The reciprocal stance by the US would be to allow TikTok but subject it to the same rules Facebook and Twitter and YouTube are subject to.
It's not just China, btw. EU is extra protectionist too. I don't want to be like them.
This is not how the Internet was supposed to work.
Because the case with TikTok is that we do not know what the Chinese government is going to do with whatever it collects from the app. Or even if they do. Or anything really.
Now, while I think banning TikTok's traffic on the campus network is more of a stunt than anything worthwhile. I do see the argument from banning TikTok and just about any other non-essential app from government issued mobile hardware.
That's an area where you'd want to have as little possible surface area exposed as you can.
However, you aren't explaining why UT-Austin should get to decide which apps (that don't affect network operations or campus device security) people can use on their personal devices on UT-Austin network.
Sure, it technically falls under the very large umbrella of "allowing traffic". No one is disputing that they de-facto have that power. I believe the original question was more along the lines of "how can they reasonably justify doing so without jumping to non-sequeters and bs excuses".
I was just bringing up examples of how I believed those powers should be reasonably used and the kinds of situations they were intended for (in my opinion). And the current situation is not how I believe they should be used, but they technically have the power to do it.