When Viral Advocacy Fails: TikTok’s Call Flood To Congress Backfires

from the swipe-here-to-call-congress dept

Flooding Congress with phone calls can work wonders to stop bad bills at times. The SOPA blackout 12 years ago was one of the most effective advocacy campaigns in history. Coincidentally, I was at the Capitol that day, and wandering the halls between meetings, hearing phones ringing non-stop was amazing.

However, that process was carefully planned out over weeks, with sites pushing a very clear message of why internet users should call Congress and complain about the terrible copyright laws that were being pushed.

It appears that TikTok may have taken the wrong lesson from all that and assumed that simply flooding Congress with calls is an effective strategy. It can be, but you have to equip callers with a basic understanding of what it is that they’re calling for and why. And maybe it doesn’t make sense to do it on a bill built off the (mostly false) belief that your app is controlling the minds of gullible American voters.

On Thursday, TikTok put up a pop-up on all US users’ screens when they went to get their daily fill of random videos:

Image

“Stop a TikTok shutdown!” it yells, claiming that “Congress is planning a total ban of TikTok. Speak up now — before your government strips 170 million Americans of their Constitutional right to free expression.”

The bill in question is stupid. It’s a fear-mongering (bipartisan) bunch of grandstanding nonsense. It doesn’t technically “ban” TikTok, but would directly require ByteDance to divest its ownership in the company. If ByteDance does not do so, then it is a ban (despite the bill’s sponsors insisting it’s not). It does seem like a pretty clear bill of attainder, targeting a single company, TikTok, out of yet another fear-mongering moral panic that a successful internet company coming out of China must be evil.

As we’ve been saying for years now, if the fear is about the privacy of American users of the platform, Congress could pass a comprehensive privacy bill. They just choose not to do so. Instead, they play up a silly culture war, which will only lead to even more retribution for American apps outside the US. Indeed, expect to see other countries passing similar bills demanding that US companies divest from successful apps in their countries, as a result of this stupid bill.

And, on top of that, the bill is almost certainly a First Amendment violation, as has been found during previous attempts to effectively ban TikTok, none of which have gone well in court.

TikTok’s gambit apparently worked in terms of getting people to call. But it didn’t always effectively get the message out:

TikTok users flooded some congressional offices with dozens of calls. Results were mixed: Some staffers dismissed the callers as uninformed, or as pranksters, or as “teenagers and old people saying they spend their whole day on the app.”

And, look, when you have a bunch of overly anxious politicians who think that TikTok is like Chinese mind control over American brains (it’s not, but that’s what they seem to think), it’s not difficult to see how telling TikTok users to call Congress could drive those politicians to think this is even more evidence of why the bill is needed, especially when there is a flood of calls from unsophisticated constituents talking about how they “spend their whole day on the app.”

And that seems to have been the case.

House Energy and Commerce Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) said if anything, TikTok’s orchestrated calling campaign “only exposed the degree in which TikTok can manipulate and target a message.”

And thus it’s no surprise that the committee voted 50 to 0 to advance the bill:

Lawmakers on the Energy and Commerce Committee, which greenlit the bill Thursday afternoon after months of negotiations, said the intent was not to get rid of TikTok, but to prevent a Chinese company from having access to large troves of American data.  The committee voted 50-0 to advance the bill to the full House or Representatives.

Again, it’s a painfully stupid and reactionary bill, but this campaign seemed pretty mistargeted. There was a way in which TikTok could have more effectively leveraged its large user base to talk about the problems and risks of such a bill. But just sending them in to scream at Congress was perhaps not the best approach given the specific animus behind this bill.

Filed Under: , , , , ,
Companies: tiktok

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 “When Viral Advocacy Fails: TikTok’s Call Flood To Congress Backfires”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
74 Comments
James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re:

I am struggling to understand this ‘zinger’. 50-0 means bipartisan support, and the GOP platform is explicitly ban tiktok or force it to divest to a US company who could then be controlled by Social Media content restrictions the rest of the GOP are flooding the courts with.

Like I get GOP = Unsophisticated constituents, I suppose Im not drawing a connection between the bipartisan flood of calls, the 50-0 result, and the idea the GOP mishandled or wasn’t used to the (earned) stereotype of its voters.

James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Try it a different way:

Setup: “a flood of calls from unsophisticated voters trying to shut down a resolution helped the GOP pass that resolution”

Punchline: “You’d think the GOP was used to this.”

They are. Thats how they keep winning despite having lower popular support when running on policy. They expect unsophisticated voters to react emotionally.

Its not a joke, its not a punchline. Its structured to dunk on the GOP, but it isn’t a dunk. Its a pat on the back.

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

Besides the First Amendment nightmare this poses, the bill’s authors have no idea how TikTok would be able to comply with a divestiture. TikTok is too large to be bought by any single company, with a valuation of $80 billion, and the only ones based in the U.S. who could possibly afford it are Meta, Google and Musk, raising antitrust issues; it’s not clear whether a spinoff from ByteDance would suffice (they failed to realize the TikTok unit is incorporated in the U.S., Singapore and the Cayman Islands); and Chinese regulators would stymie any forced divestiture. It also raises competition concerns by eliminating a competitor to the three biggest social media companies, meaning lawmakers would have no right to complain about their market dominance because they enabled Meta, X/Twitter and YouTube/Google to hog market share.

Banning it opens the door to breaking the Internet, giving China and other autocratic countries justification to censor platforms, hurting the same U.S. companies that would benefit. China could also retaliate against our economy, pushing our companies (like Apple and GM) out. It would also risk America falls to fascism by angering young voters to not show up in November, handing the country to Trump and MAGA.

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

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Joke’s on you, China, Russia, and their hostages/vassals are already fucking doing it.

China’s already abusing capitalism to get what it wants and skirting US bans on chip tech, Russia still is able to run cyberwarfare and disinfo attacks despite losing a shooting war in Ukraine, and the rest of the world? Yeah, they’re realizing the American way of doing things only benefit the US and no one else.

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

Anonymous Coward says:

TikTok is like Chinese mind control over American brains (it’s not, but that’s what they seem to think)

Site owner, why do you support confusing and exploiting vulnerable children and young people online by bad actors like the Chinese Communist Party and the gender medicine industry?

Just curious.

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

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

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

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

No, as said many times before, I’m an American Patriot and a Christian supremacist who believes only productive and interesting foreigners (who are preferably well-trained and well-off) should be allowed into the U.S.

Any uninvited migrants caught entering illegally or trying to apply for asylum should be deported immediately, or possibly be sent to work camps.

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

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7

it’s funny cuase your so stupid that you revealed yourself and you have no useful argument you already are xenophobic and a nazi pretending to be Christian and thanks for telling us that your a lowlife who shouldn’t be on the internet 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

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

Rick OShea says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Them ferners really scare the shit outta ya hey.
Not ta mention they can stand right in front of ya and call ya a scum-suckin bigot and winey pussy, right to your face, and you can’t punch’em out or shoot’em cuz ya didnt understand a single word of what they said. That’s gotta hurt!
Plan on gettin rid of all things scary are ya? Perhaps you should wait until yer, like, you know, 12 or so, first.

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

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

So…

In Arkansas, they’re forced children to work in conditions adults don’t even dare work in. Mostly migrant children, mind, but OSHA applies to everyone equally. No exceptions.

Your brazen silence on this is astounding, considering that eventually, American children will be forced to work in unsafe conditions.

Again, this happened in Arkansas. In a meatpacking plant. Not as a cashier or a shelf stocker or even a newspaper delivery person, but in a meatpacking plant.

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

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

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Well for the issue is about following our own laws. Unless you believe that the government should be above the law and constitution?

Secondly the issues against Tiktok have nothing to do with the harm to children, only who is doing the harm.

Third, nothing stops tne “new” tiktok from doing all the same things and then selling that data to China.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Site owner, why do you support confusing and exploiting vulnerable children and young people online by bad actors like the Chinese Communist Party and the gender medicine industry?*

Dafuck are you asking him for?

Why don’t you ask the parents of those ‘vulnerable exploited children’ who continue to allow access while knowing full well of the risks?

Or better yet, report the parents to CPS since everyone seems to know the ‘extreme risks’ except them…

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

Benjamin Jay Barber says:

Mike Masnick gaslighting again

MR. “the first amendment isn’t a balancing test” is gaslighting us again.

Congress could pass a comprehensive privacy bill. They just choose not to do so.

No they couldn’t because it would be a content based restriction of speech with no historical analogues.

Carpenter v. US, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2216 – Supreme Court 2018

We have previously held that “a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.” Smith, 442 U.S., at 743-744, 99 S.Ct. 2577. That remains true “even if the information is revealed on the assumption that it will be used only for a limited purpose.” United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 443, 96 S.Ct. 1619, 48 L.Ed.2d 71 (1976).

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

Benjamin Jay Barber says:

Re: Re:

So you agree that republicans and congress are going against the law and constitution anything against Tiktok.

I think that it violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment, because they are discriminating on the basis of nationality, who can own what companies.

I have not read the text of the bill, and as long as the bill does not reference the content or viewpoint of speech, its probably a content neutral law subject to intermediate scrutiny. However It’s also likely that the content neutral law was written, with the animus of speech made with specific viewpoints friendly to the CCCP so it would probably fail intermediate scrutiny.

Strawb (profile) says:

Re:

I can’t tell if you’re a liar or a moron. Carpenter v. US was about privacy of historical cell site location information, and whether or not government violated the fourth amendment if they accessed this information without a warrant.

It has fuck all to do with whether or not people have a legitimate expectation of privacy in relation to data that private companies collect.

Do you just expect all of us to take your source at face value and not look it up ourselves?

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

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

Matthew M Bennett says:

CCP is evil

An enemy of the US controlling a Social media network is bad, mmm’kay?

If you thought it was bad having the US gov tell FB, Twitter, et al who to censor (which you claim didn’t happen, but it did) was bad (it was, very) just imagine when the CCP decided to do it. Or just “visibility filter” one party over the other.

This really isn’t complicated. Even most of the democratic politicians agree the whole thing is awful, often citing classified info. But sure, tell them all they have no idea what they’re talking about.

Anonymous Coward says:

here me out

or, just maybe, the vote was predetermined prior to them presenting this legislation which is how it was fast tracked. They of course got a chance to lie and mislead people and try to gaslight some people into thinking they voted for the ban because of the angry calls from citizens.

That’s how it’s supposed to work, we call, you listen; dismissing it is just par for the course.

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

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the Techdirt Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

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...