Trump May Kill America’s Performative TikTok Ban For The Benefit Of His Billionaire Buddy
from the you-know,-for-freedom dept
We’ve noted more time than I can count how the U.S. ban of TikTok (yes, yes I know, it’s not a ban, it’s a forced divestment ByteDance was never going to agree with) was pointless fucking performance art.
Not only was it unconstitutional, it did nothing to actually address the privacy and national security issues it professed to fix. We’re a country too corrupt to pass even a baseline privacy law. We’re too corrupt to even regulate data brokers that routinely hoover up oceans of sensitive consumer data and then sell it to any nitwit with two nickels to rub together (including domestic extremists and foreign intelligence).
Hyperventilating about a single Chinese-app in an ocean of dodgy and unregulated consumer surveillance was always more about greed and protecting Facebook and U.S. tech companies from competition than it ever was about seriously addressing U.S. privacy, NatSec, or propaganda concerns.
With that as backdrop, Trump is telling his allies (for whatever that’s ultimately worth) that he wants to reverse the U.S. ban on TikTok. The law, passed last April, gave ByteDance until January 19 to find a U.S. buyer or face getting kicked out of the country.
“The president-elect has not yet announced a decision on if, or how to proceed, but some advisers expect him to intervene on TikTok’s behalf if necessary — including Conway and three others, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations. Trump promised during the campaign to protect the app even though he also signed an executive order in his first term that would have effectively banned it: “I’m gonna save TikTok,” he said in one of his first videos on the app this June.”
Trump of course isn’t operating with any sort of genuine, good faith policy or intellectual curiosity here. He correctly believes TikTok can be useful for Republicans’ massive online propaganda efforts, and, like most feckless U.S. tech companies, ultimately bullied away from competently moderating right wing propaganda and race-baiting bile on the internet if it wants to keep doing business here.
It’s also just about money. In 2020, Trump wanted to ban TikTok when he thought there was a chance he could offload it to his buddies Larry Ellison and Safra Catz at Oracle. In 2024, Trump’s motivation is in cozying up to Jeffrey Yass, a major billionaire Trump donor creator of the conservative Club for Growth, who holds a 15% stake in TikTok’s Chinese parent company ByteDance.
A Trump reversal of a TikTok ban (which the Post explains won’t be easy) will result in all sorts of entertaining chaos among his bobble-headed brigadiers. Kellyanne Conway now works for Yass and Club For Growth defending TikTok in the press. In contrast, Trump’s likely FCC boss Brendan Carr has spent the last four years crying about TikTok to please Trump and get his face on cable TV.
As Conway’s quote to the Post makes clear, Yass and Trump want to frame this self-serving reversal as something profoundly more noble than it actually is, leveraging the fact that this ban was always a giant political turd for Democrats:
“He appreciates the breadth and reach of TikTok, which he used masterfully along with podcasts and new media entrants to win,” said Kellyanne Conway, who ran Trump’s first presidential campaign, served in the White House and remains close to him and now also advocates for TikTok. “There are many ways to hold China to account outside alienating 180 million U.S. users each month. Trump recognized early on that Democrats are the party of bans — gas-powered cars, menthol cigarettes, vapes, plastic straws and TikTok — and to let them own that draconian, anti-personal-choice space.”
Then of course you’ve got Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook, who, ahead of the ban, were caught seeding no limit of bogus moral panics in DC and among press outlets for anticompetitive reasons (which oddly gets omitted from most press coverage of this story).
Anybody who thinks any of these folks care about protecting consumer privacy or national security is deluding themselves. The U.S. refusal to regulate data brokers or pass a privacy law makes it repeatedly, painfully clear that this country has prioritized making money over consumer privacy and public safety. Any pretense we care about fighting propaganda is even more laughable in the wake of this election.
Another major reason the U.S. government doesn’t want to seriously tackle consumer privacy is because the dysfunctional and unaccountable data broker space allows them to spy on Americans without getting a pesky warrant. Banning Tiktok is a performance that distracted the public from our broader widespread failures on propaganda, surveillance, consumer protection, privacy, and national security.
There certainly are privacy, propaganda, and national security concerns related to TikTok. They’ll never be confused for an ethical company. But that’s never really been what any of this was about for this pit of self-serving vipers, who were primarily interested in using those issues (and xenophobia) as cover to prop up their varied and often conflicting financial ambitions.
Filed Under: donald trump, jeffrey yass, national security, privacy, propaganda, social media, surveillance, tiktok ban
Companies: bytedance, tiktok




Comments on “Trump May Kill America’s Performative TikTok Ban For The Benefit Of His Billionaire Buddy”
Trump: the illegitimate presidential candidate
Re:
He was chosen by Republican primary voters, then he won the general. Not just the EC. He won the popular vote.
Nothing “illegitimate” about him. The Confederate States of America have been allowed to survive through American conservatism, and it’s rearing its head again.
Re: Re:
Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, section3.
Just because our present SCOTUS refuses to enforce the law as written, because they are compromised by foreign assets, does not mean the election was legitimate. Donald is not allowed to run for office, anywhere in the US, as a result of his illegal activities.
Re: Re: Re:
Fair.
Re: Re: Re:
You don’t know so many things. I do. I do.
Re: Re: Re:2
This has nothing to do with the fact that Donald is a convicted felon (who has not been sentenced for some reason).
This is the fact that the US constitution disallows traitors from running for office.
Re: Re: Re:3
Not quite. The US Constitution disallows proven traitors from running for office. This means that although Trump is morally and ethically guilty of fomenting an insurrection, because he is not legally guilty of the same (because the Reds in the House and Senate weren’t as ready to impeach him for such an egregious crime as they were to impeach Bill Clinton for having an extramarital affair), there are no Constitutional grounds for barring Trump from running for any governmental position, unfortunately.
Re: Re: Re:4
Like I said, Just because our present SCOTUS refuses to enforce the law as written, because they are compromised by foreign assets, does not mean the election was legitimate.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
You’re right, it wasn’t legitimate. Democrats cheated again and still lost. Trumps win was to big to rigg
Re: Re: Re:6
Are there any adults in the room?
Re: Re: Re:4
It disallows proven insurrectionists who have previously sworn an oath to uphold the constitution from holding office.
That’s not quite the same thing as treason under the constitution.
Insurrection sweeps more broadly and encompasses lesser more offenses, but the clause is also limited to individuals who previously took an oath.
Re: Re: Re:5
It is beyond ridiculous that so many are so eager to make up shit in the defense of a worthless motherfucker.
/rant
Re: Re: Re:5
TIL: Trump did not swear an oath to uphold the Constitution the first time he took office.
Re: Re: Re:
Ran a quick search and this page contains information that backs Vincent Grey.
Re: Re: Re:
Even assuming he’s an insurrectionist, nothing in the Constitution says he can’t run. If the elected President is ineligible then the VP serves until he is.
Re: Re: Re:2
“nothing in the Constitution says he can’t run”
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, you mean the “illegal activities” made up by the Democrats
Re: Re: Re:2
Those democrats sure are awesome with the photoshop stuff aye?
Why the democrats made such an authentic looking depiction of an insurrection, I do not know, but it was very well done and convincing to many when they viewed same on national television.
Re: Re:
Trump was elected on claims he’d rid us of immigrants, then he turned around and put one in charge of “fixing” our government. Somehow, nobody seems to mind. Remember when the GOP used to rant and rave about the undue influence of George Soros? Where are those voices NOW?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
I’m arguing with people who think we should have done ‘regime change’ and ‘nation building’ in Syria.
Thankfully, under Project 2025, all those people [re. YOU] are going to get sent to Gitmo.
Re: Re:
None of that 2025 crap feast will occur, just look at the infighting already going on with his cabinet picks – LOL
These idiots will screw things up dispite themselves.
Re: Re:
I genuinely can’t tell if you think we are stupid enough to believe that nonsense of if you are stupid enough to believe it. Either way, your hope that the Trump admin will literally do what the Nazis did says a lot about you.
The main problem with privacy is that it makes propaganda much less effective.
The main advantage with propaganda is that it makes privacy useless.
So, by removing privacy, there is no more problem.
It’s so simple that even Trump gets it.
Re:
The problem with propaganda is that no one will believe what you say.
Re: Re: Yes and no
It doesn’t matter, though, if you have no other information or there is so much of disinformation everywhere that an average citizen simply stop believing anything at all. Which is fine for a dictator’s purposes.
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, but there also is this lack of positive motivation.
When everything in your life consists of negative motivation there is very little creative thought process and therefore no one thinks outside the box resulting a very boring existence where nothing new and exciting is occurring.
Where do you think the new ideas come from? The new wizbang gadgets that everyone relies upon these days would not exist if it were not for thinking outside the box and coming up with creative answers to complex situations.
But to some zombie maga types … it does not matter.
Apparently ignorance is bliss.
Re: Re:
“The problem with propaganda is that no one will believe what you say.”
Rephrase that to: “No one with intelligence will believe what you say.”
Here, let me fix that for you…
Re:
It’s almost like fealty to either party makes you a dumbass rube, and people should vote based on specific policies and their expected outcomes rather than parties, or the personalities involved.
But then Americans would need to learn literally anything about any policy, and that’s very obviously a bridge too far.
Re: Re:
The issues should be voted upon, not the whimsical desires of cult character clowns.
Example:
Pick One (democratic republic) or (authoritarian dictatorship)
Re:
Republican don’t care about gender affirming care. We just don’t want you pushing it on children. Same with book bans. Read/color whatever book you want, just keep x-rated books out of the schools and stop spreading left-wing propaganda
Re: Re:
That argument falls apart when there are books that aren’t x-rated amongst the books banned under those laws.
Re: Re:
Have no doubt that the “x-rated book” content being referred to here includes:
“Gay people exist.”
“Gender is a social construct.”
“Woman can be good leaders and don’t have to be brood mares for insecure authoritarian chauvinists.”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
The main problem of the past 5 years hasn’t been that there wasn’t ‘good leadership,’ although there wasn’t.
It’s that the institutions are deranged.
If you don’t like Trump’s cabinet picks or Chris Rufo’s activism or whatever else, fine. But then what’s the plan?
There’s no virtue in disapproval if passive resignation and repeating the failures of the past are the only alternatives on offer.
Re:
Lemme guess – yer one of them there ‘Hilter was a good guy’ dudes – amirite?
Re:
Use the derangement of the instiutions against them selves.
Trump wants to open up libel laws?
He wants to eviceratree regulatory authority, and leave things tomthe states?
-Good look getting federal agencies to carry out RFK’s quackery then.
Priscute the “Biden Crime Family”
Same on Geetz hold the J6 committie or the FBI acountable for the “set up”
Congressional Imuunity (which is a real thing), and let ALL of the evidence out.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
There is a valid point of view that we should not allow any US company being owned by a company in China. Also, no property should be owned as well.
There are quite a few experts that believe that we will be at war with China in 5 to 10 years. Why would we want anything touching China owning companies or properties here in the US?
Re:
Ah, the sweet, sweet smell of xenophobia (Sinuphobia) in the morning!
Re: Re:
I know you meant sinophobia, but I’m laughing at the idea of people being afraid of their own noses. “Everywhere I look, it’s right there in front of me!”
Re: Re: Re:
No, no. AC definitely meant sinuphobia, which is why so many MAGAts wind up cutting off their noses: it’s not merely to spite their faces.
Re:
Because in the event of an actual war (where lethal force is involved), we can simply nationalize those assets known or believed to be owned by Chinese companies, the CCP itself, or belligerent persons who have no earned US citizenship.
Doing these things during less lethal times requires a lot of paperwork, involves courts (which in turn requires time), and in general does not sit well with the public at large.
Re:
If a company is Chinese-owned, then it’s not a US company by definition; it’s a Chinese company.
Nothing means anything except what falls out of the God Emperor’s mouth, updated daily.
Trump will use the TikTok ban as another distraction, when he needs one. He does things like installing RFK as health secretary, so everyone is focused on that turd and not on other things he doesn’t want people focused on. It’s called the “Dead Cat Strategy”. Whenever Trump does something like that, it’s time to look a lot closer at what else he’s up to.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
And? What’s he trying to distract you from then? The Trump administration was one of the most transparent administrations ever and I expect this one will be no different. Biden/Harris administration has been extremely opaque. That’s one reason the Dems lost the election, always making stuff up and calling over half the voters nazis
Re: Re:
The Trump administration is so transparent that one can easily see they are a bunch of criminals trying to steal as much as they can before someone stops them. Someone is trying right?
I always saw the requirement that TikTok be under US control was implemented so that the government could create hostile business conditions if the platform didn’t censor as the federal government desired.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
The TikTok ban can be bypassed by using a VPN.
And banning VPN services will not work.
As I have said before, rich people who can afford it can buy a home abroad and put a computer there and install VPN software and they make an encrypted connection to their home computer in, say, Mexico, and what they are doing will not be known.
A home computer in Mexico is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction even if the homeowner is a U.S. citizen.
That is why the porn ban, proposed by project 2025, will not be enforceable on the rich. Just make an encrypted connection to your home computer in Mexico and they will not know what you are up to.
Also, use secure wiping software on your hard disk regularly.
I don’t recommend any specific program, just find one that suits you. At lease one manufacturer of such software has had their product name sullied by malware bearing the same name.
No EVIDENCE = No CASE
Re:
Only dorks and (and horny people) watch videos on ticktack.
Re:
Please seek professional help for your delusional state.
Re:
You’re the fantasizing crypto nerd from the XKCD comic!
Re:
“rich people who can afford it…” VPNs are cheap son.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Trump derangement syndrome. I’m gonna love the next 4 years. And let’s make the flagged comment worth it. We need a border wall modelled after the Berlin Wall. Elective abortion as birth control is murder.
Re:
…said no human, ever.
Re:
News reel 1945:
“By now, Americans have heard of the horrors of the mass murder camps operated by the Nazis in Poland where Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals were routinely confined and murdered. When asked for comment, a random anonymous individual in the editorial section responded: “Meh, it’s just Hitler Derangement Syndrome!”
For what it’s worth, the foreign intelligence part (well, China’s) is regulated/illegal now. By the same law. You’re linking to an article before said law was passed.
It’s not as good as a baseline privacy bill, and we’ll see how it gets enforced ( probably not for the next 4 years, now), but it is now regulated, technically. Albeit with obvious holes/loopholes
Don’t like your data being sold?
Stop existing!
Re:
I always recycle my used electrons, much easier than your suggestion.
Re: Re:
I keep my used electrons. I get a real charge out of it.
Re: Re:
I’m sick ‘n tired of being forced to buy the same electrons over and over and over.
Re: Re: Re:
Just be a bit positive and the electron problem will solve itself.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
“It’s also just about money. In 2020, Trump wanted to ban TikTok when he thought there was a chance he could offload it to his buddies Larry Ellison and Safra Catz at Oracle. In 2024, Trump’s motivation is in cozying up to Jeffrey Yass, a major billionaire Trump donor creator of the conservative Club for Growth, who holds a 15% stake in TikTok’s Chinese parent company ByteDance.” | Looks to me like no matter which route Trump takes on this issue isn’t going to be the right one. You’re just going to keep writing hit pieces on him either way
Re:
Bunch of grifters call themselves stable geniuses and super smart business people, meanwhile actual people with education, knowledge and experience are doing real innovation.