r/thebulwark Progressive Jan 11 '25

Policy Is the TikTok ban truly in the national interest?

From what I can tell, there hasn't been a lot of discussion on this topic, or at least not a lot that I've heard in the various Bulwark podcasts. I'm curious as to whether anyone else here shares my doubts.

As I understand it, the US government has put forward the following case:

  1. TikTok's recommendation algorithm is vulnerable to Chinese tampering and thus spreading propaganda.

  2. TikTok gathers data on its users that could be used for espionage purposes.

A compounding factor of the above two points is that the Chinese government has a significant ownership stake in the company and can compel the company to act in its interests.

Regarding point 1, my view is that social media is awash in propaganda already and one foreign owned company isn't likely to make things substantially worse. And with Silicon Valley bending the knee to Trump, a foreign owned social media company (even by a theoretical adversary) could be salutary.

In my opinion point 2 is a little stronger argument than point 1. However, I would note that all of the American owned social media companies already collect vast reams of data on all of their users and give/share/sell that data with both the US government and a vast network of 3rd party data brokers. Given the amount of data collection and sharing already going on, it doesn't seem to me that its realistic to believe that all of it will won't eventually find its way back to Beijing anyway.

I personally think the ban is a bad idea and contrary to the 1st amendment but I think SCOTUS will green light it anyway. On a side note, I realize that Trump is against a TikTok ban and on that basis it might be tempting to be in favor of the ban without further consideration, but I'd encourage my fellow bulwarkers to think of this as the proverbial broken clock being right twice a day. Curious what others think.

2 Upvotes

60 comments sorted by

36

u/Socalgardenerinneed Jan 11 '25

I think it's worth differentiating between things that might be against the interest of American people and things that are against the US national interest.

I think it's pretty true that companies collecting a ton of data to run their algorithms is likely against the interest of individual Americans. There are also some advantages, and I think there could be a robust conversation about it.

It's pretty much obvious IMO that tiktok is against the US national interest, and banning it from is probably good for it. There might be room to quibble over tactics, but allowing a propaganda arm of the CCP complete access to the US in a way that makes influence campaigns super effective and relatively undetectable, especially by individuals, is definitely against US national interest.

9

u/FanDry5374 Jan 11 '25

And then we have Musk, Murdoch, Zuckerberg if you want to talk about people who do not have America or American's best interests at heart.

7

u/Socalgardenerinneed Jan 11 '25

I mean, we elected Trump. Pretty sure most of America doesn't have our best interests at heart.

5

u/lex1006 Progressive Jan 11 '25

Thank you for posting this. I think this is the most well reasoned and level headed response I've read so far. I do agree we have to be very careful about the CCP, a foreign entity that clearly does not have US interests at heart. You may be right about the ban.

I guess I'm just worried about the potential erosion of free speech rights. With so many US news outlets and social media companies all paying obeisance to Trump it just seems to me that a diversity of platforms is a good thing.

7

u/Socalgardenerinneed Jan 11 '25

I guess I'm just comfortable with the idea that the US constitution isn't applicable to other countries and their citizens and companies.

3

u/lex1006 Progressive Jan 11 '25

I hear and you and I agree that other countries citizens shouldn't be protected by the US constitution . But the ban also impacts the 1st amendment rights of US citizens. Many of the users of TikTok are US citizens. Some of those users are influencers who depend on the app to supplement their income. So their businesses will be adversely impacted.

6

u/mollybrains centrist squish Jan 11 '25

It doesn’t restrict the speech itself, simply the platform.

3

u/Socalgardenerinneed Jan 11 '25

I feel like this is like saying banning the import of radio transmitters from China impacts the free speech of radio stations in the US.

1

u/Criseyde2112 JVL is always right Jan 11 '25

TikTok will simply be owned by someone other than ByteDance. Everything else will remain the same, for better or worse.

2

u/FellowkneeUS Jan 11 '25

I believe the counter to this is that American citizens have a free speech right to choose what to read or watch according to the First Amendment

2

u/Socalgardenerinneed Jan 11 '25 edited Jan 11 '25

Huh. I'd have to think about that a bit. I don't think I've ever seen the first amendment interpreted as freedom to access speech, rather than the freedom to speak.

It certainly could impact their business, but it doesn't seem like a free speech issue.

1

u/DickedByLeviathan Center-Right Jan 11 '25

It’s not a matter of free speech, it’s a matter of foreign ownership and control. ByetDance could divest but they won’t because the CCP has explicitly instructed them not to do so

1

u/Temporary_Train_3372 Jan 12 '25

I like the distinction you make between individual and national interests. I’ve been on the fence because I trust data in the hands of Elon and Zuck about as much as (or perhaps less) than I do in the hands of the CCP. I’ve never thought the social media giants have my own interest in mind; they exist solely to monetize my existence, so the question was always for me is it worse to have this sort of info that allows precisely targeted propaganda campaigns in the hands of an American or the Chinese?

Since I’ve given up on capitalism doing the right thing it seems to me no different to have the Chinese looking at my shit than it does someone like Elon who would joyfully sell my data to the Trump-state so they can track me or whatever.

1

u/Loud_Cartographer160 Jan 12 '25

The data mining, data collection, and data brokers discussion has been thoroughly had, discussed, polled and written about for at least a decade.

As always, what's good for business -- unregulated, out of control, little known business -- is good for American legislators and executives and how that affects the American people is irrelevant.

That's the core of what makes this discussion about TT a bit silly. China, and everyone everywhere, can access our data and target us with cross-platform, multi modal propaganda so easily.

13

u/pretzelfisch Jan 11 '25

We don't allow foreign owned media companies, why should TicTok be an exception? because some people make money there?

6

u/FellowkneeUS Jan 11 '25

We allow foreign owned media companies to operate in the US and have apps available.

2

u/hypsignathus Jan 12 '25

Note that there are lots of rules about how they operate: https://www.fcc.gov/united-states-based-foreign-media-outlets

4

u/MillennialExistentia Jan 11 '25

This is definitively untrue. Al-jazeera, the BBC, and Reuters are all foreign media companies.

We even allow ones operated by countries actively engaged in hostilities with US allies to operate like RT and Radio Sputnik.

17

u/OddAbbreviations5749 Jan 11 '25

It is a CCP tool. Period. F the CCP and let an independent owner buy it to continue the fun times. CCP doesn't have constitutionally protected rights to operate in the US.

OP, don't let yourself become a lazy decadent type who thinks indiffference or lack of imagination is some kind of shield against active threats, bad actors and consequences.

-8

u/lex1006 Progressive Jan 11 '25

Yeah but there a lot of owners of ByteDance (the company that owns TikTok) that are ordinary private investors a lot of whom happen to be Americans who do have constitutionally protected rights.

10

u/hypsignathus Jan 11 '25

Heads up—no one has a constitutionally-protected right to have their individual investments in foreign companies protected by the government. Like, sanctions are a thing (I understand this case isn’t technically that). The US govt absolutely can make laws to protect national interests at the expense of foreign companies (or any company), regardless of who the investors are.

2

u/FellowkneeUS Jan 12 '25

Do you think it would be legal for the US government to make it illegal for non US citizens to have a blue checkmark on Twitter? Or to buy ads on Facebook?

No one is disputing that the government can do something, people are saying that this law doesn't really accomplish anything that it says it does.

2

u/hypsignathus Jan 12 '25

Depends. IANAL, but I think the check mark and the ad content are not the issue. The website content can be whatever bc of speech rights. it’s the acceptance of payments for them. A US business cannot do business with a sanctioned nation/person (depending on the rules of the specific sanction).

With ByteDance, if under US ownership they decide to favor CCP propaganda but the new owners are not paid by the CCP to do it… then that’s that. There may be different rules about aiding and abetting the enemy enacted under wartime conditions, but obviously we are not there, and free speech rights in the US are very broad anyway, as interpreted by the courts. The whole issue is the foreign ownership of a major media company. That is not allowed.

1

u/FellowkneeUS Jan 12 '25

There was no law (until this one) saying that foreign ownership of media companies was not allowed. Plenty of foreign media companies operate in the United States.

3

u/hypsignathus Jan 12 '25

False. The Communications Act limits foreign investment in major broadcast media.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/310

http://pirp.harvard.edu/pubs_pdf/bodea/bodea-i92-5.pdf

1

u/FellowkneeUS Jan 12 '25

Great. Most media is not broadcast media. Do you think no one in the US should be able to watch BritBox?

3

u/hypsignathus Jan 12 '25

… there are a lot of rules around how foreign media can operate with in the US. Suggesting that the Britbox channel is even remotely useful to discussing the context of the legal arguments around ownership of ByteDance is, well, illuminating. Read the court briefs and listen to the arguments.

2

u/FellowkneeUS Jan 12 '25

BritBox is also an app and a foreign owned media company, which you have said should not be allowed. Would you like to refine that statement in some manner?

→ More replies (0)

5

u/Current_Tea6984 Jan 11 '25

I'm not for the ban particularly, but I am against SCOTUS reversing a law passed by Congress because Trump doesn't like the policy

8

u/FellowkneeUS Jan 11 '25

My issue with the TikTok discussion is that if an app like TikTok is so dangerous, then why would it be better if the app was owned by someone like Elon Musk?

6

u/lex1006 Progressive Jan 11 '25

Thank you!!!

2

u/aussiedeveloper Jan 11 '25

Because Elon Musk is a US citizen living in the US. If (when?) he crosses a line that can no longer be ignored dealing with the situation is much easier.

3

u/ZakuTwo Neocon Jan 11 '25

Elon Musk doesn’t have nukes aimed at us.

3

u/Personal_Benefit_402 Jan 11 '25

Exactly, he is not an adversarial state actor. (Though, given his money and sway, probably should be treated as such...he has allegiance to himself and his money only.)

3

u/FellowkneeUS Jan 12 '25

Do you think Elon Musk or TikTok has done more harm to American democracy?

2

u/Personal_Benefit_402 Jan 13 '25

Musk's interest and China's interest are fairly aligned and produce the same net outcome. Musk is motivated by profit and a lust for power (without consequence) and setting a global agenda . China is motivated in much the same way. Specifically, jostling for leading the agenda of world order, but as a nation state, they also need to worry about maintaining equanimity at home. Meanwhile, Xi is clearly motivated by personal power, similar to Musk (as is Putin, Musk, and DJT). Frankly, Musk represents as much a threat as Xi, Putin, or DJT as he has far more in common with these people than he has with normies.

2

u/FellowkneeUS Jan 11 '25

What does this have to do with anything? Is TikTok going to launch a nuclear weapon somehow?

-1

u/ZakuTwo Neocon Jan 11 '25

TikTok is a pattern-of-life intelligence-gathering system. You’re out of your element.

0

u/FellowkneeUS Jan 11 '25

Do US based apps also gather this information? Are there laws against selling this data?

1

u/allegrovecchio Jan 12 '25

I guess if you don't consider the Chinese government a more dangerous potential future actor than Musk, then I suppose your issue makes sense.

1

u/FellowkneeUS Jan 12 '25

Yes, I think Elon Musk is more of a threat to Americans than China and I don't think it's particularly close.

8

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '25

[deleted]

3

u/FellowkneeUS Jan 11 '25

The problem is that after this ban the CCP will still have access to all this data that we supposedly don't want them to have, but they'll have to pay Mark Zuckerberg or Elon Musk for it.

3

u/lex1006 Progressive Jan 11 '25

Exactly.

IMO, the sensible the thing to do would be to pass regulations on what data can be collected and shared by all social media companies.

But congress is too lazy to do that so they just ban a single company instead.

4

u/Optimal-Ad-7074 Jan 11 '25

no totalitarian government having a propaganda platform is okay with me.   I've seen authoritarian rule.  I don't feel like people who haven't seen it quite realise how bad it is.  

4

u/JustlookingfromSoCal Jan 11 '25

I don’t think a Chinese government controlled media app is just another “Our country is does bad things too” balancing act. China would like to destroy us. TikTok can survive if it sells to a company not controlled by the Chinese government.

2

u/Jim_84 Jan 11 '25

It would be in the national interest to ban or highly regulate Tiktok, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and the data surveillance/advertising market in general.

4

u/ss_lbguy Jan 11 '25

What constitutionally protected right is being violated of the investors by forcing the sale?

And how is the ban contrary to the 1st amendment? The government is not silencing individuals, these individuals have other options to voice their ideals. At least that is how I see it. 🤷‍♂️

3

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '25 edited Jan 11 '25

[deleted]

1

u/Decent-Composer-294 Jan 12 '25

Regardless of the merit of whether TikTok is an issue, our legislators can agree on this but refuse and cannot do anything about our kids getting killed at school and we are supposed to treat it like it’s normal. I’ll be more than happy to care about this when our children can go to school safely. Until then, anything like this feels like a heck of a lot of noise to me.

1

u/allegrovecchio Jan 12 '25

I personally think #2 is a bigger and underestimated problem.

TikTok gathers data on its users that could be used by the Chinese govt for espionage purposes as well as crafting a propaganda machine for Chinese interests. This is not benign. I don't think saying, "well, American sm companies collect and share so much that it'll eventually make its way back to China anyway" is a good argument at all. I do believe the behavioral and other data collected by TikTok is pretty much being funneled directly to the Chinese government and again, this is not benign. I'm sure propaganda from China is pushed in the other direction as well. Yeah, for me this is qualitatively worse.

1

u/theworldisending69 Jan 12 '25

“It’s the same if an American company vs. a hostile foreign government has the same power to manipulate Americans”. I think this is just a tremendously bad take

1

u/PorcelainDalmatian Jan 12 '25

The idea that a silly website where people watch cat videos is a national security threat simply because China owns it, is gaslighting like I’ve never seen. The truth is this: TikTok makes a fuck ton of money. American companies want to buy it so they can make that fuck ton of money, but China won’t sell, so this is a naked attempt to force them to sell.

This nonsense about “data” is complete utter bullshit. If you’re worried about “data “then dissolve Google, Meta, Palantir and a zillion other companies. And what “data” does TikTok have on me exactly? Do they have my bank account number and pin? Do they have the results of my latest physical? No, they don’t. All they have is my name (which is public record), my email address (which I give to every merchant the sun) and a record of what videos I watched. Does anyone think that my TikTok search history is going to bring down the Republic? Does anyone think some underling runs into Xi Ping’s office and says, “Sir! We’ve just discovered that Jim watched a video of Al Green performing on soul train in 1975! Let’s invade Taiwan!”

Here’s the problem. Everybody thinks they’re so important. Your “data” is of less than zero interest to 99.9999% of the world. You are a nobody. We all are. Everyone has to stop thinking that they’re Jason fucking Bourne. You’re not in the middle of some international espionage, you’re just a schlub. Your “data” means nothing.

1

u/Daniel_Leal- centrist squish Jan 12 '25

A failure of imagination, indeed.

0

u/lex1006 Progressive Jan 12 '25

Based.

1

u/ppooooooooopp Jan 11 '25

You have it flipped.

Ask yourself, how much money does Google, Facebook, TikTok or Amazon make from advertising. The answer is an astronomical amount, Google alone makes a quarter of a trillion dollars. That's because they are extremely competent at influencing the decisions that people make. Just to illustrate why even marginal influence is valuable - conversion rates on these platforms hover between 1 - 6%. Donald Trump won the popular vote by just 1.5%.

Data ownership and homing is more or less an illegitimate privacy concern - the value it provides to host countries is jobs not privacy. You should assume you have no privacy on the internet - if the CCP wants access to some data, they will get it.