Commentary: Potential US TikTok ban shows many still struggle with real concerns

SINGAPORE: Singaporeans have watched the furore in the United States over TikTok with particular interest. Its Singaporean CEO, Mr Chew Shou Zi, testified in the US Senate twice in the last year. Accusations of ignorance and xenophobia were levelled after the January hearing when Senator Tom Cotton repeatedly asked Mr Chew about his ties with China - to which Mr Chew responded: “I’m Singaporean.”

Last week, the United States House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to pass a Bill to ban TikTok if its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, does not divest or sell the company.

Though China is the rare issue that brings US lawmakers together, the strength of the Bill’s bipartisan support was unexpected, its sponsors said.

The Bill’s backers said they acted to safeguard Americans against national security threats. Chinese officials and some American progressives characterise the calls for a ban as motivated instead by protectionism and anti-China animus.

As an American living and teaching in Singapore, I also watch with special interest. I have seen the reality of Americans’ biases up close, but I do not doubt the sincerity of those who struggle with questions about TikTok.  

PARANOIA OR APPROPRIATE CAUTION?

The questions ultimately focus on ByteDance, which has its own management in Beijing. Based in Singapore and Los Angeles, TikTok may be insulated from its parent company by its corporate structure, as the company asserts. TikTok often cites its efforts to store American users’ data in Texas at facilities overseen by American company Oracle.

Still, a parent company is a parent company, and some coordination and control are expected. Both Google and its parent Alphabet share a CEO, Sundar Pichai. As the CEO of parent company Meta, Mark Zuckerberg oversees Facebook and its other platforms. Elon Musk owns the holding company of X Corp (formerly Twitter), whose CEO, Linda Yaccarino, few believe really calls the shots.    

It strikes me as rash for outside observers to be too confident about what TikTok could or could not do, given that ByteDance is subject to Chinese national security law.

Can TikTok data not, under any circumstances, end up in the hands of Chinese intelligence? Or could the platform be turned against American users if US-China tensions escalate?

With TikTok’s algorithm trained on the preferences and vulnerabilities of so many of us, there are concerns about whether the app could be weaponised to spread propaganda. Questions abound about whether such manipulation is already happening. Rutgers University researchers found a relatively low number of stories about China’s Uyghur population on TikTok compared to Instagram, for example.

TikTok might have shot itself in the foot in the week before the House vote. American TikTok users overwhelmed their congresspersons’ telephone lines after an in-app notification asked them to enter their postal code and then enabled them to call their representative’s office number with the press of a button.

Americans learn in civics classes that we can contact our representatives to express our views. Few ever do. According to one congressman, some who called about TikTok appeared to be minors who did not even know what Congress does.

Legislators saw the barrage of calls as evidence of the power they feared - that the app could be used to mobilise users, possibly against the country’s interests.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT FOR BYTEDANCE

Whether ByteDance is forced to sell off TikTok or see it banned in the US may still be in the distant future.

First, the Senate, the upper chamber of Congress, would have to pass the Bill. So far, senators have been less enthusiastic about it, and the legislative process could take months.

Next, the president would have to sign it into law. President Joe Biden, whose re-election campaign joined the app last month, said he would sign it. This could alienate some young voters whose support he needs.

Former president Donald Trump, who tried to impose a TikTok ban years ago, announced earlier this month that he opposes it. His public U-turn coincided with a reported meeting with a Republican megadonor and ByteDance investor. Mr Trump said that TikTok users might migrate to Meta, which he considers an “enemy of the people”. If elected this November, Mr Trump may have the opportunity to veto the law.

Upon passage, the law would probably face immediate legal challenges based on free speech guarantees. The First Amendment prohibits government action restricting Americans’ right to express themselves and receive information. According to past cases, even a right to access foreign propaganda is specifically protected.

The Bill’s defenders counter that its target is not speech but the company’s conduct, including data handling. Litigating such questions could prevent or delay the law’s implementation.

Chinese authorities describe the law as “bullying”, but some consider that charge hypocritical, given that American social media platforms have long been banned in China.

The US should take an approach that is more consistent with its values and openness, rather than a tit-for-tat approach.

THE “WHAT IFS”

Questions about TikTok and American national security are based on hypotheticals. But threat prevention involves contemplating hypotheticals.

If Chinese exploitation of TikTok cannot be ruled out, the US House of Representatives answered: Eliminate the possibility by forcing a change of ownership - or, failing that, ban it.

In my decades of teaching communication law and policy, I’ve observed that cases like this divide people based on core beliefs and dispositions such as risk tolerance. Do we believe we can trust one another not to be swayed by propaganda? Does a remote, currently “hypothetical” risk justify a ban on an app that hosts a generation’s self-expression?

Even if this legislation fails, such questions will endure.

Though TikTok was the first popular app with algorithmically delivered short videos, the potent formula has proven easy to replicate. The communities on Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts may be a few years behind TikTok in development, but it seems unlikely that TikTok has no substitutes.  

Addressing legitimate security concerns may be necessary for TikTok to continue to thrive. Failure to do so may eventually erode users’ confidence in the app, and their choices in the free market may lead to the app’s eclipse.

ByteDance will have to decide if this, compared to divestment or a ban, is the worse fate.

Dr Mark Cenite is Associate Dean (Undergraduate Education) at Nanyang Technological University’s College of Humanities, Arts, & Social Sciences. He teaches media law and artificial intelligence law courses at the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information.