safety Net: Why Slashing Farm Subsidies Could Threaten the UK’s Food Future

The Rising Crime Rate in the UK: A Crisis in the Criminal Justice System

How to prepare for concert ticket presales and sales on Ticketmaster

TikTok Ban Looms: Millions of Users Could Be Affected

Paul Francis
Jan 9
3 min read

On January 19, 2025, TikTok, one of the world’s most popular social media platforms, faces a potential ban in the United States. If enacted, the ban could impact over 170 million U.S. users who rely on the platform daily for entertainment, education, and business. This significant move stems from a 2024 law requiring ByteDance, TikTok’s Chinese parent company, to divest its U.S. operations. Failure to comply would result in TikTok being removed from app stores and blocked by internet service providers across the country.

TikTok: A Short History of Global Success

TikTok’s journey began in September 2016, when ByteDance launched the app as Douyin in China. Within a year, ByteDance released an international version, rebranding it as TikTok. The platform exploded in popularity after its 2018 merger with Musical.ly, a U.S.-based app that focused on lip-syncing videos. This move not only expanded TikTok's user base but also solidified its foothold in Western markets.

TikTok's algorithm, which curates personalized content for users based on their interests and interactions, became its defining feature. By 2024, TikTok had over 1.04 billion monthly active users worldwide, with U.S. users alone spending an average of 95 minutes per day on the app. This translates to nearly 24 hours a month of consistent engagement, with content spanning everything from viral dance challenges to educational tutorials.

The platform is not just a hub for creators; it has become an essential marketing tool for brands and a primary income source for influencers. Businesses of all sizes use TikTok to reach younger demographics, with Gen Z and millennials making up the majority of its user base.

The Court Case: Allegations of Spying and National Security Risks

The legal controversy surrounding TikTok stems from concerns that ByteDance could share U.S. user data with the Chinese government, an allegation TikTok and ByteDance have consistently denied. In April 2024, the U.S. government passed the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA). This legislation required ByteDance to sell TikTok’s U.S. operations or face a nationwide ban by January 19, 2025.

The Department of Justice has emphasized that the app poses a significant national security risk. They argue that the Chinese government could exploit TikTok’s access to U.S. user data for espionage purposes, despite ByteDance’s assertions that U.S. data is stored on servers outside of China.

ByteDance has countered with legal challenges, claiming that the law infringes on First Amendment rights and suppresses free speech. As the deadline looms, the Supreme Court is set to make a critical decision, balancing concerns about national security with the constitutional rights of millions of users and creators.

Potential Fallout for the Tech Industry

A TikTok ban could send ripples across the tech industry, especially for foreign-owned applications operating in the U.S. If TikTok is banned due to its ownership structure, other non-U.S.-based platforms could face heightened scrutiny. This could result in stricter regulations, potential bans, or even demands for foreign companies to establish U.S. subsidiaries or sell assets.

The case raises broader questions about the future of the global tech landscape. Could governments worldwide follow suit, restricting access to apps based on their country of origin? Such actions could lead to a fragmented internet, where digital platforms are siloed based on national boundaries and geopolitical alliances.

Implications for Creators and Businesses

For creators and businesses, the stakes are high. TikTok has become an indispensable platform for reaching audiences, generating income, and driving brand awareness. A ban would force creators to migrate to other platforms, potentially disrupting their income streams and reducing their reach. Businesses reliant on TikTok advertising would need to pivot their strategies, potentially investing more heavily in alternative platforms like Instagram Reels, YouTube Shorts, or Snapchat.

The Future of TikTok

As the January 19 deadline approaches, millions of users, creators, and businesses are left in limbo. The Supreme Court’s ruling will not only determine TikTok’s fate in the U.S. but also set a precedent for how governments regulate foreign-owned technology in the future. Regardless of the outcome, this case underscores the complex intersection of technology, politics, and national security in an increasingly interconnected world.

TikTok’s potential ban serves as a wake-up call for businesses and creators to diversify their digital strategies and consider the broader implications of a globalized tech landscape shaped by geopolitical tensions. The next few weeks will be critical for the platform’s future—and for the millions who depend on it.

The End of the Safety Net: Why Slashing Farm Subsidies Could Threaten the UK’s Food Future

All Articles

16 April 2025

Paul Francis

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

Not only do UK farmers now face the looming threat of inheritance tax reforms that could force centuries-old family farms to be sold off - but they’re also contending with a policy shift that dismantles the very foundation of their economic stability: the withdrawal of direct farm subsidies.

A black-and-white cow grazes on a lush, green field with a dense forest in the background. The scene is peaceful and natural.

In a time of global instability - wars in Europe and the Middle East, disrupted trade routes, volatile commodity markets - the UK government is removing financial safeguards that have underpinned British agriculture for decades. And it’s doing so faster than many in the industry can adapt.

The Basic Payment Scheme (BPS), a direct subsidy paid to farmers under the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), is in its final years. By 2027, it will be completely gone. In its place: a complex, tiered system of environmental schemes under the umbrella of the Environmental Land Management Schemes (ELMS). Worthy in theory, but in practice? A mess of bureaucracy, delays, and shortfalls.

And the timing couldn’t be worse.

A Lifeline Cut-Off Before the Bridge Was Built

The BPS wasn’t perfect, but it provided one essential function - it kept farms afloat. Payments were calculated based on the amount of land farmed, offering predictability and a cashflow buffer that allowed British farms to invest in new equipment, manage seasonal fluctuations, and ride out the weather, both literal and economic.

Now, payments have been rapidly reduced. By 2024, many farmers had already lost 35%–50% of their BPS income. In 2025, a new cap of £7,200 per farm will apply. That’s a fraction of the £20,000 to £50,000 mid-size farms previously received.

The replacement - ELMS - promises payments for "public goods": improving soil health, reducing carbon emissions, boosting biodiversity. Laudable aims. But ask most farmers, and they’ll tell you: they don’t object to sustainability. What they object to is the speed and scale of the transition, and the fact that the new payments often don’t come close to replacing what’s being lost.

Environmental Schemes: Aspirations Without Infrastructure

At the core of ELMS are three tiers:

Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI): Encourages low-level changes such as herbal leys, no-till farming, and reducing fertiliser use.
Local Nature Recovery: Pays for habitat restoration and targeted environmental actions.
Landscape Recovery: Funds large-scale, long-term ecosystem restoration, often in collaboration with multiple landowners.

But uptake has been patchy at best. As of late 2024, fewer than half of eligible farms had enrolled in any ELMS scheme. Why?

The schemes are confusing. Farmers must navigate different options, overlapping rules, and constant revisions.
The application process is time-consuming and opaque.
Payments under SFI are often insufficient, especially for mixed or livestock farms in upland areas where land-use change is more difficult.
Crucially, many tenanted farmers - nearly a third of all farms in England - face legal and logistical barriers to taking part.

DEFRA has promised streamlining. But meanwhile, farmers are left in limbo - without clear income streams, but still expected to feed the nation.

The Cost of Poor Policy Timing

Agricultural experts, rural economists, and even major retailers have raised alarm bells. In a scathing 2023 report, the National Audit Office warned that DEFRA had failed to communicate the changes effectively, leaving many in the dark about what the new schemes offer.

The NFU (National Farmers’ Union) has repeatedly called on the government to pause BPS cuts until ELMS is fully functioning, but those calls have largely been ignored. In late 2024, a coalition of MPs from all parties demanded a review, warning that this abrupt withdrawal of support could lead to an exodus from the industry.

And that’s not just a theoretical risk. A nationwide NFU survey found that 11% of farmers were considering leaving farming altogether due to the combined impact of reduced subsidies, labour shortages, and rising costs.

Food Security in an Uncertain World

This isn’t just a farming problem - it’s a national one.

The UK is already heavily reliant on imports for key food items. And with international trade routes threatened by conflict in Ukraine, instability in the Middle East, and shipping disruptions in the Red Sea, supply chains are becoming more fragile by the month.

Should we really be cutting back our domestic food production capacity now?

Government ambitions to rewild 10% of farmland, promote biodiversity, and shift toward carbon sequestration may look good on a whiteboard in Whitehall. But on the ground, it’s leading to reduced livestock numbers, lower domestic output, and a growing dependence on foreign markets that may not be as reliable as once assumed.

A Dangerous Gamble

To many farmers, this feels like an ideological experiment being conducted in real-time -with their livelihoods and our food supply on the line. And as supermarket CEOs and farming groups increasingly speak out, it’s clear this isn’t just grumbling from the shires. It’s a cry of alarm from the foundation of the UK’s food system.

Environmental ambition is important. Climate change is real. But so is hunger.

We can pursue sustainability - but not by pulling the rug out from under those who feed us. The government’s subsidy reform may have noble aims, but its execution is flawed, its timeline reckless, and its consequences potentially devastating.

If we want a resilient, secure food future, we must support the people who make it possible - not push them to the brink.