TikTok, originally famous for its 15-second lip-synching videos, is currently testing a feature that allows select creators to upload videos up to 60 minutes long. This move represents a significant shift for the platform, positioning it as a potential competitor to YouTube, the established leader in long-form online video content.

The new feature was first shared publicly by UK-based social media consultant Matt Navarra. He revealed that users can upload these extended videos from both the mobile app and desktop, according to a screenshot he posted on Meta Platforms’ Threads. 

While neither TikTok nor its Chinese owner ByteDance immediately commented on the development, TechCrunch reported that the feature is being tested with a limited group of users in select markets, with no immediate plans for a broader launch.

Opportunities for Creators

The increased time limit offers creators more flexibility to explore different types of content. According to TechCrunch, this change allows for experimentation with new or expanded content formats, which could include more in-depth tutorials, vlogs, and mini-documentaries. This shift could potentially attract a broader audience and increase user engagement by offering more varied content.

TikTok’s decision to test longer videos comes as it faces significant political and competitive challenges, especially in the U.S., one of its key markets. Last month, U.S. President Joe Biden signed a bill into law requiring ByteDance to divest TikTok’s U.S. operations within 270 days or face a ban from app stores. ByteDance and some TikTok creators have taken legal action to challenge this decision, highlighting the ongoing tension between the platform and U.S. regulators.

Established video and social media platforms like YouTube and Instagram have already launched their own short-form video products to compete with TikTok. According to a March report by data firm Sensor Tower, nearly 94% of TikTok users in the U.S. also used YouTube in the previous 90 days, while 80% used Instagram and 68% used Facebook, both owned by Meta Platforms. Abraham Yousef, senior insights analyst at Sensor Tower, noted that Google and Meta are well-positioned to capture advertiser demand for short-form video placements through their respective platforms, YouTube Shorts and Instagram Reels.

TikTok’s Evolution

TikTok has progressively increased the maximum length of its videos. When ByteDance acquired Musical.ly and merged it into TikTok in 2018, the app had a 15-second limit for recording videos and one minute for uploads. This limit was extended to three minutes in 2021 and then to 10 minutes less than a year later. In January of this year, the platform began testing the ability to upload 30-minute videos, according to TechCrunch.

In China, TikTok’s domestic version, Douyin, allows videos up to 15 minutes long. For even longer content, ByteDance operates Xigua Video, which has no time limit, indicating that the company already has experience with various video lengths in different markets.

Testing 60-minute video uploads indicates TikTok’s strategy to expand its content offering and challenge YouTube’s dominance in long-form content. By providing creators with the ability to produce more comprehensive and varied content, TikTok can attract a wider range of viewers and retain users for longer periods. This move could also open up new revenue streams, particularly from advertisers interested in longer video formats.

This shift is particularly remarkable considering the company’s potential ban in the U.S. The Biden administration’s move to force ByteDance to divest TikTok’s U.S. operations underscores the significant regulatory hurdles the company faces. However, TikTok’s push towards longer videos suggests that the company is optimistic about receiving a favorable judgment from the courts. This optimism is not unfounded; in previous legal battles, TikTok has successfully challenged attempts to ban the app, such as during the Trump administration’s efforts to do so in 2020. 

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is seeking to issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and three senior Hamas leaders: Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Diab Ibrahim al-Masri (known as Mohammed Deif), and Ismail Haniyeh. 

The ICC Prosecutor Karim A.A. Khan announced the development in a statement on Monday, saying the warrants are to be issued “on the basis of evidence collected and examined by my Office.”

“My Office submits that the war crimes alleged in these applications were committed in the context of an international armed conflict between Israel and Palestine, and a non-international armed conflict between Israel and Hamas running in parallel,” Khan said.

Charges Against Hamas Leaders

The charges against the Hamas leaders are extensive and severe. They are accused of extermination and murder as crimes against humanity, contrary to Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a) of the Rome Statute. 

Additionally, murder as a war crime (Article 8(2)(c)(i)), taking hostages as a war crime (Article 8(2)(c)(iii)), and rape and other acts of sexual violence as crimes against humanity and war crimes (Articles 7(1)(g) and 8(2)(e)(vi)) are included in the indictments. 

They also face accusations of torture (Articles 7(1)(f) and 8(2)(c)(i)), other inhumane acts and cruel treatment (Articles 7(1)(k) and 8(2)(c)(i)), and outrages upon personal dignity (Article 8(2)(c)(ii)).

These charges are rooted in the systematic attacks against Israeli civilians and the taking of hostages during the conflict, which began on October 7, 2023. According to Khan, the evidence collected and examined by his office provides reasonable grounds to believe that Sinwar, Deif, and Haniyeh bear criminal responsibility for the heinous acts committed on Israeli soil and against its people.

“We submit that the crimes against humanity charged were part of a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population of Israel by Hamas and other armed groups pursuant to organizational policies. Some of these crimes, in our assessment, continue to this day,” he said.

Charges Against Israeli Leaders

Netanyahu and Gallant are similarly facing serious allegations. The ICC has charged them with using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare (Article 8(2)(b)(xxv)), willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health (Articles 8(2)(a)(iii) and 8(2)(c)(i)), and willful killing and murder as war crimes (Articles 8(2)(a)(i) and 8(2)(c)(i)). 

They are also accused of intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population (Articles 8(2)(b)(i) and 8(2)(e)(i)), extermination and murder as crimes against humanity (Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a)), persecution (Article 7(1)(h)), and other inhumane acts (Article 7(1)(k)).

These charges are connected to the alleged systematic deprivation of essential supplies to the civilian population in Gaza, leading to severe suffering and death. Khan disclosed that the investigation concludes Netanyahu and Gallant orchestrated and executed a policy that intentionally inflicted severe hardship on the Gazan population, constituting crimes against humanity and war crimes.

“My Office submits that the evidence we have collected, including interviews with survivors and eyewitnesses, authenticated video, photo and audio material, satellite imagery and statements from the alleged perpetrator group, shows that Israel has intentionally and systematically deprived the civilian population in all parts of Gaza of objects indispensable to human survival,” Khan noted.

The ICC’s Investigation

The ICC’s investigation is said to be comprehensive, involving interviews with victims, survivors, and eyewitnesses. The evidence includes CCTV footage, authenticated audio, photos, videos, medical records, and expert testimonies. Khan highlighted that the meticulous collection and analysis of evidence have led to these grave conclusions, painting a harrowing picture of deliberate and systematic violations of international law.

However, the evidence does not make it easy to effect the arrest warrant. Despite the ICC’s bold move, analysts believe that the likelihood of arresting Netanyahu remains slim, primarily due to geopolitical dynamics. This is because of the United States’ staunch support for Israel, which is believed, to pose a significant obstacle. Historically, the U.S. has opposed ICC actions that target its allies or its own nationals.

Geopolitical analysts acknowledged the significant challenges in effecting Netanyahu’s arrest, noting that the political shield provided by the United States makes it near impossible to bring him to justice under current international mechanisms.

The United States’ position on the ICC has been complex and often adversarial. While it has cooperated on certain issues, it has also enacted measures to protect its citizens and allies from ICC jurisdiction. For instance, the American Service-Members’ Protection Act (ASPA), often referred to as the “Hague Invasion Act,” authorizes the use of military force to free any U.S. or allied personnel detained by the ICC. This reflects the lengths to which the U.S. might go to protect Israeli officials from ICC prosecution.

Implications for International Justice

While the potential ICC’s warrants against both Israeli and Hamas leaders underscore its commitment to addressing alleged war crimes impartially, the practical enforcement of these warrants is fraught with the aforementioned difficulties. The court relies on the cooperation of states to apprehend and transfer suspects, a process complicated by political alliances and national interests.

The move to issue these arrest warrants has elicited strong reactions from various quarters. Israeli officials have condemned the ICC’s actions, accusing the court of bias and overreach. Netanyahu, in a defiant statement following earlier ICC’s rulings against Israel, has asserted that Israel will not be intimidated by politically motivated actions of the ICC and will continue to defend its citizens and sovereignty.

The case against Netanyahu, in particular, is seen as the biggest test of the ICC in recent time. Many believe that the ICC’s actions, while symbolically important, may not lead to actual prosecutions unless there is a dramatic shift in international political will.

Against this backdrop, Khan has called for synergy among the parties to the Rome Statue to approve and effect the arrest warrants, noting that the outcome could strengthen or undermine international laws.

“Let us today be clear on one core issue: if we do not demonstrate our willingness to apply the law equally, if it is seen as being applied selectively, we will be creating the conditions for its collapse,” he said. “In doing so, we will be loosening the remaining bonds that hold us together, the stabilizing connections between all communities and individuals, the safety net to which all victims look in times of suffering. This is the true risk we face in this moment.”

Khan further emphasized that no individual can act with impunity and that nothing can justify the deprivation of basic necessities required for life, the taking of hostages, or the targeting of civilians.

“Today we once again underline that international law and the laws of armed conflict apply to all. No foot soldier, no commander, no civilian leader – no one – can act with impunity,” he said.