The bill to ban TikTok— and don't listen to the hype; it is that— passed yesterday 352-65 with one, Jasmine Crockett (D-TX), voting “present.” Among the 65 who voted against it were mostly progressive Democrats concerned with civil liberties plus a handful of crackpot extremist Republicans like Marjorie Traitor Greene, Matt Gaetz, Scott Perry, Andy Biggs, Clay Higgins, Alex Mooney who would cut off their arms if Trump told them to.
Jimmy Gomez, in the district next door to mine, was one of the progressives to vote against the legislation. He told us that “6 months isn’t enough to force a sell to an acceptable buyer and it would indirectly ban it, thereby negatively impacting lots of people in my district and Los Angeles who are content creators and make a living off of TikTok.”
One vote that really surprised me, though was Jim Himes’ opposition. The ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, he’s generally pretty hawkish. His press release right after the vote was admirable: “As Ranking Member of the Intelligence Committee I have more insight than most into the online threats posed by our adversaries. But one of the key differences between us and those adversaries is the fact that they shut down newspapers, broadcast stations, and social media platforms. We do not. We trust our citizens to be worthy of their democracy. We do not trust our government to decide what information they may or may not see. I suspect that there is a way to address the challenge posed by TikTok that is consistent with our commitment to freedom of expression. But a bill quickly passed by one committee less than a week ago is not that way.”
Morgan McGarvey is a strong progressive who represents Louisville, Mitch McConnell’s home town. “I am seriously concerned,” he told us, “about the national security threat posed by the coercive control of the Chinese Communist Party over Chinese-based companies and the potential negative impact of that control on American citizens and democracy— which is why it is so important that we get this legislation right. I have never seen a bill this consequential move this quickly, and the evidence I’ve been presented with so far does not— in my opinion— necessitate this level of urgency. It is unrealistic to expect a company like this could be sold in 180 days, and I am not confident the provisions of this bill would survive a First Amendment challenge. We can and should do everything to protect our national security and Americans’ data in a way that also protects freedom of expression. That likely will take longer than a week.”
Jerrad Christian is the Blue-America endorsed candidate for the Ohio seat held by knee-jerk Republican Troy Balderson, who, of course, voted to ban TikTok. Christian is also a software engineer and knows something about the subject. “In light of the recent push to ban TikTok in the U.S.,” he told me yesterday, ‘it's important to consider the broader context of data privacy and freedom of expression. While national security concerns regarding foreign-owned applications are valid, the focus on a single platform may overlook the extensive landscape of data vulnerability Americans face daily, even from corporations right here on our shores. The U.S. House's endeavor to ban TikTok raises questions about its real commitment to protecting American data across all platforms, not just those with foreign ties. True data protection requires comprehensive legislation that addresses the myriad ways in which Americans' information can be compromised, including through domestic companies. The emphasis on TikTok, without a broader strategy for data privacy, suggests a performative stance rather than a substantive move toward safeguarding American information. It's imperative that our approach to protecting citizens' data and ensuring their right to free expression encompasses a wider perspective, recognizing the multifaceted nature of digital threats and the need for a legal framework that defends against them all, not just selected targets.” He told me he would have voted NO yesterday.
Now the bill goes over to the Senate, where it seems likely to pass, that body being as reactionary as the House and where the reactionary head of the Intel Committee, Mark Warner (D-VA) announced he supports it. Rand Paul said he would try to stop passage as he did with a similar bill last year. Yesterday Paul said that Americans “choose to use TikTok to express themselves. I don’t think Congress should be trying to take away the First Amendment rights of [170] million Americans.”
I doubt Ro Khanna finds himself in agreement with Rand Paul any more than I do. Yesterday Khanna told me that he “voted no on the bill to ban TikTok if it isn’t sold along with 50 Democrats and 15 Republicans. This is an issue of First Amendment rights and free speech. Activists, creators, small business owners, and influencers on both the left and the right use this app. There is a real concern about data privacy, but this bill won’t fix that. We need an Internet Bill of Rights that I have proposed to protect people’s data.”
A team of 4 Washington Post reporters noted that “A hold by Paul could deal the bill a significant blow, delaying a vote in the Senate by a week or more. The Senate is only in session three of the next six weeks, and faces a calendar of pressing measures related to government funding, taxes and judicial appointments.
TikTok chief executive Shou Zi Chew landed in Washington on Tuesday night to meet with senators in hopes of shoring up opposition to the measure, said a person familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the issue.
The company offered to pay for some content creators and small-business owners to travel this week to Washington to drive home the app’s social and economic value. The creators, who rallied outside the Capitol on Tuesday afternoon, were not paid to advocate on the company’s behalf, a TikTok spokesperson said.
Phone lines on Capitol Hill were again blitzed with calls Tuesday from TikTok users who received a phone pop-up urging them to “help stop the shutdown.” The notification prompted users to enter their Zip code, then presented a “call now” button to connect them to their local representative.
TikTok’s opponents said the notification was an unfair push for mass political promotion that backfired; during a House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence briefing Tuesday, Krishnamoorthi said it had “ended up convincing a number of members from being 'lean yeses’ to ‘hard yeses.’”
Beckerman, the TikTok executive, said in his letter to the members of Congress that hearing from constituents was part of the job: “One would hope, as public servants, that you would be well acquainted with the constitutional right to petition the government for redress of grievances.”
In its annual threat assessment report, released Monday, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said TikTok accounts run by a Chinese propaganda arm had “reportedly targeted candidates from both political parties during the U.S. midterm election cycle in 2022.”
China, the report added, “may attempt to influence the U.S. elections in 2024 at some level because of its desire to sideline critics of China and magnify U.S. societal divisions.” Avril Haines, the director of national intelligence, said in a threat briefing Tuesday that the country “cannot rule out” similar interference in 2024.
The report did not offer details of the midterm influence campaign, but Forbes reported in 2022 that TikTok accounts run by a Chinese government propaganda arm had accumulated millions of views on videos criticizing some U.S. midterm candidates.
TikTok said in a statement that the company regularly took action against “covert influence networks throughout the world,” including two Chinese networks operating more than 700 accounts.
The bill has revealed unconventional alliances in Washington. Trump and libertarian Republicans like Paul have joined with the American Civil Liberties Union and other rights groups in calling the bill a government overstep.
The report from Forbes asserts that “In the run-up to the 2022 elections, the @NewsTokss account criticized some candidates (mostly Republicans), and favored others (mostly Democrats). A video from July began with the caption ‘Cruz, Abbott Don’t Care About Us’; a video from October was captioned ‘Rubio Has Done Absolutely Nothing.’ But @NewsTokss did not target only Republicans; another October video asked viewers whether they thought President Joe Biden’s promise to sign a bill codifying abortion rights was a ‘political manipulation tactic.’ Nothing in these videos disclosed to viewers that they were being pushed by a foreign government.”
Another member of Congress told me in confidence that although she agrees that the threat is real— albeit theoretical— she also feels that China doesn’t need to infiltrate TikTok to get the data it may want “because they can easily buy it or steal it.”
A couple of hours after the House vote, Gizmodo offered 99 reasons the U.S. should not ban TikTok… and if you can get through all 99 clips— I sure couldn't— you deserve an award.
"I suspect that there is a way to address the challenge posed by TikTok that is consistent with our commitment to freedom of expression." What kind of argument is that? Maybe there is another way to impose our will on a multinational corporation based in China, so preventing that multinational from vacuuming up all kinds of data from US citizens is a bad idea? If I had faith that ByteDance could be compelled to comply with data privacy regulations and monopoly restrictions, maybe I'd feel OK about waiting for another solution. All social media needs an overhaul, but a corporation outside the reach of US law needs special consideration. "But one of the key differences between us and those adversaries is th…
so... you're saying democraps suck. DUH!!!
Instead of observing that they suck and keep voting for them... maybe observe, FINALLY, that they suck and will always suck... and figure out how to replace them? You know... like the Whigs in 1860?
just a thought.