US Users Are Walking Away from TikTok — And Fast

US Users Are Walking Away from TikTok — And Fast

US TikTok users are deleting their accounts in droves, and the app’s latest policy shift is the tipping point.

What’s Actually Happening with TikTok in the US?

In the past few days, a wave of US TikTok users have publicly announced that they’re leaving the platform and deleting their accounts. This isn’t just quiet churn; people are calling it out directly on other social networks, especially Meta’s Threads.

The common thread is disappointment and discomfort with TikTok’s new policies and the direction of the platform. TikTok is no stranger to controversy in the US — it was close to being blocked early last year — but this time the backlash is coming from users themselves, not just lawmakers.

Threads Becomes the Public Uninstall Wall

If TikTok is where people scroll, Threads is where they’re venting about quitting. Several US-based creators and users have posted that they’ve fully deleted their TikTok accounts, not just uninstalled the app.

One Threads user, @bookwormshayhudr, summed up the mood bluntly: they decided to delete their TikTok account because they no longer felt safe. In their words, keeping the app didn’t feel wise or secure anymore, even though they described their time on TikTok as a fun journey up to this point.

Another user, @awesomelybrie, shared a screenshot of TikTok’s updated terms of service and policy notification. Their post framed this update as the clear breaking point and a signal that an era had ended for the platform.

These aren’t vague complaints about “vibes.” They’re direct responses to policy and ownership changes being pushed inside the app.

The Ownership Shift That Sparked the Backlash

A key source of the current anger is an ownership change. According to users citing TikTok’s updated terms, TikTok has moved under a US corporate entity. That’s a big narrative shift for an app that’s been heavily scrutinized for its Chinese ownership.

In one viral Threads post, @awesomelybrie claimed, “TikTok has officially moved ownership to a US corporate entity,” and urged others not to hit Agree on the new terms. Instead, they told people to just close the app, calling it “the end of that era.”

Another user, @barrettpall, took a harsher line, telling followers to delete TikTok immediately and tying the new ownership to political figures aligned with Donald Trump. The message was simple: if those people now control TikTok, it’s not worth staying on the platform.

The sentiment isn’t subtle — users aren’t just annoyed with UI tweaks or algorithm changes. They’re reacting to who’s perceived to be in charge of the app and what that might mean for their data and their feed.

Safety, Trust, and Why People Say They Don’t Feel “Secure”

For many of these US users, the core issue is trust. The phrase “not safe” comes up explicitly. That can mean a few things in practice: data handling, political influence, or a general discomfort with the new corporate structure behind the app.

The user who said they no longer felt it was “wise” or “safe” to keep using TikTok reflects a bigger mood shift: once people lose trust in the platform operator, no feature set or algorithmic recommendation can compensate. The new terms of service update forced users to confront that relationship again.

And unlike slow-burn privacy concerns that often get ignored, this change is happening visibly in real time, via in-app prompts, screenshots, and public posts urging others not to comply.

Sensor Tower Data: Uninstalls Are Spiking

This isn’t just anecdotal noise. Market research firm Sensor Tower reports that daily US user deletions of the TikTok app have surged.

According to their data, average daily uninstalls in the US jumped nearly 150 percent in the five days after the new policy went into effect, compared to the three days before it. That’s a massive short-term swing for an app of TikTok’s scale.

A spike like that doesn’t automatically signal a long-term collapse, but it does confirm that the backlash is real and measurable, not just a few loud posts on Threads.

What This Means for Android Users and the Social App Landscape

From an Android user’s perspective, none of this is about performance, UI latency, or feature parity. It’s about whether you’re comfortable keeping TikTok installed on your phone at all.

If you’re in the US and opening TikTok, you’re likely seeing — or about to see — prompts about updated terms and policies tied to the new corporate structure. The users who are leaving are doing so at that exact moment of friction, choosing to hit delete instead of Agree.

Other platforms are indirectly benefiting. Threads is where many of these uninstall decisions are being documented. Creators who walk away from TikTok will look for reach elsewhere: Instagram Reels, YouTube Shorts, or smaller short-form video platforms.

For now, though, this is less about where they’re going and more about why they’re leaving.

Should You Delete TikTok Too?

No one can answer that for you, but the pattern is clear. A subset of US users no longer trust the app under its new policies and ownership structure and are deleting their accounts entirely, not just taking a break.

If you’re on Android and still using TikTok, the practical decision point is the new terms prompt. The users quoted here see that as a hard line: they refuse to hit Agree and would rather walk away than accept the new conditions.

Others may weigh the same information and decide the reach, entertainment, or community on TikTok is still worth it. The uninstall spike shows more people are questioning that trade-off, even if they don’t all hit delete.

For now, TikTok is facing a visible trust test in one of its most important markets, and a growing chunk of its US user base is voting with the uninstall button.

Stay tuned to IntoDroid for more Android updates.

What the Philips 659 Page Tells Us About Modern Web Tracking

What the Philips 659 Page Tells Us About Modern Web Tracking

The mobile industry has moved from selling hardware to selling attention. You can see that shift not just in ad-heavy apps, but even on a simple spec page for an old phone like the Philips 659.

When you open the Philips 659 pictures page on GSMArena, you’re greeted with less about the device itself and more about how your data will be handled. The text isn’t about megapixels or screen size; it’s about cookies, unique identifiers, and what 87 different partners want to do with your information.

A Spec Page That’s Really About Your Data

The Philips 659 page is labeled as a specs and comparisons resource, but the foreground content is a consent interface. The site and “87 TCF partners and other partners” say they process personal data such as cookies, unique identifiers, and other device data.

Instead of immediately scrolling through images of the Philips 659, you’re first pushed to understand – or at least accept – how your data will be used. The language centers around data processing and legitimate interest, not phones or performance.

Cookies, Identifiers, and Device Data

The page explicitly calls out cookies, unique identifiers, and other device data as the types of information being processed. Cookies typically store small pieces of information in your browser. Unique identifiers can be used to distinguish your device or session from others.

“Other device data” is broader, but the phrasing makes clear that the tracking isn’t limited to one technical method. Multiple data points can be tied together, even on a single visit to look at Philips 659 pictures.

87 TCF Partners and Legitimate Interest

The reference to “87 TCF partners” points directly to a standardized framework for consent and data handling. Alongside those, the text also mentions “other partners” involved in processing.

Some of these partners may process personal data on the basis of legitimate interest. That means they believe they have a legal justification to use certain data even if you don’t explicitly opt in for every purpose.

The page offers a link to view a list of partners, along with the purposes they believe they have legitimate interest for, and how you can object. That adds transparency on paper, but it also makes the landscape more complex for the average reader.

Consent, Control, and Manage Options

The interface doesn’t just tell you what’s being collected; it gives you levers to pull. You can manage your choices by clicking “Manage Options”. That suggests the ability to accept, reject, or fine-tune which purposes or partners are allowed to use your data.

On top of that, the page makes it clear your settings aren’t permanent. You can change your settings at any time, including by withdrawing your consent. Two access points are mentioned: a cog icon in the corner and a link at the bottom of the page.

Those small UI details matter. They define how easy – or annoying – it is to revisit privacy decisions while you’re simply trying to browse a Philips 659 gallery.

Website-Only Choices and Fragmented Privacy

One key line on the page narrows the scope: “Your choices will apply to this website only.” In other words, whatever you decide here doesn’t automatically follow you to other sites, even if those sites use some of the same partners or technologies.

That makes privacy management more fragmented. You might configure choices here and then face similar dialogs elsewhere, each with their own set of partners and options. Checking Philips 659 specs becomes one more stop in a long series of consent decisions.

What This Says About Accessing Simple Tech Content

The core function of the page is straightforward: show Philips 659 pictures and fit that phone into GSMArena’s broader specs and comparisons ecosystem. But the first thing highlighted to the user is the negotiation over data access.

The structure shows how online publishing is tightly interwoven with advertising and tracking. Even for a relatively niche device page, dozens of partners may be involved, each with their own interests and claimed legal bases.

Users Are Asked To Read, Decide, and Object

The language encourages users to be active participants: view a list of partners, see the purposes, understand legitimate interest, and learn how to object. None of this is framed as optional legal fine print; it’s part of the main content stack.

For visitors just trying to recall what the Philips 659 looked like, that’s extra friction. For privacy-conscious users, it also provides a path to push back, but only within the boundaries the site and its partners define.

Old Phones, New Privacy Reality

The Philips 659 itself is an older handset, but the page housing its pictures reflects today’s data environment. Your interactions, even on an archive-style specs page, are used to feed various data processing pipelines.

Whether that trade-off feels acceptable depends on how you weigh convenience and free access against sharing cookies, identifiers, and device data with dozens of partners.

Check back soon as this story develops.