From: allin
The debate around a potential TikTok ban in the US has rapidly escalated, with legislative action gaining bipartisan support at various levels of government [00:40:41].
Legislative Progress
The House of Representatives recently passed a bill that would either ban TikTok or compel its sale [00:40:41]. The bill passed with a bipartisan vote of 352 to 65, indicating broad agreement in Congress on this issue [00:50:50] [01:05:23] [01:05:51]. President Biden has also stated his intention to sign the bill into law if it passes the Senate [00:41:03]. However, Democratic Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has signaled a lack of immediate interest, stating he will review the bill with committee chairs before deciding on its path forward in the Senate [00:41:08].
The bill’s passage in committee was notably unanimous, with a 50-0 vote, which some interpret as an indication of a serious underlying national security concern that has been briefed to lawmakers [01:05:23] [01:16:42].
Arguments For the Bill
Proponents of the bill cite several key points:
- Reciprocity: The argument is made that since China does not allow US social networks like Instagram or X to operate within its borders, the US should not grant unrestricted access to Chinese platforms [00:41:21].
- National Security:
- Data Collection and Spying: Concerns exist that TikTok, through its app, may be passively listening and collecting voice signatures and other personal data from users, creating a “massive file and repository” that could be accessed by foreign adversaries [00:52:12] [00:54:33]. TikTok has previously admitted to spying on journalists [01:00:06].
- Algorithm Influence: It’s argued that the algorithm could be “woken up” at any time to steer users’ thinking on political issues, potentially causing chaos [01:09:43]. The influence of TikTok on youth political discourse, particularly regarding pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel views, is noted [00:41:45].
- Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Control: The CCP reportedly holds a board director seat and a “golden vote” within ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company, allowing them to effectively control the platform’s algorithms and content [01:01:54]. In China, the version of the app (Douyin) pushes educational content and has strict limits on other apps and gaming for children [01:01:47] [01:02:20] [01:02:28]. The argument is made that the CCP, being an adversary, would not treat US citizens any differently than its own, which lives in a police state with extensive surveillance [00:57:11].
- Lack of Auditability: It is believed that even with a divestment, it would be impossible to fully audit the codebase for “Easter eggs” or backdoors, necessitating a complete rebuild from scratch [01:00:36] [01:03:09].
Arguments Against the Bill
Opponents raise concerns about potential overreach and unintended consequences:
- Stifling Debate/Free Speech: Some progressives fear the bill is not primarily about national security, but rather an attempt by mainstream politicians to shut down political discourse among youth, particularly dissenting views [00:41:32].
- Vague Language and Potential for Abuse: The bill’s language defining a “foreign adversary controlled application” is considered overly broad and vague [00:46:18]. Specifically, the phrase “subject to the direction or control of a foreign person or entity” could allow a “creative prosecutor” or Attorney General to target domestic companies or individuals loosely associated with foreign entities, potentially leading to “Patriot Act 2.0” where government powers are abused against political opponents [00:43:27] [00:48:17] [01:06:50].
- Lack of Hard Proof: Critics demand concrete evidence of TikTok’s alleged spying or direct CCP control, rather than “hand waving” or classified intelligence [00:49:51] [01:04:00].
- Impact on Livelihoods: Many thousands of people in the US make their living on TikTok, and a ban or divestment could significantly impact their income [00:56:46].
- Cronyism and Regulatory Capture: A ban would primarily benefit competing US social media companies like Meta and X, leading to accusations of cronyism and regulatory capture [00:56:22].
- User Choice and Paternalism: Some believe that citizens should be afforded transparency and the right to decide whether they want to use an app, rather than the government paternalistically banning it [00:55:09].
- Operating System Responsibility: If passive listening is occurring, some argue the problem lies with phone operating systems (Apple, Android) and should be fixed at that level, rather than banning individual apps [01:11:03].
- Trade vs. Security: If the issue is reciprocity, it should be addressed through a trade bill, not a national security bill that grants new powers to the government [01:13:00].
Key Figures and Stances
- Donald Trump: Previously issued an executive order in 2020 calling for ByteDance to divest TikTok but now opposes the ban [00:42:36].
- Vivek Ramaswamy: Had previously called TikTok “digital fentanyl” but now opposes the ban [00:42:33].
- Jeffrey Yass: A major Republican donor and significant shareholder in ByteDance (with a reported $15-30 billion stake), is noted as having ties to both Trump and Ramaswamy, potentially influencing their change in stance [00:42:47].
Technical Considerations
TikTok has stated its willingness to move all its US user data hosting to Oracle data centers in the US (known as Project Texas) [01:00:19]. However, critics argue that a data migration of this scale would be extremely complex, making it difficult to ensure every endpoint and line of code is secure and free of vulnerabilities [01:00:19]. They view this offer as a way to “elay people who are non-technical” [01:03:30].