College Kids Are Easily Bypassing Stupid University TikTok Bans
from the congratulations-you-accomplished-absolutely-nothing dept
We’ve noted a few times how the political push to ban TikTok is a dumb performance largely designed to distract people from our failure to pass even a basic internet privacy law or regulate data brokers. We’ve also noted how college bans of TikTok are a dumb extension of that dumb performance, and don’t accomplish anything of meaningful significance.
When the college bans first emerged we noted they’d be trivial to bypass, given the bans only apply to the actual college network. They obviously don’t apply to personal student use over cellular networks. And, not surprisingly, students are finding it extremely easy to bypass the bans, either by simply turning off Wi-Fi when they want to access the social network, or using a VPN:
“The student body, quietly, in unison, added Wi-Fi toggling to their daily routine. “Everyone was so nonchalant about it,” Pablo says. “They really just did not care.”
“There wasn’t a whole lot of pushback, aside from a lot of grumbling and groans,” says Ana Renfroe, a sophomore at Texas A&M. Some of her professors are still showing TikToks in class. They’ll just ask students to download the videos at home she explains, or will upload them to another platform like Instagram Reels.”
The folks who spent several years hyperventilating about how TikTok was some unique threat to the public (on an internet where countless international companies, ISPs, app makers, and data brokers over-collect and fail to secure consumer data) are, of course, nowhere to be found.
Their superficial “solution” for a problem they overstated (often for xenophobic or anticompetitive reasons) didn’t actually do anything useful, but it provided the superficial illusion of solution-oriented thinking, which is good enough for the kind of facts-optional partisan media echo chambers the most vocal TikTok critics often inhabit.
Here in reality, folks like The Knight First Amendment Institute have continued to challenge the college bans, noting they imperil research into an important modern information-exchange platform. But we still haven’t passed a privacy law or regulated data brokers as part of any sort of coherent plan to rein in all bad actors on privacy, not just the Chinese-owned ones Mark Zuckerberg doesn’t want eating his lunch.
Filed Under: bans, college campus, dumb idea, privacy, security, social media, tiktok hysteria, university
Companies: tiktok
BestNetTech is off for the holidays! We'll be back soon, and until then don't forget to




Comments on “College Kids Are Easily Bypassing Stupid University TikTok Bans”
You cite A&M in the article, forgetting they’re considered a state entity in Texas, and the governor there is the one who banned its usage by state entities via executive order.
Re:
Censorship I guess, huh
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
The Real Reason You Went There
Accessing tiktok for important research information is like a business traveler saying he needs to get reimbursed for a meal at a strip club. There’s no redeeming value.
Re:
How wrong can you get, banning TikTok is like banning use of a library for research because you do you like the librarian. It is ban that has no relationship to the content on the platform, but a lot to do with distracting people like you from the real problems in US politics.
Re:
“Accessing tiktok for important research information is like a business traveler saying he needs to get reimbursed for a meal at a strip club.”
No it’s not.
Those are not anything alike at all.
Based upon your personal experience, what type of meals do they serve at the strip club?
Re:
Just because you can’t imagine an academic use for Tiktok doesn’t mean there isn’t one, Koby. It would do you well to try to learn that.
Re: Re:
Not only academic use but also the study of tik tok.
Re: Re: Re:
Not to mention the security studies on tiktok’s use and infrastructure.
Unfortunately, for Koby and the rest of the Republican Party, they’re more than happy to leave global networks exposed to Russian, Chinese, Israeli, Iranian and other malicious actors invading critical infrastructure via various security exploits and backdoors, so…
Re:
Another hot steaming take from Koby. .
Actually...
If all politicians keep thinking this shortsightedly that all their future laws/bans/whatever are this easily and conveniently circumvented, maybe the future is looking brighter after all.
Re:
You might be tempted to think so. Right up to the point where some piece of legislation that was important to you got mishandled.
It’s not clear from this article or the linked The Verge article what this actually means. Taken literally, it would appear to mean the computer has no internet connection, which clearly wouldn’t let it access TikTok. The linked article suggests that people are tethering to their phones instead of using campus Wi-Fi but it isn’t clear.
Re:
afaik, a cell phone is capable of internet access via its cell phone connection only, it may be a bit slow but it works.
Re:
You have overlooked the obvious, modern phones will use WiFi when it is available, and phones have become many peoples primary computing device.
Re:
Uh, I’m pretty sure that the majority of individuals who access TikTok do it on their phones, which would mean that turning off wi-fi just means switching to cellular data. Unless you meant for classrooms, which would work as you noted via tethering.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Insanity is...
So the laws that other people want to make that restrict freedom are dumb and easily worked around, but the laws that you want that restrict freedom are super intelligent and will definitely work as intended.
Oh, BestNetTech, bless your little hearts.
Re:
So your fine with companies sucking up all the data they can get on you and selling it to literally anyone who pays high enough then? I’ll go tell Google and Meta to start extending their profiles on you then… Not that they don’t already know you better than you know yourself.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Yes, of course. Information on me is non-rivalrous, so I get benefits from every company that does this, and I am not diminished by it.
Re: Re: Re:
Enjoy going to jail for a crime you had no capability to commit then.
because identity theft is and will be a thing. And these data brokers will be more than happy to sell yor info to a criminal.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Fearmongering to get your way doesn’t really work on me. And we do not limit people’s freedom just because other people are criminals.
Re: Re: Re:3
I should be shocked at you lot declaring yourselves criminals, but in today’s political environment, the shamelessness and arrogance of the Republicans means that this should become more common.
I’m sadly not sorry you’re happy to be a criminal because you can’t seem to critically think. And the Dems don’t seem to actually want to pass laws to help the voterbase.
Re: Re: Re:
You do understand that one of the uses for your data is to create an economic profile which is then used to tailor prices for things you buy online at a price-point they deem you are willing to pay above MSRP.
Plus the fact that they can combine your online information from most of the sites you visit with other information gathered from mobile carriers, credit card companies, shops, grocery stores, drug stores and such to map out your life with a pretty good accuracy. This information is used to steer your buying habits online and offline by tailoring ads or direct mailings, but it is also used to assess your credit score. If your data indicates “financially risky behavior” (which can be whatever they want) your score might be downgraded without you even realizing it.
You are essentially giving away ALL the bargaining power you have with companies because they can get a complete profile of you, your habits and your behavior.
Your argument basically comes down to being happy living in a virtual glasshouse were anyone with a passing interest can just look in and see what you are doing. Anyone not finding that creepy might either be an oblivious idiot or an exhibitionist.
Re: Re: Re:2
Why not both?
Anyway, I’ve got Google’s “follow me” tracing enabled, and every month it offers to tell me where I’ve been, which I generally ignore. I keep hoping to be shown ads tailored to my preferences, but sadly, that never seems to happen. All I get are slowly petering-out contrails showing the last thing I searched for or bought online. I live in Manhattan; ludicrous price differences for the same product are a feature of brick-and-mortar stores here, and I’m pretty sure I can search for products at enough sites such that little personalized pricing games aren’t going to work. My wife can do that for sure.
In any case, none of that matters. I will never agree to deprive someone of their freedom to use available information to guide their actions no matter how much you fearmonger about what evil they might do.
Re: re privacy law
“So the laws that other people want to make that restrict freedom are dumb and easily worked around, but the laws that you want that restrict freedom are super intelligent and will definitely work as intended.”
How does privacy law restrict freedom?
Whose freedom do privacy laws restrict?
What, exactly, are these fine individuals attempting to do that privacy laws would stop them from doing?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
The freedom to use available information to guide action. What we call “science”.
I have no idea what those laws would do, since they would be written by incompetent legislators who have no idea how anything they’re trying to control works, the same people who write the link tax laws.
Re: Re: Re:
You did not answer the questions.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
I did. You just don’t want to hear it. Privacy laws restrict the freedom of people who want to use available information to drive action. They force people to deliberately unsee what is known. I understand that you want to deprive people of such freedom, and I will oppose you.
Re: Re: Re:3
Your “Freedom” ends where mine begins.
Dance around the bush some more, it is entertaining.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
No. When you are doing something public, you do not get to force those who see you to pretend that they have not seen you. If you want to do something hidden, the onus is on you to hide it, not on the potential observers to assist you.
Re: Re: Re:5
The only direct observers of my interactions with a web site are me and the site, therefore they are not in public view but are more usually assumed to be private.
Do you expect real world shops, banks etc. to keep your transactions more or less private, or would their selling of that data to the highest bidder be an objectionable invasion of your privacy?
Re: Re: Re:6
I expect them to sell it to whomever is interested in having it.
Many stores already do things like printing coupons on cash register receipts (CVS ones are famous for their length) related to the purchase you have made. Streaming services keep track of what you have seen and make recommendations thereby.
Re: Re: Re:5
Like I said, your freedom (as you call it) ends where mine begins. That’s the way it is, get used to it.
In addition, much of the data gathering is not done in public. Laying blame upon those least capable of self defense is really lame.
Re: Re: Re:3
…hallucinated nobody mentally competent, ever.
Re:
Is thievery covered by freedom of action because the data brokers are taking information without the fully informed consent of users on the Internet, their data grabs via the use of cookies and java script are close to thievery.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Thievery takes away an object from the victim so that the thief has it and the victim does not. Information is non-rivalrous; someone discovering information about you does not take any object away from you.
When you interact with someone or something, they should have the freedom to discern whatever they can about you by observation. Depriving them of that right is depriving them of freedom, and of the ability to live in a truthful world. Given the tenor of commenters here, I suppose I should not be surprised that that’s a concept you find appealing.
Re: Re: Re:
Don’t be too sure about that, when the information being taken can be used by someone to decide whether to rent you a place to live, or give you a job. Note even ‘innocent’ information can impact such decision, things like the music you listen to, or books you read can be used against you.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
And that’s great, provided the law allows it. The use of information to drive action is essential to freedom.
Re: Re: Re:3
McCarthyism is alive and strong.
And its name is Hyman Rosen.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Yes. The government must not coerce private companies into blacklisting those who support murderous Communists abroad, but those private companies are free to find out whether people they want to hire have done so, and choose not to hire them. I would note that your people react the same way to those who support Viktor Orbán, or are gender critical.
Re: Re: Re:
“When you interact with someone or something, they should have the freedom to discern whatever they can about you by observation. Depriving them of that right is depriving them of freedom, and of the ability to live in a truthful world.”
This reads like a bunch of bullshit, I think I would avoid any interaction with the likes of you – thusly not infringing upon your sacred rights.
ability to live in a truthful world .. just what in the
you can’t be serious
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Assuming that your opponents are not serious may work as demagoguery, but it will not deter your opponents from trying to stop you. I am, in fact, completely serious.
In order to interact effectively with the world, we must be able to dispassionately observe it and draw conclusions based on what we see. Privacy advocates want to deny people the ability to observe and act upon reality, and therefore want people to exist in a world of lies, presumably where those advocates get to say what is real and what is not according to their whims.
Re: Re: Re:3
protip: dispassionately observing and drawing conclusions based on what we see .. through closed curtains .. may result in a visit to the hospital. Proceed at your own risk.
your mileage may vary
Re:
…is not how a literate person would read it.
Fallback feature as well
Not only the comments already made about tik tok being mostly a phone app anyway, but many phones have a fallback feature that if data can’t be had via Wi-Fi, the phone will automatically try the cellular network.