TikTok Has Been Restricted: A Necessary Bill or Gratuitous Grafting?

The ban on TikTok has passed through Congress- but is the Act merely a solution to the TikTok problem or part of political shift to bureaucratic despotism?

The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA) has been passed. With the House of Representatives voting 352-65 in favour, the act is now on its way to the Senate. The act will also need to be signed by the President in order to be enforced. Given that 2024 is an election year where Trump and Biden are competing to take Office, this issue is particularly contentious. Whether the bill gets delayed or expedited, the competing interests of political parties will tug it in one direction or another.

TikTok’s userbase is around one billion globally with over 150 million of those users based in the USA. The PAFACA act gives ByteDance 165 days to divest from TikTok, or the app would be banned from US app stores. The bill grants the Commerce Department of the US. broad authority, enabling them to remove TikTok from app stores or force a sale, something other government authorities have attempted before. As for a potential sale, there aren’t a lot of competitors that can chuck a $268 billion investment into acquiring it. TikTok called the House vote and bill a "predetermined outcome" to ban the app, claiming it violates free expression rights. Flooding lawmakers’ offices with calls, TikTok users are decrying the bill that would prevent their access to the app.

To be blunt, I support some version of the TikTok ban. While initially, the TikTok ban fell within the shape of the RESTRICT Act, the bill on its way to the senate is a different Act with some shared implications. This Act allows "foreign adversary controlled application” to be banned by the US President and relevant provisions. Though this is clearly relevant, it seems to go beyond the pale, giving the President serious power when it comes to these social media platforms. As a young person myself, I see the value in short-form content, for example, in exposing real life scenarios in ways that mainstream journalism cannot. As well as that, it’s a platform for people to express creative projects and pursue business prospects. Still, TikTok must be dealt with. It’s highly addictive, with a study by the University of Trinidad and Tobago concluding that although the majority of users (68.2%) in its sample were classified as having “no risk” of TikTok addiction, 25.4% of them were seen as being at “low risk,” and 6.4% as being “at-risk.”

What’s more pressing perhaps is the company behind the app: ByteDance. They are a Big Tech company with strong ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Subject to a national security law, the company is required to share data with Chinese officials. The company’s vice president serves as the CCP Committee Secretary. The company is also partially owned by the Chinese state, through a ‘golden share’ investment, which gives them the ability to outvote other shareholders. This reveals a conflict of interest, and may change how TikTok is used on the global population. In one case, social media influencers pushing propaganda, who receive the bulk of attention on TikTok for their content. A research report from Miburo, a firm analyzing foreign disinformation operations, found that “At least 200 influencers with connections to the Chinese government or its state media are operating in 38 different languages." Taking a leg up on Russian bots, it would appear the Chinese government is leveraging actual personalities to push their agenda, as many of these influencers promote everything from tourist attractions in Mainland China, to anti-Taiwan and anti-Ukraine messaging straight from the CCP’s state-controlled media. There is a long and extensive history of TikTok’s data privacy violations which I explore in detail in a letter from last year.

During a U.S. congressional hearing, TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew faced intense scrutiny from lawmakers over concerns about potential Chinese influence through the app and its impact on children's mental health. Despite Chew's assurances of data security, including a $1.5 billion investment in "Project Texas" to isolate U.S. user data, lawmakers remained unconvinced, highlighting the app's role in promoting harmful content to children and questioning its ties to the Chinese government. Bipartisan momentum grew for a national ban, with allegations of ByteDance spying on Americans and the company's failure to implement new privacy safeguards. Chew's defense that TikTok, independent of Chinese government interference, was met with skepticism, reflecting the broader U.S.-China tensions and the ongoing debate over digital sovereignty and the manipulation of technology for profit over child safety.

ByteDance has been busy lobbying with American politicians, influencing politicians like Kellyane Conway to defend TikTok at Capitol Hill.

Donald Trump, who tried to ban TikTok as president, now opposes the House bill, claiming it would benefit Facebook/Meta, partly fueled by his animosity toward Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, whom he blames for his 2020 election loss. Trump's stance may also be influenced by lobbying efforts from former aides and advisers with ties to GOP billionaire Jeff Yass, who has a significant stake in ByteDance, TikTok's parent company. Figures like Kellyanne Conway and David Urban, who have financial ties to Yass or ByteDance, have reportedly pitched Trump on TikTok's effectiveness as a campaign tool and the popularity of the app among his supporters.

Most House Republicans, including staunch Trump supporters like Elise Stefanik, Lauren Boebert, and Byron Donalds, voted in favor of the bill despite Trump's opposition. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz, also Republican, aligned with Trump's stance and voted against the bill, citing concerns about unintended consequences and potential overreach.

Most House Democrats supported the bill, with Hakeem Jeffries, the House Democratic leader, welcoming the move to address potential security risks from TikTok. Barbara Lee, a progressive Democrat, has opposed the bill, arguing for comprehensive data privacy protections across all social media platforms rather than targeting TikTok specifically. Given the Democratic voter’s tendency to be younger, there is also a clear concern that a TikTok ban could alienate that group.

The Senate's position on the TikTok bill remains uncertain. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has stated that he will consult with relevant committee chairs to determine the bill's path. Elizabeth Warren has expressed concerns about the constitutionality of specifically targeting TikTok and have advocated for broader data privacy regulations. Senate Intelligence Committee leaders from both parties, Mark Warner (Democrat) and Marco Rubio (Republican), have expressed support for the bill and a willingness to work together to advance it.

As we look toward the upcoming elections this year, it’s clear that TikTok is a major element of modern politics. We have to consider the impact of such legislation on our digital freedoms and privacy. While it is crucial to protect citizens, especially young ones from potential threats, there is very much a threat of internal government overreach. In other words, the TikTok ban is a good idea packaged inside a highly questionable bill.