Three related questions are considered in Paul Jacob’s recent post, “TikTok Smoke But No Gun?” (Paul’s response to my present comments is below.)
● Whether TikTok is a CCP weapon. Paul sees smoke but “no smoking gun.”
● Whether the American government should take action against TikTok, which in my own view is demonstrably a weapon of the Chinese Communist Party.
● Whether massively attacking freedom of speech in the United States is the way to counter TikTok.
That TikTok does all the things to distribute CCP propaganda and impose CCP censorship that the CCP would want it to do is alone definitive evidence that TikTok is a weapon of the CCP. Whether the TikTok personnel are gung ho followers of the CCP, are doing what the CCP wants out of fear, or both, doesn’t matter. What matters is that the CCP is calling the shots.
A second major crate of evidence is TikTok’s data grabbing, about which TikTok lies.
Paul acknowledges that the Chinese government has laws that, in the words of The New York Times, “allow the Chinese government to secretly demand data from Chinese companies and citizens for intelligence-gathering operations.” He calls this smoke but not a smoking gun.
Regardless of the metaphor we use to characterize it, we cannot ignore the wider context to which such evidence must be related. We would not call documentary evidence and eyewitness testimony of such CCP evils as abducting, imprisoning, torturing, and killing of Uyghurs a smoking gun but dismiss as mere smoke the inference from less direct evidence that many other Uyghurs have similarly suffered.
The fact that TikTok has to answer to the CCP is a smoking gun. The entire and recent history of the CCP and how it operates are smoking guns. We know that the Party acts on every possible front foreign and domestic against those whom it regards as enemies, which includes the United States. The CCP has conducted operations in this country like attacking protestors and harassing Chinese nationals who no longer live in China. What we are entitled to conclude about TikTok cannot be determined in isolation from all this dark past and present.
Are we to believe that the CCP pushes its agenda in every possible way but a single one, the massive means of propaganda, censorship, and privacy invasion that is TikTok, even though TikTok acts just as if it were a CCP weapon? All the evidence is that TikTok is a CCP weapon, and there is no contrary evidence.
On the second question—whether the U.S. government should take action against TikTok—I believe that we have the right to act in self-defense against any CCP weapon, including TikTok, and not just by individual persuasive efforts and individually refraining from using TikTok. The problem is that our federal government, the agent that can use force to act in our defense against TikTok, is itself prone to abusing power any chance it gets.
Which takes us to the third question, whether massively attacking freedom of speech in the United States is the way to counter TikTok.
It seems that the new legislation that just passed the U.S. House is as sweeping an assault on freedom of speech—certainly not directed solely at TikTok—as a previous legislative attempt. I should have said more about the details of the legislation in my previous posts reporting that the House was considering new legislation and that it had passed it.
See Matt Taibbi’s Racket News article “Why the TikTok Ban is So Dangerous: Did they tell you the part about giving the president sweeping new powers?” (March 15, 2024).
Taibbi says:
As written, any “website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application” that is “determined by the President to present a significant threat to the National Security of the United States” is covered.
Currently, the definition of “foreign adversary” includes Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China.
The definition of “controlled,” meanwhile, turns out to be a word salad, applying to “(A) a foreign person that is domiciled in, is headquartered in, has its principal place of business in, or is organized under the laws of a foreign adversary country; (B) an entity with respect to which a foreign person or combination of foreign persons described in subparagraph (A) directly or indirectly own at least a 20 percent stake; or (C) a person subject to the direction or control of a foreign person or entity described in subparagraph (A) or (B).”
A “foreign adversary controlled application,” in other words, can be any company founded or run by someone living at the wrong foreign address, or containing a small minority ownership stake. Or it can be any company run by someone “subject to the direction” of either of those entities. Or, it’s anything the president says it is. Vague enough?
Yes, more than vague enough.
Paul Jacob replies:
Thanks for delving into the issue more than I could in my brief commentary. I admit to having difficulty with this issue because the Tik Tok app concerns me and a ban on TikTok also concerns me.
You deal very well with the third question, since you agree that we are on dangerous ground when the government gets involved in censoring or banning speech in any forms, apps included. And lest we forget, Congress regularly reminds.
The CCP cannot be trusted. So I’m very glad that our Congress is recognizing the threat—and in bipartisan fashion.
China has indeed effectively declared war on the United States—and on freedom in any form—so we do not have to guess about their intentions. And in some instances, we may have to fight their gray-zone tactics with some gray-zone tactics of our own—but not with tactics that are “gray” to the American people. Leaders should lead by explaining more fully to the public than they have what exactly has been done by Tik Tok and what Tik Tok could do. I haven’t read chapter and verse about the actual bad behavior of the app. But I’m ready to believe the worst, because I read about the CCP’s bad behavior all the time all over the world with respect to everything they’re involved in.
I am worried about the constitutionality of how Congress actually performs such a legislative maneuver as banning Tik Tok and other Chinese or Iranian or Russian apps. But that’s not my only worry. I fear that a policy of forcing the divestment of TikTok or, more likely, of banning it would be a public relations disaster. If I, who want so strongly to stop the Chinazis from destroying the lives of billions, have not heard enough to feel confident that doing so is warranted, I’m sure that young people using the app certainly have not heard enough.
In the long run, the success of wars and political struggles depends on hearts and minds. A leader, the president or someone in Congress, should truthfully explain the Chinazi problem. Level with us. Don’t act as if you have everything under control and we shouldn’t worry our pretty little heads about it. If using federal power to stop TikTok is necessary, it is necessary because rather than being simply a rival or a strategic competitor, CCP-run China is an enemy.
Tell the American people. The Chinazis already know.
