TikTok bunfight reveals age and values divide
• Some users see the Chinese-owned app as a triumph for free speech and grassroots reporting
Fallout from the latest US versus TikTok skirmish is dividing a nation (and international observers), not left to right as with so many other issues but rather young and old, revealing vast chasms in personal priorities, news consumption, technical know-how and values.
Last week the US House of Representatives passed a bill which, if carried through the next legislative hurdles, would force ByteDance, owner of the TikTok app, to divest its US assets or face a national ban. The passing of the bill has been hailed as a bipartisan blowout, sailing through 352:65 in favour. It really represents the biggest threat to the controversial and popular app since Trump first dumped on it back in 2020 — which, funnily enough, was also a big election year.
While it is not at all clear whether the bill will enjoy the same strong support as it moves to the US Senate, its resolute passing raises some important questions about app permissions and the font of our fears therein. Reuters, citing a committee aide, reports that US “national security officials will hold a closed-door briefing” today “for senators on the commerce and intelligence committees on threats posed by [the] Chinese-owned short video app”.
It is not the only target of this cohort, the news service continues: “The measure is the latest in a series of moves in Washington to respond to US national security concerns about China, from connected vehicles to advanced artificial intelligence chips to cranes at US ports.”
Previous attempts to ban TikTok in the US have largely fizzled out or been defeated on appeal. The main concerns of legislators, then and now, seem to coalesce along two lines. That the Chinese government may lean on ByteDance to extract sensitive data about the 170million or so US users, including information of significance from public servant users. Or, that TikTok might be used to influence US users, swaying hearts and minds in this NewAge Cold War.
Let’s tackle the second one first. Propaganda tends to be subtle and slippery. Banning a single newspaper may be a blow to a revolutionary group’s aspirations for its communications, but it is rarely the death of it, especially today in our highly networked world. Additionally, this argument assumes the propaganda is a one-way stream, and that it will find its marks, or those marks won’t congregate elsewhere. TikTok users seem to find this claim particularly funny, saying if TikTok is trying to influence them it’s only pushed them towards crafting and “smutty books about fairies” so far.
The latter is a tongue-incheek reference to “BookTok”, an informal community of readers, writers and reviewers that has formed via the app and is said to be encouraging more book readers and contributing to the success of certain fiction franchises ... including the spicier fantasy ones. Is that the influence US legislators are riled up about?
If TikTok is serving a proChina campaign it’s either slow burn or I am not the target. However, there is evidence that users of the app are polarised on one hot button political matter: Israel versus Palestine, with some studies suggesting proPalestine content has far wider reach on the app.
Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of Anti-Defamation League —a group that campaigns against anti-Semitism online and has been criticised for a Zionist slant
previously cautioned that TikTok was promoting proPalestinian content disproportionately. But here again, the root of this observation is hard to grasp as views are informed by a complex algorithm accounting for not just what content is out there but how that content maps to your interests, age, contacts, actions — and, yes, geography.
Greenblatt also points out that the youth — two-thirds of TikTok users are between 18 and 34 — treat the app like a 24-hour news source. He’s not wrong. All of the influential users discussing this issue on the app this week say they get their news primarily from TikTok, but they see it as a triumph for free speech and grassroots reporting, something to be feared by the “expired retirement-home patients” in charge, as one TikToker bitingly described her legislators.
Is that an ageist take? Yes. But it is undeniable that the people legislating here are not its users, nor their parents. I want to wave this red flag now
— this is going to be a political fault line of increasing magnitude in the US (and here in SA). Back on course though...
TikTok is not taking the fight laying down. Not only has it denied that it will ever hand data to the Chinese government, it is actively helping users make their dissent heard. This includes a push notification in-app encouraging US users to call their representatives, which was taken up so readily that users reportedly overwhelmed the phone lines. TikTok’s official response to complaints from US representatives on this tactic: “Why are members of congress complaining about hearing from their constituents? Respectfully, isn’t that their job?”
All of this still leaves the question of the practicality and enforceability of the ban, and whether the focus on TikTok is fair given the personal data social media and other apps collect. App stores do apply regional availability and other such controls, of course. So, as a first step Apple and Google could be compelled to remove TikTok from app stores for US users. Internet service providers can also block access, blacklisting specific IP addresses. There are workarounds, but such actions would reduce TikTok’s US user base. Not everyone has the tech know-how or will to circumvent such measures.
Finally, is invasion of privacy only an issue if foreign ownership is involved, or do all our apps need to be reexamined with permissions in mind? News out of Brussels yesterday is that Meta Platforms has offered to slash its proposed monthly subscription fee for the ad-free version of its service, which launched for European users in November. The subscription itself is an accommodation to comply with the Digital Markets Act, which cracked down on ad personalisation through data harvesting.
The initial fee tabled was pretty dear, so it’s possible this counter-offer was priced in from the get-go, but I’m still counting it as a win for EU privacy laws. This and the US bunfight shows we can push big tech from all nations towards better behaviour and more transparent outcomes, slowly, painfully, incrementally.