This is a preview of Consequence Daily, our free daily newsletter featuring exclusive analysis and essays. Subscribe now to never miss an issue.
Many experts seem sure that banning TikTok is a great idea, or a bad idea, but I’m enjoying having doubts. There’s too much the public doesn’t know about US classified data, TikTok’s secret algorithm, and more, for any of us to know for certain if our elected officials are over — or under — -reacting. And whether the law will ever be enforced could be even harder to guess.
Before it becomes a ban, the new law President Biden signed on April 24th pressures TikTok owner ByteDance to sell, though few analysts expects this to happen. And it will soon faces challenges in court. But now that Congress and the White House have acted, there are two not-quite-opposing views on the ban that seem the most persuasive. Let’s call them “pro-ban” and “ban or don’t ban, it won’t work.”
The case for at least attempting the ban was well-summarized by The Atlantic writer Derek Thompson on his podcast, Plain English. Citing posts by the Taiwan-based tech writer Ben Thompson (no relation), Matthew Yglesias, and others, Derek Thompson presented evidence for three claims: “That TikTok is indeed, among other things, a source of news,” he said. “That the Chinese state has a history of directly influencing some of its largest companies; and… that the Chinese state has a demonstrable interest in controlling speech around the world.”
The whole thing is worth a listen and much more expansive than just these three ideas. But to the first point, Thompson notes that “170 million Americans are on TikTok, and roughly half of them say they get their news from the site. Among Americans under 30, TikTok is a more popular source of news than cable news, local news, newspapers, magazines, radio, or podcasts.”
It’s hard to deny TikTok’s reach, so Thompson moves on to China’s history with superstar companies. Jack Ma, CEO of Alibaba and one of the richest men in the world, disappeared for four months after he criticized Chinese policy and regulations. During his absence, the Chinese Communist Party took over his company and sold parts of it for scrap. When he returned to public view, it was as a teacher, not a business man.
