Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
> Trump it mobilized the 99% of people who don't have beliefs as much as they have I thought it was the judicial branch and an injunction that stopped it. >> On 23 September 2020, TikTok filed a request for a preliminary injunction to prevent the app from being banned by the Trump administration. This request was filed with the District Court for the District of Columbia. The preliminary injunction was approved by Ju…
As the wiki article you shared lays out, there was a decent amount of nonpartisan momentum behind narrower limitations on Tiktok, along with serious consideration of it as a national security threat. Trump's threat of an outright ban immediately polarized the conversation and deflated much of that momentum, helped along by the fact his specific approach and messaging were typically incautious instead of incremental.
The courts did indeed issue an injunction against Trump's EO, and I don't have any reason to believe they were wrong to do so. Biden, again typically, _has_ taken the first steps of an incremental approach towards assessing the risks that tiktok poses. But as implied by the Wikipedia page you linked, we're nowhere near the level of Congressional and institutional attention that we were at in 2019 and 2020, and it's pretty reasonable to attribute this to Trump's engagement with the issue reorienting the political valence of the conversation. Specifically, the "Trump vs tiktok" association is so strong that (eg) a Senator that makes too much noise about it will now be loaded with an association that he may not want.
I actually don't have a strong opinion about tiktok's ban, see risks in both courses of action, and am a fan of the Biden admin's ostensible careful approach. I just resent the degree to which the idiocy of the public drives so many issues further away from thoughtful engagement with reality and towards partisan sportsball.