Hum de hum. A couple of reasonable folks have recently weighed in on the question of whether TikTok should be banned in the US. The first is from Noah Smith, who says it should be and points to two pieces of concrete evidence: (1) a study showed that TikTok suppresses videos China doesn't like, and (2) TikTok's official moderation policy is to censor content China doesn't like.
This is pretty weak tea. The suppression study is badly flawed because it doesn't compare TikTok to other social networks in the same years. The moderation story acknowledges that TikTok's policies are not directly aimed at anything specific to China and, in any case, are no longer in use. What's more, TikTok has a longtime goal of minimizing political content entirely because they think it's bad for business.
So there's very little there. Noah also addresses the issue of TikTok surveillance, but again, there's virtually no evidence of anything significant. Nor could there be. TikTok currently keeps all data on American users in Texas, where it's unavailable to Chinese authorities.
Matt Yglesias takes a different approach. He says China is bad and we shouldn't really require tons of evidence about this:
Here’s the analogy I like to use. It’s 1975 and a state-owned Soviet firm wants to buy CBS. What happens? Well, what happens is they wouldn’t be allowed to.... There would be no detailed factual analysis or demand for gold standard evidence that a Soviet-owned television statement might do Moscow’s bidding or that television is capable of influencing public opinion. We’d reject the idea out of hand. And rightly so, because the downsides would be very clear, and the upside minimal.
....We don’t need to wait for open and shut evidence that the platform is being censored or used to deliberately promote propaganda. We should just have a very strong presumption that it will be used in the way and act accordingly.
This gets dicey very fast. If no evidence is required, it's a little hard to argue the other side, isn't it? Just for a bit, then, let's look at some evidence.
First, about 20% of adults watched Walter Cronkite back in the day. Today, about 5% of adults get news from TikTok—most of it nonpolitical. There's really no comparison.¹
Nor is anyone suggesting that we allow China to buy an American news platform. The question is only whether Chinese platforms should be allowed to distribute content in the US. In broad terms this is an issue unique to the internet era, but it's still worth pointing out that the Soviet Union was allowed to distribute news during the Cold War. TASS had several bureaus in the US and Soviet propagandists famously visited the US frequently to provide "their side of the story" to American teens.
Don't get me wrong: there's obviously not much comparison between a huge Chinese social network today and a rarely-used Soviet wire service fifty years ago. At the same time, how much comparison is there between the Soviet Union of the Cold War era and the China of today? China is plainly an authoritarian country that brutally censors content internally and plays hardball against its critics outside the country. But we trade with China; we allow lots of Chinese students in our universities; there's extensive two-way tourism with China; and China is not generally an expansionary military threat.²
As near as I can tell, the threat of China using TikTok to surveil American teens is close to zero. User data on Americans is held on American territory and there's not really much that China could do with it anyway.
On the propaganda side the evidence of a threat is nearly as meager. TikTok probably does try to avoid pissing off the CCP, but its actual level of suppression or censorship seems to be pretty limited and pretty low. What's more, TikTok is just one small part of a massive modern infotainment industry, not one of three monopolistic TV networks like we had in the '60s.
So I'm still stuck in the same place. I really, really try not to get caught up in moral panics, which have a pretty appalling track record. TikTok strikes me as an almost dictionary example of a moral panic that we'll look back on in ten years and wonder what the hell we were thinking. On the threat of China more generally, I don't like the Chinese government much but I'm not panicked either. They're a geopolitical bad actor but not an existential threat. For now, anyway, I don't feel the need to ban a social network just because it's Chinese owned.
¹The number is obviously higher for teens, probably around 20% or so. But again, it's mostly nonpolitical news consumption.
²It's a military threat, but mostly in places on its border that it's claimed for a long time: Taiwan, Tibet, the South China Sea, and a couple of smallish territories that it disputes with India.
Does it matter?
In a country where elections turn on the votes of fewer people than fit in a stadium, yes, it matters. Especially when it is a good human being vs. one of the worst American ever.
(See Doctor Jay below, too)
I don't like moral panics or hype either. And I also think there is something that is particularly dangerous about TikTok.
Your argument is hyperbolic and all-or-nothing. No nuance at all.
I think all modern social media is dangerous because it is installed on phones which contain myriad ways for spyware to determine very specific things about where you are, what you are doing, and who you are doing it with. National defense individuals have children, after all.
Most of them are American, and as such are subject to US laws and the US legal systems with subpoenas and warrants and injunctions and so on. TikTok is not. Arguing that this distinction is meaningless (which I have seen before here) is again, an all-or-nothing argument. It isn't meaningless.
Let's remember that social media is much better at finding "whales" - those rare individuals who can be influenced to do things like give you lots of money, or plot an insurrection than Fox News is. Which is what makes it so dangerous.
The Jan 6 thing was organized on social media, not Fox News.
And by the way, I know quite a number of older people that use TikTok too. It's a very big deal in the music scene, for instance.
are subject to US laws and the US legal systems with subpoenas and warrants and injunctions and so on. TikTok is not.
TikTok most certainly is subject to the US legal system, given that it does business in the United States, and is indeed based there—same as any other US subsidiary. You may recall the Congressional questioning of their CEO. I doubt he was doing this because he thought it was fun.
CBS put out a lot more than just news, and just because TikTok stores data in Texas doesn't mean it stays in Texas.
Also, one doesn’t have to ship the data to the function. The function can be shipped to the data.
just because TikTok stores data in Texas doesn't mean it stays in Texas.
The firm claims it does indeed stay in Texas—this is overseen by Oracle. I know one possible response is: we should just trust TikTok? And my response would be: Absolutely not! That's why a US vendor was brought in.
Overseen how exactly? Is Oracle anything more than the provider of the storage infrastructure, or are they also involved in monitoring the when's and where's of the data coming and going?
While I think the panic over Tik Tok is a bit overblown, I also think that the possible threat should not be ignored.
But there is an even simpler explanation for banning Tik Tok: China bans many U.S. owned media companies from operating in China. I have no love for Facebook, but if Facebook cannot operate in China, why should we let Tik Tok operate in the U.S.?
...if Facebook cannot operate in China, why should we let Tik Tok operate in the U.S.?
Because China is an autocratic country that controls all media and we are not.
So why would we let a media company operate here that follows another country's rules? You play by our rules or you don't play here at all.
Analogous to the way we sold out American manufacturing -- we should only have lowered tariff barriers to nations that (at least approximately} conformed to our labor-rights and environmental laws and regulations. Instead, we enabled labor and environmental arbitrage.
Instead, we enabled labor and environmental arbitrage.
What, you mean those two things aren't what they mean by 'comparative advantage' 😉
Because China is an autocratic country that controls all media and we are not.
Don't be ridiculous. Everybody knows to compete with China we need to become more like China. Sheesh!
China bans many U.S. owned media companies from operating in China. I have no love for Facebook, but if Facebook cannot operate in China, why should we let TikTok operate in the U.S.?
What Joseph Harbin said, but also: Facebook can operate in China if it's willing to follow Chinese regulations. So can Meta's various other platforms. So can Google. These firms choose not to abide by PRC law (which obviously involves significant levels of censorship), which would require them to run PRC legally-compliant versions in China, as Apple does with its app store, and as Microsoft does with MSN and Bing.
Apparently Meta and Google feel it's not consistent with their business models to do this. So naturally they cannot operate there. Good on them for not submitting to laws they feel are incompatible with their corporate cultures. It's admirable. (Similarly, TikTok couldn't operate in the US without following US law). But it's not a case of China banning them.
But yes, Microsoft operates in China (I use the PRC-compliant Bing Global frequently). Spotify operates in China. Apple's app stores operate in China. And hundreds of highly prominent US firms likewise operate in China. And they naturally obey the law in order to do so. Just like TikTok is obliged to follow US law in order to operate there.
I personally think it's a freature of US society—not a bug—that our government contstrains the choices of Americans a lot less than dictatorships do. YMMV.
I can't think of any situation in which Matt Yglesias had anything of actual value to contribute.
Well, ten years ago he was still usually worth reading.
He's lazier, sloppier, and surlier than he was ten years ago ... continuing the downward trend.
Well, we could always weigh in. Does Tik Tok have any redeeming value? If not, ignore it.
China is an authoritarian state. The government controls its media and suppresses voices and viewpoints it does not want the public to hear.
The US is a free and open democracy. We have a First Amendment and a tradition of free expression of ideas regardless of what the government thinks about it.
I think we should be very careful about having our government decide who gets to own media platforms and what voices get to be heard by the public.
You can drive from coast to coast and listen the entire time to government-licensed radio stations with 24/7 programming in support of groups that tried to overthrow our government. I don't like what they're doing but I don't think the government ought to shut them down. If you want to enforce rules that a radio station's license translates to operating in the "public interest" (the standard for many years), that's another thing. But that would be something to enforce across the board.
I don't see how TikTok's biases are a greater threat that the vast right-wing misinformation ecosystem. And if foreign ownership of social media is the problem, what about Elon Musk and his Saudi backers?
Much of what drives the effort to ban TikTok is xenophobia.
The last time banning TikTok was in the news the issue was about privacy. That is, the possibility of the Chinese government having hoards of data about Americans who use the platform. I think that could be a problem, but the solution there is regulating all social media companies, not singling out one.
It's a challenge being a free country when competing countries are not, especially when weaponized disinformation is easy to promote to the American public. The best defense is an educated populace. Of course, we're hardly there yet, but I'd like to think a couple of decades into the social media age we're getting a little better at ignoring the b.s. and finding some media sources worth trusting. For most of us, it's not 2016 anymore. Our evolving culture is a better solution than a government ban.
Long-term, our open society will leave the autocracies in the dust. It's really no contest.
+1
Why are we talking about "banning"?
The question is "Should we require Tiktok to be sold to a US company?"
It will still exist. kids will still waste time on it. The moral panic related to the damn teenagers will still be there.
Framing it as "Should we BAN Tiktok?" is the strawman. That is not the bill in question.
Framing it as "Should we BAN Tiktok?" is the strawman. That is not the bill in question.
Not it's not a strawman. At all. We are indeed talking about banning TikTok beause there's not a snowball's chance in Hell the Communist Party is going to allow a forced sale. TikTok will indeed be banned in the US (which is explicity stated in the legislation) if this bill passes.
Also, saying that China's military threat is only on those "nearby areas it has claimed for a while" is silly.
Germany didn't start with the Annexation of Denmark. They started by claiming those areas on its borders inhabited by a lot of German speakers such as the Sudetenland, Austria, and the parts of Poland, (much of which had been part of Germany 21 years previously).
The Nazis had very open intentions to annex 'Lebensraum' in the east, solve the 'Jewish problem' and enslave Slavic people almost from the party's formation in the early 1920s.
China has never in more than 2,000 years sought conflict with anyone beyond its immediate neighbors. Nor is there any rational argument why it would want to.
Also, saying that China's military threat is only on those "nearby areas it has claimed for a while" is silly.
It's not silly it's reality. China has two or three overseas bases compared to America's five hundred. China is prickly and militarily aggressive when it comes to several of its foreign relationships, true! But every single one of those (Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines, India) is, as Kevin rightly points out, a nearby area.
Mind you, America has treaty obligations to defend Japan and the Philippines, and we could likewise choose to insert ourselves into a China-Taiwan war.
But the PLA isn't landing on Malibu Beach anytime soon.
I am almost tempted to create a Tik Tok account just to post something about the siege of Changchun, which is something China ruthlessly suppresses. The only Chinese ever to write a book about it was disappeared, of course, and almost all copies of his book destroyed. What the West knows mostly comes from a single source, a Japanese woman who survived near-starvation there as a child and eventually made it back to Japan, where she wrote her memoir. It's among the worst things I have ever read, and while it is awful, I recommend anyone who dares attempt to justify starvation as a method of war read this first. Or, if they refuse, be forced to read it aloud as they are publicly flogged.
There's already an English language video about it. https://www.tiktok.com/@time_less_tales/video/7237901113377312026?lang=en&q=siege%20Changchun&t=1710292256161
Social media suppresses by making things invisible unless specifically searched for, rather than banning, which is too obvious.
Seems a remarkably mild form of "ruthless suppression". And I don't know how any video on a site with millions of them becomes "visible" unless someone searches for it or follows the poster's account.
So let's say TikTok is actually a nefarious front for some kind of NSA-like surveillance outfit run by the CCP to hoover up data about the platform's global users. What, exactly, are they going to learn? How many teenage girls like BTS? What the secret ingredients are for *really* fluffy biscuits?
Is political content truly minimal on TikTok? if so, why is Libs of TikTok a thing? I mostly avoid using TikTok but the algorithm has figured out I voted for Biden so it pushes a ton of political content to me.
Yeah, it took about two days for tik-tok to figure out that it should send me all the progressive political content.
I've read that the student demonstrations in Tiananmen Square and the subsequent crushing have been all but purged from Chinese discourse. I wonder how many Zoomers know about it...
Unless physical proof of malicious intent or direct siphoning of data against law where the app operates is brought forward, this panic is akin to D+D/satanic panic in the 80's (also thanks, Tipper, you directed me to the best music ever). The older population has very little clue what is happening with the younger population - which is how the Youngs want it (stay out of my room) - and this is how it always has been. See the beginning of my comment.
A cursory search of TikTok discloses numerous videos about the Tiananmen Square massacre, including this one about the Chinese government's censorship of news about it.
https://www.tiktok.com/@abcnewsaus/video/7285956358615076097?lang=en&q=Tiananmen%20Square&t=1710292737623
Why does Drum compare modern day social media to Cronkite who represented old school news media? It is a grossly unfair comparison
In Walt's day we took "news" as gospel because the standards for those reporting the news was so high - double check your source(s), no political leanings, if it was written it was "true"
Now we question truth in everything. Even photos (Princess Katherine), rumors destroy scientific research - the list goes on. It seems to me we believe what we want to believe and "tune in" to those venues that promote those beliefs. This faux validation seems to make us feel good about appearing knowledgeable, when in fact we are not
The internet plays a huge role in this lack of trust
I believe Kevin made the comparison to Cronkite because that was the comparison initiated by Matt Yglesias when he asked "what if the Soviet Union tried to buy CBS in 1975?"
Wow, maybe there's something to this notion about moderating content after all ...
I'm not sure if I support this new bill to force TikTok to divest from its Chinese ownership, Bytedance. It certainly seems like the House and Senate need to hold more robust hearings into the matter before passing such legislation. But your analysis is not particularly accurate. TikTok has been caught multiple times sharing data in China. Here's one example: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexandralevine/2023/06/21/tiktok-confirms-data-china-bytedance-security-cfius/?sh=6f75ad2e3270
It has also surveilled people, including journalists: https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilybaker-white/2023/03/16/fbi-doj-investigating-bytedance-tiktok-surveillance-journalists/?sh=2f72ff7ea6fc&ref=platformer.news
It is far more intrusive than other apps, including tracking users' key strokes: https://www.boredpanda.com/tik-tok-reverse-engineered-data-information-collecting/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic
It is used as a pro-China propaganda app: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/emilybakerwhite/tiktok-bytedance-topbuzz-pro-china-content?ref=platformer.news
And China clearly exerts pressure on TikTok's corporate leaders: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-03/bytedance-s-zhang-exits-board-joining-exodus-by-tech-founders?ref=platformer.news
In previous posts you've dismissed worries about China because it's economy is in trouble. It's true that China's economy will no longer grow at the high levels it previously did but it's still the largest manufacturer in the world, largest exporter in the world and has the largest or second largest economy in the world depending on how you count it. It has become much more authoritarian and expansionist. On the latter, territorially (see what is happening in the Philippines) but also in a number of other ways. And perhaps more important it is working to change the world order into one that will make the world safe for authoritarianism. Even an economically slower growing China is still a large challenge for the world (not just the U.S.)
Now none of what I outline above necessarily means forcing TikTok to sell to non-China ownership is a good idea or is a good counter to the challenge of China. I'm honestly not certain and would like to see the legislation explored more deeply before it's voted on. But your post at best adds to the confusion rather than clarifying the issues and at worst is misinforming your readers. Even more reason for a more considered approach to the legislation.
Sorry for the long comment. Thanks, as always for your blogging, which I much appreciate and usually learn from.
No, of course it is not an existential threat. People are ridiculous.
It is, however, a weapon. China has an unfiltered channel into millions of phones it can use for propaganda and to build profiles of the owners to look for people to compromise.
I see it as roughly similar in potential to Russia's (real) use of the NRA. Not the end of the world, but an ugly tool that turns Americans against each other and facilitates the exploitation weak or confused people to damage national security.
I don't get why people are so fucking dumb about this. None of this is difficult - it is not the end of the world, but it is a weapon. The fact that Facebook is effectively the same sort of weapon seems to confuse people who can't handle shades of gray.
Australian censorship and propaganda promotion is a much bigger problem in US media and never made an issue by pundits.
Even if it were used to circulate propaganda, that is protected First Amendment speech. You'd think Yglesias would know that but Yglesias has a lot of authoritarian tendencies. Just get him started on free parking. You'd think it was the coming of Satan himself.
I agree with you he's wrong on TikTok and seems curiously oblivious to First Amendment concerns. But free parking really is an incredibly destructive policy, at least in places that reach a certain level of population density. Given political realities (ie, it's next to impossible to ban outright in a lot of places) Yglesias favors the idea of capping permitted parking, but giving incumbent residents transferrable (ie, saleable) rights to their permits. It's a pretty good idea.
Links to how it would work:
https://www.slowboring.com/p/can-we-nimby-cars-instead-of-houses
https://twitter.com/salimfurth/status/1551903133978304513?lang=en
I probably don't understand this. But, how is "free parking" free? The developer is required to set aside a certain number of parking spaces. The problem, as near as I can tell, is that the developer is never required to set aside enough parking spaces.
Although this new-fangled "everyone can build an ADU" doesn't require creating parking spaces for the ADU. Which, of course, is an example of not requiring enough parking spaces.
But, how is "free parking" free?
Literally thousands of US municipalities allow free overnight storage of private vehicles on public streets. When you don't charge money for something, it's free!
Or education. Sadly out of his depth, that one is.
Not as much, I suspect, as it tries to avoid pissing off either of America's two major parties. But that, of course, is merely paying the respect rightfully due to Champions of Freedom.
In other news TikTok: https://sfist.com/2024/03/12/former-instagram-offices-in-downtown-sf-may-be-about-to-become-tiktok-offices/
Can we use the quid-pro-quo argument? China censors American platforms in China, so we should feel free to censor Chinese platforms in America?
'course, I like to avoid stooping to the level of people whose behavior we don't like...
The massive Trumpropaganda network has loyally reversed course in response to its master's voice.