A TikTok Ban Is A Pointless Political Turd For Democrats

from the election-season-seppuku dept

As you probably noticed, the House just passed the controversial ban on TikTok, with 352 Representatives in favor, and 65 opposed. The bill is now likely to be slow-walked to the Senate where its chance of passing is murky, but possible. Biden (which has been using the purportedly “dangerous national security threat” to campaign with) has stated he’ll sign the bill should it survive the trip.

The ban (technically a forced divestment, followed by a ban after ByteDance inevitably refuses to sell) passed through the house with more than a little help from Democrats:

Not talked much about in press coverage is the fact that the majority of constituents don’t actually support a ban (you know, the whole representative democracy thing). Support for a ban has been dropping for months, even among Republicans, and especially among the younger voters Democrats have already been struggling to connect with in the wake of the bloody shitshow in Gaza:

As the underlying Pew data makes clear, a lot of Americans aren’t sure what to think about the hysteria surrounding TikTok. And they’re not sure what to think, in part, because the collapsing U.S. tech press has done a largely abysmal job covering the story, either by parroting bad faith politician claims about the proposal and app, or omitting key important context.

Context like the fact the U.S. has been too corrupt to pass an internet privacy law, resulting in years of repeated scandal (with TikTok being arguably among the least of them). Congress has been lobbied into apathy by a massive coalition of cross-industry lobbyists with unlimited budgets. But the U.S. government is also disincentivized to act because it abuses the dysfunction to avoid having to get traditional warrants.

The press has also been generally terrible at explaining to the public that the ban doesn’t actually do what it claims to do.

Banning TikTok, but refusing to pass a useful privacy law or regulate the data broker industry is entirely decorative. The data broker industry routinely collects all manner of sensitive U.S. consumer location, demographic, and behavior data from a massive array of apps, telecom networks, services, vehicles, smart doorbells and devices (many of them *gasp* built in China), then sells access to detailed data profiles to any nitwit with two nickels to rub together, including Chinese, Russian, and Iranian intelligence.

Often without securing or encrypting the data. And routinely under the false pretense that this is all ok because the underlying data has been “anonymized” (a completely meaningless term). The harm of this regulation-optional surveillance free-for-all has been obvious for decades, but has been made even more obvious post-Roe. Congress has chosen, time and time again, to ignore all of this.

Banning TikTok, but doing absolutely nothing about the broader regulatory capture and corruption that fostered TikTok’s (and every other companies’) disdain for privacy or consumer rights, isn’t actually fixing the problem. In fact, as Mike has noted, the ban creates entirely new problems, from potential constitutional free speech violations, to its harmful impact on online academic research.

I’ve mentioned more than a few times that I think the ongoing quest to ban TikTok is mostly a flimsy attempt to transfer TikTok’s fat revenues to Microsoft, Google, Twitter, Oracle, or Facebook under the pretense of national security and privacy, two things our comically corrupt, do-nothing Congress has repeatedly demonstrated in vivid detail they don’t have any genuine interest in.

TikTok creators seem to understand this better than the gerontocracy or the U.S. tech press:

@pearlmania500

Get ready with me as we get silenced by congress #tiktokban #congress #sotu #senate #pearlmania500 #rant #action #netflix #helldivers2 you know why they are doing this

♬ original sound – Pearlmania500

None of this is to say that TikTok doesn’t actually pose some privacy or national security problems.

But if Congress were really serious about privacy, they’d pass a privacy law or regulate data brokers.

If Congress were serious about national security, they’d meaningfully fight corruption, and certainly wouldn’t support a multi-indictment facing authoritarian NYC real estate con man with a fourth-grade reading level for fucking President.

If Congress were serious about combating propaganda (foreign, domestic, corporate, or otherwise) they’d impose more meaningful updated education standards, fight harmful consolidation in local TV broadcast “news,” and protect and finance academic and journalistic institutions under relentless assault by authoritarians, AI-wielding hedge fund bozos, and incompetent brunchlords.

So when Congress pops up to claim it’s taking aim at a single popular app because it’s suddenly super concerned about consumer privacy, propaganda, and national security, skeptics are right to steeply arch an eyebrow. You realize we can see your voting histories and policy priorities, right?

Xenophobia, Protectionism and Information Warfare

The GOP motivation for a TikTok ban has long been obvious: they believe TikTok’s growing ad revenues technically belong, by divine right, to white-owned U.S. companies. But the GOP also sees TikTok as an existential threat to their ever-evolving online propaganda efforts, which have become a strategic cornerstone of an increasingly extremist, authoritarian party whose policies are broadly unpopular.

The GOP is fine with rampant privacy abuses and propaganda — provided they’re the ones violating privacy or slinging political propaganda. You’ll recall Trump’s big original fix for the “TikTok problem” (before a right wing investor in TikTok recently changed his mind, for now) was a cronyistic transfer of ownership of TikTok to his Republican friends at Walmart and Oracle.

Former Trump Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and his Saudi-funded Liberty Strategic Capital is already hard at work putting investors together to buy the app. If the GOP (or a proxy) manages to buy TikTok, they’ll engage in every last abuse they’ve accused the Chinese government of. TikTok will be converted, like Twitter, into a right wing surveillance and propaganda echoplex, where race-baiting authoritarian propaganda is not only unmoderated, but encouraged.

All under the pretense of “protecting free speech,” “antitrust reform,” or whatever latest flimsy pretense authoritarians are currently using to convince a gullible and lazy U.S. press that they’re operating in good faith.

Why Democrats would support any of this remains an open question. The ban would likely aid GOP propaganda efforts, piss off young voters, and advertise the party (which had actually been faster to embrace TikTok than the GOP) as woefully out of touch. All while not actually protecting consumer privacy or national security in any meaningful way. And creating entirely new problems.

Democratic support for a ban seems largely motivated by lobbying pressure from Facebook/Meta, which has been using the same knobs the GOP and telecom industry used to destroy net neutrality to seed little moral panics around DC for several years. Facebook/Meta is, if it’s not clear, exclusively interested in having the government destroy a competitor it hasn’t been able to out-innovate.

National security, consumer privacy, or good faith worries about propaganda don’t enter into it.

Some Democratic Reps, like Ro Khanna, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sara Jacobs seem to understand the trap, keeping the focus on a need for a federal privacy law that reins in the privacy and surveillance abuses of all companies that do business in the U.S., foreign or domestic. Some senators, like Ron Wyden, have worked hard to ensure equal attention is paid toward rampant data broker abuses.

But 155 House Democrats voted for the ban, either because they’re corrupt, or they have absolutely no idea how any of this actually works. Pissing off your constituents by ruining an app used by 150+ million (mostly young) Americans during an election season is certainly a choice, especially given negligible constituent support–and growing evidence it likely creates more problems than it professes to solve.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , , ,

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 “A TikTok Ban Is A Pointless Political Turd For Democrats”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
69 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

“None of this is to say that TikTok doesn’t actually pose some privacy or national security problems.”

points at all of the stories where various databases were abused by gov employees to get dates, stalk ex’s, and a slew of other shitty things

The talking point fed to Scripps today was that TikTok could take control of all the phones and do… something.
I understand that this is the shittiest congress ever but they burned any credibility they might have had with all of the claims about things that gasp were fucking lies, detached from reality, meth fueled psychosis.

They could
They might
We think (HA!!)

Provide actual factual information or just fucking stop.
Its not like exposing the alleged backdoors would be a bad thing, but this jingoistic stream of babble that somehow China might force disinformation onto the platform rings really fucking hollow when we look at the soundbites coming out of Congress.

Evidence, we shouldn’t have to demand it be provided but seriously you’ve ruined any hope of us believing you… You could tell me the sky is blue and I would look out the fucking window to check with how often absolute bullshit comes from the hallowed halls of Congress.

And the tik tok video points out the absurdity of they can;t do shit other than threaten to shut down the country, lie on tv, and go on fucking vacation while the nation burns but they all showed up to stop tik tok…

TikTok matters more to Congress than kids not being fed, women dying b/c they can;t get health care, doing anything other than scream soundbites about the border… there is a long list of shit that is much more important and you old fucks are losing your shit over an app & imagining somehow the CCP can turn every phone its installed on into an ICBM for a first strike.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

The author is on to something. Congress more than likely wants to take from another company and give to those which are happy to oblige whatever surveillance request they make of them.

They’re only angry about TikTok not giving the data it collects to them.

Kintic Gothic says:

Stop distracting me.

Hey, stop it, with all this TikTok ban stuff, I’ve got popcorn to make for the Trademark Lawsuit that they’ve probably ByteDanced their way into…

They named their LLM Chatbot “LEGO”

[link] (https://arxiv.org/html/2401.06071v2)

Who at Bytedance though that name would be a good idea? Or for that matter decided to turn the consumer confusion up to 11 by using images that directly invoke lego groups products?

This could result in TikTok being sold off faster than any law.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Kinetic Gothic says:

Re: Re:

This would work better if they wern’t deliberately trying to invoke LEGO group’s products. The samples in the Arxiv use a Lego minifigure as a user icon, and a AI image of a brick built llama as the chatbot icon. The second example of the chatbot in use even has the chatbot describing what appears to be a promotional image from the Lego Movie, and they refer to the AI as a “LEGO Model” which is the official term for Lego sets, it seems they’re quite aware of what they’re doing, and trying to associate themselves.

Also it’s not like “Nemo” originated with Disney, they way “Lego” did with the toy company.

Ethin Probst (profile) says:

If this actually passed, I wonder if, for the first time in American History, we’ll see vote counts soo low that nobody will be able to decide who won in elections because the young user base of nearly 200 million people just refuses to vote at all? (I’m uncertain how many of that user base is eligible to vote, but stick with me here.) If that happens, I guarantee the entire voting process would be fucked. And it would be hilarious to see what would happen if we didn’t have enough votes to elect anyone because there just weren’t enough voters….

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
31Bob (profile) says:

Re:

I get the protest, but at the same time, this ain’t the fucking time for that horse shit. They will enter the “find out” stage if they manage to fuck up and get Mango Unchained re-elected to POTUS.

And they will deserve it, because of an abysmally stupid decision.

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

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re:

That’s not how the voting system works. It doesn’t matter how many people don’t vote, all that matters is how many do vote and who they vote for(well, generally speaking).

If every single democrat voter abstained from voting in protest all they’d be doing is handing the presidency to Trump, and as protests go ‘You voted in favor of a ban on TikTok, just for that I’ll hand the reigns over to the person who started this whole TikTok hysteria!’ would truly be a special brand of stupid spite.

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

One other point I haven’t seen in this, more apparent as one living outside the US, is that the world is not China and not-China. American social media and services reach across the world routing everyone’s data through American free-for-all collection. That hasn’t gone without criticism. Whenever the EU implements some restriction or regulation in this regard, with far lesser consequences even when the policy is bad, the American companies are never happy. But ByteDance is treated as unreasonable for not wanting to sell off their entire entity to a foreign country.

Really I hate TikTok passionately. I avoid using it as much as I can. I hate how addicting it tries to be, hate its moderation standards, hate how easy misinformation spreads. I generally think it’s bad for society. Congress making me side with TikTok in this fight is an impressive feat.

Samuel Abram (profile) says:

Re: I concur.

Really I hate TikTok passionately. I avoid using it as much as I can. I hate how addicting it tries to be, hate its moderation standards, hate how easy misinformation spreads. I generally think it’s bad for society. Congress making me side with TikTok in this fight is an impressive feat.

I didn’t even start a TikTok account. But banning it is probably the dumbest move possible and of course that’s what Congress did.

T.L. (profile) says:

One of the U.S.’s fellow member states of the Five Eyes alliance thinks that what the U.S. is doing is a bad idea. Australian PM Anthony Albanese has come out against exiling TikTok from that country. When one of our diplomatic allies isn’t convinced that a ban will solve anything, even with lobbying attempts down under by people like FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr, that’s when you know this is a moral panic designed to avoid doing anything about protecting user data more broadly.

ByteDance/TikTok will have a lot of evidence of unfair treatment by the U.S. government, BTW, given our social media platforms do many of the same things TikTok is accused of and rarely get penalized for if the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act becomes law and they sue.

The onus is on the government to prove their security risk claims justify such a heavy-handed approach when less restrictive measures exist, and given that First Amendment law applies an overbroadness standard when examining laws that restrict too much speech (regardless of the content and viewpoints expressed), this bill may well suffer the same fate as Trump’s executive order and the Montana ban, although the latter also targeted specific content. Though even here, the PAFACA’s co-author Mike Gallagher has expressed objections to content on the platform relating to the Gaza war: in a “Free Press” op-ed in November, one of the reasons he believes TikTok should be banned is because he believes they “promoted” pro-Palestinian content (read: content that organically went viral), support he wrongly believed equates to support for Hamas (Jonathan Greenblatt of the Anti-Defamation League has expressed similar sentiments, and at least one pro-Israel group commended the House for passing the bill), thus adding more questions about the bill’s legality, since the First Amendment explicitly prohibits content-based restrictions.

Samuel Abram (profile) says:

Re:

Though even here, the PAFACA’s co-author Mike Gallagher has expressed objections to content on the platform relating to the Gaza war: in a “Free Press” op-ed in November, one of the reasons he believes TikTok should be banned is because he believes they “promoted” pro-Palestinian content (read: content that organically went viral), support he wrongly believed equates to support for Hamas (Jonathan Greenblatt of the Anti-Defamation League has expressed similar sentiments, and at least one pro-Israel group commended the House for passing the bill), thus adding more questions about the bill’s legality, since the First Amendment explicitly prohibits content-based restrictions.

Given Kacsmaryk, the Fifth Circus, and the Silly Clowns Of The United States who assault the constitution as often as we breathe air, even legal precedents we take for granted such as “The First Amendment is Free Speech” seems to be subject to the whims of far-right extremist legislators disguised as judges.

T.L. (profile) says:

Re: Re:

The Fifth Circuit is royally bad at case law of all kinds (including those relating to the 1A), but the Supreme Court’s current 6-3 conservative majority hasn’t changed much when it comes to First Amendment law since Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney-Barrett were each appointed, and has been mostly a direct contrast to the Fifth Circuit in that regard. Just a few examples:
– In 2021, they ruled a Pennsylvania high school violated the 1A rights of a student who was given a one-year suspension from cheerleading after posting an angry, profanity-laced Snapchat message off-campus after she failed to make the varsity cheerleading squad.
– In 2022, they unanimously ruled that the Boston city government, which has a program that allows individual groups to have their flags flown outside City Hall, violated a Christian group’s 1A rights when it denied their request to raise a Christian flag over City Hall (presumably on the belief that it would be considered a government promotion of a religion perceived to be in violation of the 1A’s freedom of religion clause).
– In 2023, the court refused to hear a challenge to Florida’s drag show ban that a lower district court found unconstitutional under 1A grounds. (You’d think given the right’s culture war against the LGBTQ+ community, they’d take it up and the right-wing justices would uphold it, but that didn’t happen; same for a non-1A case they also refused to take regarding a challenge to a district court ruling overturning a West Virginia transgender student’s ban from a middle school girl’s track team.)

The First Amendment is probably the only form of case law where the SC’s conservative justices don’t guided by ideology or are wild cards on. (Granted they screwed up with the case regarding the Colorado baker who wanted to deny business from LGBTQ+ customers on “religious freedom” grounds, since the baker’s business hadn’t opened yet and there were no LGBTQ+ customers who wanted her to make wedding cakes for them, but that’s the only 1A case under the current composition that I can think of where they fumbled.)

Samuel Abram (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Fair enough.

The First Amendment is probably the only form of case law where the SC’s conservative justices don’t guided by ideology or are wild cards on.

Or Native American tribal rights, where four out of nine justices (i.e. Sotomayor, Jackson, Kagan, and Gorsuch (yes, Gorsuch. He’s a stopped clock on this issue)) are in favor of upholding their rights.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re:

There was a super secret intelligence briefing, that they don’t dare tell us anything about, but its really serious and we should trust the people who have proven themselves to be untrustworthy.

This is the same intelligence apparatus that did deep dives on grannies who chalked on the sidewalk outside a BOA branch, missed the guy who pretty much publicly posted how and when he was going to shoot up the Jews, WMDs in Iraq, Steele Dossier, The lying motherfucker who said Biden was the biggest crime lord on the planet, missed what Snowden was doing, fed classified information to a guy who posted it on Discord for clout, let me know how many more I have to recall before we can finally ask the important question…

This little bitch has been crying wolf over things over and over and over and there hasn’t been a single fucking wolf sighted since we drove them extinct to please cattle ranchers… maybe we need to stop letting them cry wolf until they cough up some actual evidence because we can not trust them.

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

T.L. (profile) says:

Re:

I don’t buy that logic. If they did, most if not the entire GOP caucus would have fallen in line with Trump’s newfound anti-ban position (tied to Susquehanna International head Jeff Yass’ willingness to donate to his campaign and Trump’s grudge with American social media firms that banned him after 1/6, the latter being the reason he posts exclusively on Truth Social, even after Facebook/YouTube/xTwitter restored his accounts) during the House vote. Nobody would buy a deflection anyway, since only 50 House Dems and 15 House GOPers voted against the bill.

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

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Rocky says:

Re:

Oh, can you point to anyone saying they are cool with CCP ownership? Just on example?

Perhaps you totally missed the whole debate about how the constitutionality of a forced sale is questionable? And how some rich fuckers are already lining up investors to buy up TikTok at a fire-sale price?

Plus, if the US Government owned 1% of a social media company it could likely be considered a state actor with some very interesting consequences. That would make anyone who understands the basics of the Constitution grab a sack of popcorn and watch fireworks go off that’ll rival the sun in brightness. The only ones that would loose their collective shit are the politicians when they finally realize how much of that shit they are paddling around in.

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

Re: Re:

It’s important to separate the issue behind the forced sale provision. Forcing a sale is technically legal in of itself; the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States does this often (and if the CFIUS had the sole say in requesting ByteDance to divest in 2020, and Trump hadn’t interfered by announcing/issuing his unconstitutional TikTok ban/divestment EO and attempting to sell minority shares to campaign donors Oracle and Walmart, we wouldn’t be in this mess now). However, because TikTok is a communications platform considered to be protected by the First Amendment, the government can’t use the threat of a ban to force the sale, since that would suppress speech (of ~150-170 million users) too broadly.

A court could strike down most of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary-Controlled Applications Act, while narrowing the divestiture order portion to remove the ban provision (and possibly modifying the 165-180-day sale clock to allow more time for ByteDance to do proper due diligence).

Even then, there’s no guarantee ByteDance would sell to an American buyer; they could just as easily sell the shares held by its founders, Chinese investors and employees based in China to Japanese-based multibillion dollar investment firm Softbank for all we know, and given how high TikTok’s reported valuation is (~$80 billion), a spinout (possibly in a manner similar to the Reverse Morris Trust concept, e.g., the way Warner Bros. Discovery was formed when WarnerMedia spun out of AT&T and merged with Discovery Inc.) would be the only viable way to divest, especially since the TikTok unit is technically incorporated in part in the U.S. anyway.

ECA (profile) says:

Re: Re: we ARNT a democracy

Democracy= an UNEDITED CHAT/FORUM site, with trolls, Porn, adverts, SPAM, and Anything Crazy that can be said, BEING SAID.
UnEDITED, UnSorted.
And 1 reason the only democracy we have IS ELECTIONS. And 90% of us, dont even look up the history of the person we VOTE FOR.

The internet needs a little Moderation. If only to change HOW 1 person may Express themselves.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Articles and statements of faith do not address current reality.

And the reality is this: current authcap regimes, both US-propped or otherwise, are more successful than the US or Europe in “meeting the people’s demands”.

Like Hollywood churning out sequels, people WILL emulate what works.

No one gives a shit about the future, and that will come to doom us all.

Violet Aubergine (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

That’s why so many people in America and EU are rushing to live in places like China, Russia, Hungary or Singapore. Oh wait, nobody is rushing to live there and people living there would love to leave. If those nations were providing so well for their people refugees would want to flee to them but they aren’t.

Plenty of people care about the future. The problem is that the interests of capitalism is all about quarterly returns so planning for the future is impossible under such stupidity because the people with their hands on the levers of power don’t want change to disrupt the flow of profits to their portfolios even for a single quarter. Capitalists want you to give up, to feel isolated because that’s how they win. Don’t buy into their narrative and help them win.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

If those nations were providing so well for their people refugees would want to flee to them but they aren’t.

The topic of immigration is super complicated and would be its own series of posts, if not its own series of lessons.

But people, at least to me, don’t seem to care as long as the base needs are met. Food, water, shelter and bills getting paid. And a shitton of propaganda and social conditioning can stretch that sort of manufactured “goodwill” for quite a while.

Also of note: the vague feeling that the government is “doing something” rather than actually passing solid laws that become the foundation for long-term happiness and growth that isn’t about that fucking line.

Need I remind you that at least 60% of Singaporeans keep voting for the same fucking party that dragged them into the messes of the current age? Or that the majority of Chinese civilians, despite what non-Chinese news souuces say (yes, this also includes the Qatari mouthpiece known as Al-Jazeera and Indian sources), would still “serve” in the PLA given enough propaganda and time?

Capitalists want you to give up, to feel isolated because that’s how they win. Don’t buy into their narrative and help them win.

And recognizing that there is a massive resistance to wanting a better future is the first step. People (and politicians) realize that democracy is weaker than authcap forms of governance, but they also don’t care that leaving power in the hands of the few is the perfect recipe for disaster.

After all, 74 million Americans “want” the fucking Confederate States back.

Add Your Comment

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

Have a Techdirt 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?

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

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...