An undeniable fact about TikTok is that this social network reached the peak of its prominence during the isolation period. In that dreadful pandemic scenario, people instinctively explored alternative news and conspiracy theories they wanted to believe (despite knowing that science said otherwise) while using this platform as an “escape,” watching videos that helped relativize time. It was a time when people surrendered to instinct, and in that reality, projections of sustainable developments and long-term strategies seemed like clichés.
Written by: Lorik Idrizi
Looking at the recent initiative by the U.S. and Albania to ban TikTok, this issue raises numerous dilemmas. On one hand, there is a more conventional group that sees this social network as a reflection of mediocrity. On the other, there’s the “starter pack” group, staunch advocates of unconditional freedom of speech—even when it infringes upon another type of freedom.
Analyzing the content and circumstances that propelled this application to such alarming proportions reveals many questions. From a social engineering perspective, explanations suggest that beyond the adrenaline rush caused by short videos (commonly referred to as “reels”), these clips provoke a strong sense of curiosity about what comes next. Many social engineers liken this phenomenon to a mix of curiosity and the thrill experienced during gambling.
TikTok is not an “organic” invention and did not achieve natural growth. It was an extraordinary circumstance—like the pandemic—that pushed it to such alarming dimensions. Moreover, the origins of this app are not tied to social progress. Unlike Facebook, which was conceived in a “temple of knowledge” like Harvard and fundamentally aimed to network students—a phenomenon promoted by civil society, media, and all knowledge-driven sectors to foster interaction and dynamism—TikTok lacks such foundational values.
Despite its flaws, paradoxically, the “META” company still preserves some of these core principles. The debates over fact-checking, which sometimes limit freedom of speech, or international media organizations’ initiatives to protect credible sources, show efforts to maintain balance. Beyond its social aspect, Facebook has enabled not only reunions with old friends but also networking opportunities for scholars meeting at conferences or events. Often, thanks to its credibility, Facebook serves as a virtual business card, much like LinkedIn. In the grand mosaic of knowledge and social progress, these social networks have contributed significantly to social interaction and dynamism—something TikTok has failed to achieve.
Although we cannot generalize all TikTok users, many challenges or competitions monetized on this platform often resemble a gladiator arena where the most “outrageous” wins. Without excusing parents, who should be more responsible in their relationships with their children, the model TikTok offers is far removed from social responsibility and human normality.
Social networks are not all harmful, just as they are not all beneficial. They represent endless possibilities, much like the internet itself, which, when used responsibly, can become a powerful tool for knowledge. However, when left unchecked, it can turn into a frightening nightmare. Considering how vital technology is and the ease it brings to communication and networking, these tools must be categorized and directed toward social progress. They should serve education and life improvement rather than being reduced to profit-driven algorithms that often spiral into various forms of degeneration.