You are explaining why UT-Austin should have the power of say in what traffic they allow on their network, which I agree with they should have. It can be used for many legitimate things, including blocking malicious endpoints associated with DDoS, blocking websites with known malware, stuff that very negatively affects the campus network infra, etc.
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".
If you are saying they should have to explain or justify why they block traffic to TikTok's services, you are saying they don't have "the power of say". Because you are saying that power is conditional on you accepting their explanation.
I agree that they have the power of say, and it isn't conditional on me (or anyone else) accepting their explanation.
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.
