President Biden just signed into law a bill forcing the sale of TikTok by its Chinese parent ByteDance—or else face an outright ban. The measure was included in a bill providing a $95.3 billion foreign aid package for Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan.
Proponents of the bill cite privacy and national security concerns. TikTok, like all social media giants, collects piles of user data—and if requested by the Chinese Communist Party, ByteDance is obligated by law to share that user information. Critics also worry about political influence operations on the platform—a dictatorial foreign adversary turning our kids into little Manchurian candidates.
Opponents of the bill argue that forcing a TikTok sale under the threat of a ban is a blow to users’ free speech rights and represents an overreach of government authority. They insist that the government should not dictate which apps Americans can use, especially on opaque grounds of national security.
Today, a debate: Is American national security at risk from an Orwellian app ultimately controlled by a totalitarian regime? Or is this just McCarthyism in digital form, a government-created moral panic fueled by dubious threats of misinformation?
Arguing that the TikTok bill is a logical extension of our current laws—and a necessary countermeasure to authoritarian meddling—is Geoffrey Cain. Cain is the author of The Perfect Police State and senior fellow at the National Security Institute of George Mason University.
On the other side, arguing that the bill is a dangerous overreach justified by flimsy evidence of an alleged threat, is Walter Kirn. Kirn is a novelist, Free Press contributor, editor-at-large of County Highway, and co-host of the podcast America This Week.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
I’m just apalled by Walter Kirn’s refusal to acknowledge how important it is to have reciprocity with China. I’m actually surprised that the word was not once uttered. RECIPROCITY. If Facebook and twitter are banned in China, as was said on the debate, then it’s a no brainer and no amount of “everybody does it” and “TikTok does exactly what the US government does” will do.
Also how about patriotism ? How can you refuse to uphold your country’s interests over another (highly unfriendly, powerful, authoritarian) country? How can that be anything but wrong? I’m not even American and I was so upset.
Kirn’s faux-naïveté about what the potential risks could be was particularly unnerving. How about in the event of a conflict with China ? TikTok could spread dangerous misinformation that could hurt the US. It’s so bloody obvious.
And finally the argument that if the US allows China to buy land next to military sites then what’s the point is wrong on so many levels. I would say ban TikTok and don’t stop there and deal with the buying of land. If you have a heart attack and cancer, would the doctor not try and resuscitate you because anyway you have cancer so it would be pointlesss?
Kudos to Geoffrey Cain for keeping his head cool and not loosing track of what matters.
I was so severely disappointed by this debate I had to login to leave a comment. The fundamental lack of understanding of both technology and media from both of these guests. The issue at play is part of a larger market evolution of media becoming technology, as exemplified by this comment being on substack (arguably a tech company) not the NYT. While one can watch RT and easily see a statement of bias and absurdity, and even if they don't, there is the ability in a one to many broadcast to address the statements made. These blackbox algorithms are the product, not the dissemination of decentralized content. This makes it nearly impossible to audit or verify the information contrary to the provided example of RT and these algorithms can be manipulated and swayed in a virtually undetectable manner while stripping individual autonomy and individual judgement. While there is totally a valid argument to be made that this is a concern for all tech companies, the difference comes down to judicial authority and accountability. None of this was discussed or addressed, nor was the topic of generative content actively being prototyped by TikTok which begins to enable them to create bespoke content for each user. In the west manipulative or destructive overreach has historically leaked out and allowed regulatory or legal action. Also unaddressed are the national security concerns of essentially a foreign adversary being in possession of a psych profile of millions of Americans, this isn't the same of knowing what cat videos you watch. Even if an individual say a military official isn't using the application that doesn't mean they are immune for the manipulative behavior that could be used against their family. Say a military leader taking leave during a time of unrest as their child was continuously bombarded with body shaming, drugs, and destructive content ...