The Great TikTok Moral Panic Continues As Senators Thune, Warner Attempt A More Elaborate Ban

from the performative-freak-out dept

We’ve noted for a while now how most of the outrage surrounding TikTok isn’t exactly based in factual reality.

There’s no real evidence of the Chinese using TikTok to befuddle American toddlers at scale, and the concerns about TikTok’s privacy issues are bizarrely narrow, with many of the folks proposing a ban seemingly oblivious to the broader problem: namely a lack of data broker oversight and our comical, corruption-fueled failure to pass even a basic U.S. privacy law for the internet era.

Undaunted, Senator Mark Warner and John Thune this week introduced the Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology (RESTRICT) Act (summary and full bill text), legislation the duo claims will make Americans far more safe and secure by, among other things, eventually, maybe banning TikTok in the United States.

Unlike other proposals that weirdly hyperventilate exclusively about TikTok, Thune and Warner’s proposal claims it will empower the Department of Commerce to more broadly review, prevent, and mitigate “technology transactions” that “pose undue risk to our national security”:

“Today, the threat that everyone is talking about is TikTok, and how it could enable surveillance by the Chinese Communist Party, or facilitate the spread of malign influence campaigns in the U.S. Before TikTok, however, it was Huawei and ZTE, which threatened our nation’s telecommunications networks. And before that, it was Russia’s Kaspersky Lab, which threatened the security of government and corporate devices,” said Sen. Warner. “We need a comprehensive, risk-based approach that proactively tackles sources of potentially dangerous technology before they gain a foothold in America, so we aren’t playing Whac-A-Mole and scrambling to catch up once they’re already ubiquitous.”

Thune and Warner are applauded for at least proposing broader solutions instead of singularly freaking out about TikTok exclusively. Still, the bill’s a bit murky, and generally structured to avoid being vulnerable to a legal challenge as a bill of attainder, something likely to plague a recent House GOP legislative proposal focused on singularly banning TikTok.

That said, these efforts are all largely based on a lot of silly fearmongering that doesn’t have much basis in reality. Before he released the bill, Warner stated that one of his key motivations for it was to thwart TikTok from becoming a tool for Chinese propaganda. But again, there’s no evidence that’s actually happening, and Warner’s proposed theoreticals are just kind of silly:

 “What worries me more with TikTok is that this could be a propaganda tool,” Warner said. “The kind of videos you see would promote ideological issues.”

Warner said the app feeds Chinese kids more videos about science and engineering than American children, suggesting the app’s content recommendation system is tuned for China’s geopolitical ambitions.

That’s to say, Warner couldn’t actually come up with any examples of TikTok being used for Chinese propaganda at scale (because there aren’t any yet), so he just effectively made up a claim that the Chinese are intentionally showing Americans fewer science videos to make us stupid, which is just… silly.

Congress’ fixation on TikTok as a theoretical propaganda weapon are amusing coming from a country that’s increasingly so buried in right wing and corporate propaganda, that Americans not only routinely cheer against their own best self interests while parroting conspiracy theories, they’re increasingly likely to become radicalized and commit mass murder. Congress doesn’t seem in much of a rush, there.

The other concern about TikTok: that the Chinese will use TikTok data to spy on Americans, is obviously more valid. Yet proposals to ban TikTok — even elaborate ones like the legislation proposed by Thune and Warner — still aren’t getting at the real heart of the problem.

For decades, we’ve effectively let telecoms, app makers, OEMs, and every other company that touches the internet hoover up every last shred of consumer data. Those companies then consistently not only fail to secure this data, they sell access to it to a rotating crop of global data brokers, which in turn sell access to everything from your daily movement habits to your mental health issues.

It’s trivial for the Chinese, Russian, or American governments to purchase and abuse this data, even if you banned TikTok (and every single other Chinese app in existence) tomorrow.

But you’ll notice that the lion’s share of the Congressfolk who’ve dropped absolutely everything to hyperventilate about TikTok don’t much care about that; an attempt to regulate data brokers or implement meaningful penalties for corporations (and executives) that over-collect data and then fail to secure it might impact the revenues of U.S. companies, and you simply can’t have that.

Freaking out about TikTok is far more politically safe than addressing the bigger problem. It lets you pretend you’re being “tough on China” and genuinely care about national security and consumer privacy, even if your stubborn refusal to hold data brokers accountable or pass a privacy law undermines all the national security goals you claim to be keen on addressing.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , , , ,
Companies: tiktok

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “The Great TikTok Moral Panic Continues As Senators Thune, Warner Attempt A More Elaborate Ban”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
18 Comments

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re:

In the meantime, I’ve recently been watching the Oscar nominated Navalny, where the subject of the documentary is using Twitter and TikTok to communicate with supporters, because Putin had blocked him from using other forms of media to communicate with supporters who are willing to help him oust the guy. Sadly unsuccessful, but that has nothing to do with the platform.

Not to mention all the other uses for social media that don’t indicate useless trivialities like their opponents are told to believe. I mean, I know you’re still sore because platforms not accepting white supremacists led to your friends having lower reach for a little while, but it’s a more complicated issue then you’re being programmed to believe, and even if it were just kids eating tide pods, you’d have to be very much unaware of human behaviour to think that just banning TikTok would prevent such things.

You know what would increase childrens’ IQ? Not being around right-wing reactionaries who decide that culture wars instead of real education and action are the answer to life’s problems.

T.L. says:

“Freaking out about TikTok is far more politically safe than addressing the bigger problem.“

Actually, it’s about as politically fraught, if not moreso, as upsetting the companies who profit from selling consumer data by actually regulating the data market. Given how popular TikTok is, any effort to try to ban it would spark an outcry from users, a sizable portion of which are part of a demographic that has a history (prior to 2018) of being less participatory in elections.. and who could see such a move as a red line that makes at least some of them feel like Washington doesn’t care about what matters to them (it doesn’t help that other issues important to young voters like police reform, climate change legislation, raising the minimum wage to a livable income, etc. have not been passed, even when Dems had full control of Congress).

Then, there’s the legal issues associated with attempts by a democratic government to granting authority to restricting access to individual internet platforms (especially based on insufficient or nonexistent evidence, which Dems like Warner and Raja Krishnamoorthi should know better than to support on such basis, being they’re supposed to be part of the pro-facts, pro-democracy party). Even this bill runs into potential First Amendment issues, just like the GOP-led bills, since it would still involve giving the government some authority to police internet platforms whose use by Americans is protected by the 1A in a way that could allow for a ban. Not to mention the fact that the lack of evidence behind the claims made against TikTok makes any bill, if passed, legally tenuous with regard to its merits if challenged in a court proceeding.

Plus, they’d actually be risking upsetting companies who could face access restrictions in backsliding democracies and authoritarian regimes by justifying the U.S. has no standing to criticize those countries for doing it, if it is willing to do it to a web-based platform from another country. And, on top of that, there’s the potential damage to the creator economy to consider as a ban would risking icing out some creators from the economy entirely, and potentially cutting into the income of others (considering many TikTok creators have higher follower counts there than on other platforms they’ve diversified into like YouTube, Twitch and IG, and brands base payments for brand deals partly on total followers). And, the risk of Washington looking hypocritical for claiming Big Tech has too much market power, while trying to kick out a social media competitor to the ones owned by the American-based Big Tech companies.

Basically, D.C. politicians aren’t thinking through the implications of targeting TikTok, in what may or may not be a ill-thought-out attempt to force ByteDance to sell that could backfire against them in many ways. Rather than basing legislation on claims that lack evidence and are basically based on bias about a country that the U.S. sees as a threat primarily because it wants to be the top-dog global superpower, Congress should instead seek counsel from cybersecurity experts (government-employed and independent) to investigate and prove the claims. Anyway, passing data privacy legislation would really avoid the legal and political problems that these bills would create.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

he just effectively made up a claim that the Chinese are intentionally showing Americans fewer science videos to make us stupid, which is just… silly

Yeah, USAmericans don’t need any help in making ourselves dumber. We already have Fox News and Twitter.

T.L. says:

Re:

All of the bills run into some sort of First Amendment issue, and would have a high risk of not surviving a legal challenge, especially since most lawmakers aren’t basing them on any tangible evidence of the claims being made against TikTok and many aren’t narrowly tailored enough to survive a challenge based on what permissible content-neutrality restrictions on speech currently exist (given the broad scope of speech that could be impacted alone).

The GOP-led bills largely also run the risk of being bills of attainder (which are prohibited under Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution), since most (except for the DATA Act) directly target TikTok specifically.

The DATA Act, OTOH, according to Democrats on the House Foreign Affairs Committee (who unanimously opposed it when Republicans rammed it through without debate on March 1), doesn’t even define what constitutes an entity as being “beholden to the Chinese government”, risking ensnaring a host of U.S. and foreign companies that make apps in development with Chinese developers under that bill (creating the unintended consequence of those businesses being shut down by the U.S. under the ill-defined structure of the bill’s text).

PaulT (profile) says:

Re:

Easily bypassed by you or I. But, a scared 16 year old who knows that even admitting they’re thinking of aborting to other people will lead to problems and may not have the best computer skills? Maybe not.

Here, some people might bypass the block, but others might not know how or might be misled into a scam. Remember, just because there’s an “easy” fix available to people, that doesn’t mean that the person who thinks that Google is where you type a URL will be able to avoid manipulation.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
T.L. (profile) says:

“‘What worries me more with TikTok is that this could be a propaganda tool,’ Warner said. ‘The kind of videos you see would promote ideological issues.

Warner said the app feeds Chinese kids more videos about science and engineering than American children, suggesting the app’s content recommendation system is tuned for China’s geopolitical ambitions.”

Sen. Warner demonstrated he knows nothing about the platform he’s created legislation about, and is basing his claims on conjecture rather than compelling evidence; Congress isn’t known for being tech savvy, and he’s just one example of why politicians who haven’t researched the technology they want to regulate shouldn’t try to create legislation without understanding it first. The reason why TikTok’s content is different than Douyin’s is because of different cultural sensibilities between China and the rest of the world; TikTok’s users create the content that appears on the app, and their content reflects what those individuals choose to make. Also, social media was never meant to be exclusively educational in the first place. He could have at least consulted cybersecurity experts to verify any of the claims made about the platform before drafting the RESTRICT Act, but neither he nor Sen. Thune clearly bothered to.

TikTok isn’t even available in China (or Hong Kong); ByteDance distributes a similar app in China and the countries it considers to be its territories, Douyin, which is the app he appears to be referring to in the quote. ByteDance created TikTok for the international market and purposely restricted access to the app in China to prevent it from being subjected to that country’s censorship laws. In fact, the business model of TikTok (as outlined in the Georgia Tech threat analysis paper) was structured to sidestep certain Chinese regulations (like the censorship laws): both TikTok Ltd. and ByteDance were incorporated in the Cayman Islands to circumvent Chinese restrictions on foreign capital; in fact, 60% of its funding comes from U.S. capital firms. (TikTok Ltd. is also incorporated in California and Delaware, the latter being a choice location for incorporated companies operating in the U.S.; anyone who knows why, please reply on why this is).

Only 1% of ByteDance’s funding comes from an investment fund linked to three Chinese state entities, and that mainly grants a representative of that fund a seat on the Douyin Ltd. board, but it’s somehow treated as a controlling interest when the non-Chinese investors (including the U.S. ones) have more controlling interest.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a BestNetTech Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

BestNetTech community members with BestNetTech Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the BestNetTech Insider Shop »

Follow BestNetTech

BestNetTech Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the BestNetTech Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
BestNetTech needs your support! Get the first BestNetTech Commemorative Coin with donations of $100
BestNetTech Deals
BestNetTech Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the BestNetTech Insider Discord channel...
Loading...