Speaker 1: Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from iHeartRadio. Hey there,
Speaker 1: and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host, Jonathan Strickland.
Speaker 1: I'm an executive producer at iHeart Podcasts and How the
Speaker 1: Tech are You? So? On Fridays, I typically will do
Speaker 1: a news roundup of the tech news that happened over
Speaker 1: the previous week, and today we're going to do something
Speaker 1: a little different. We're going to cover one story in
Speaker 1: particular that really requires a lot more time and attention
Speaker 1: than what I would normally give, so we're gonna really
Speaker 1: dive into it. Also, we will continue the story of
Speaker 1: rooster Teeth. I do have at least two more parts
Speaker 1: for that. I thought it was just going to be
Speaker 1: a two parter, but man covering what happened over the
Speaker 1: last few years requires a lot more care and effort
Speaker 1: as well. So let's get to today's topic, which of course,
Speaker 1: is the United States ban on TikTok, which isn't a
Speaker 1: sure thing yet. I want to be sure to say
Speaker 1: that right up front, but the US House of Representatives
Speaker 1: passed a bill this week that ultimately could lead to
Speaker 1: a ban on TikTok if the bill ends up being
Speaker 1: passed into law and there are a couple of steps
Speaker 1: that have to happen before that becomes reality. But there's
Speaker 1: a ton of stuff going on here, including things that
Speaker 1: have nothing to do with tech, but everything that happens
Speaker 1: with money and politics. This is why you can't separate
Speaker 1: tech out from those things. I know there are a
Speaker 1: lot of people who complain about news stories where they're like,
Speaker 1: just cover the tech, don't talk about politics. That's not
Speaker 1: the way the world works. The world doesn't work with
Speaker 1: everything being in these separate silos that have no connection
Speaker 1: with each other. Politics and tech shape each other. Now,
Speaker 1: I would say that this particular story gets really gross because,
Speaker 1: in my opinion, the entirety of this focus on TikTok
Speaker 1: is misguided. I'm not saying that TikTok is good, I'm
Speaker 1: not saying it's bad, but I am saying that this
Speaker 1: whole thing misses the point. In my opinion, I also
Speaker 1: think it really exposes a ton of problems with America's
Speaker 1: political system. But these aren't things that I think anyone
Speaker 1: finds surprising. I think everyone, at least on some level,
Speaker 1: is aware that America's political system has issues. But we're
Speaker 1: going to get to all that first. What is this
Speaker 1: bill and how did we get here? Well, the bill
Speaker 1: is h R. Seven five two one. It's also known
Speaker 1: as the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act,
Speaker 1: And to quote the text of the bill directly, it
Speaker 1: is quote to protect the national security of the United
Speaker 1: States from I'm the threat posed by foreign adversary controlled
Speaker 1: applications such as TikTok and any successor application or service,
Speaker 1: and any other application or service developed or provided by
Speaker 1: Byteedance Limited or any entity under the control of byte
Speaker 1: Edance Limited end quote. So it's clear that this bill
Speaker 1: specifically targets TikTok's parent company, Byteedance Limited, not just any
Speaker 1: Chinese owned parent company or foreign owned company. However, the
Speaker 1: text of the actual bill does get far more general,
Speaker 1: and ultimately it does cover quote foreign adversary controlled applications
Speaker 1: end quote. So it's not just for TikTok, but it
Speaker 1: uses TikTok as sort of the primary example the paradigm,
Speaker 1: if you will. And foreign adversary in this context doesn't
Speaker 1: just mean a country that is on particularly unfriendly terms
Speaker 1: with the good old US of A. It's not just
Speaker 1: countries we've got beef with. It covers any entity, person, organization, company,
Speaker 1: et cetera that resides within the borders of such a country. So,
Speaker 1: while the phrase foreign adversary seems to suggest like a
Speaker 1: nation or state controlled entity, it's actually more broad than that.
Speaker 1: It's really any person or company that exists in such
Speaker 1: a country that then would be identified in the context
Speaker 1: of this bill as a foreign adversary. So essentially, the
Speaker 1: bill would require any APP that ultimately belongs to an
Speaker 1: entity that resides or exists within a country that had
Speaker 1: been identified as a foreign adversary to the United States.
Speaker 1: And there's a whole code that explains how that designation happens. Well,
Speaker 1: if this bill is enacted into law, then any such
Speaker 1: app currently available within the United States would have one
Speaker 1: hundred and eighty days before a ban is imposed by
Speaker 1: the US government. To avoid the ban, the foreign adversary
Speaker 1: can divest itself of the APP, that is, sell the
Speaker 1: APP or some version part of the APP to some
Speaker 1: other entity that is not a foreign adversary to the
Speaker 1: United States. Also, in the future, should the US President
Speaker 1: identify a new country as a foreign adversary, let's just
Speaker 1: say that for some reason the President says that I
Speaker 1: don't know France is a foreign adversary. At that point,
Speaker 1: then apps that originated out of France would have one
Speaker 1: hundred and eighty days to comply with this law before
Speaker 1: a ban would fall upon them like a bag of hammers.
Speaker 1: So how do you ban an app? How does that work? Well,
Speaker 1: this bill says the US would go after essentially the
Speaker 1: distribution infrastructure for apps, like the app stores. In other words,
Speaker 1: Section A of this bill states that quote it shall
Speaker 1: be unlawful for any entity to distribute, maintain, or update,
Speaker 1: or enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of a foreign
Speaker 1: adversary controlled application end quote, and then the section goes on.
Speaker 1: But essentially this bill would target stuff like the iOS
Speaker 1: app Store or the Android App Store. It also includes
Speaker 1: internet hosting services that would allow for the updating and
Speaker 1: maintenance of those apps. So not only would the app
Speaker 1: disappear from app stores within the United States, the apps
Speaker 1: would essentially lose all functionality because what the US is
Speaker 1: saying is you can't allow traffic to go to these apps.
Speaker 1: At the very least, you wouldn't be able to update
Speaker 1: the apps anymore within the United States, and presumably that
Speaker 1: would mean that you wouldn't get notifications you wouldn't be
Speaker 1: able to access new material, et cetera. Now, if these
Speaker 1: companies failed to comply with the law, they face a
Speaker 1: fine of five five thousand dollars per US user of
Speaker 1: that app. So for TikTok, that's more than one hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty million American users. So by my math, that's
Speaker 1: like seven hundred and fifty billion dollars in fines, which
Speaker 1: means that obviously these companies that are largely US based,
Speaker 1: would end all support for TikTok rather than face a
Speaker 1: nearly one trillion dollar fine. The bill also calls for
Speaker 1: the foreign adversary controlled app to provide user data upon
Speaker 1: request so that the user would be able to port
Speaker 1: their information to some alternative application. Now I'm not entirely
Speaker 1: certain how that could be achieved in a reasonable way.
Speaker 1: I suspect that this from a technical perspective, is largely difficult,
Speaker 1: at the very least possibly impossible to achieve so that
Speaker 1: you could port your TikTok profile well to something else.
Speaker 1: It doesn't just work that way. It's not apples to apples.
Speaker 1: To me, this seems like a pretty feeble attempt to
Speaker 1: playcate TikTok users who would otherwise be really upset to
Speaker 1: lose the content that they had created and consumed on
Speaker 1: an app like TikTok. So the implication seems to be,
Speaker 1: don't worry, We've put in a legal requirement that TikTok
Speaker 1: would have to give you all your stuff so that
Speaker 1: you can head on over to Instagram reels and do
Speaker 1: it all over there, or something like that. If the
Speaker 1: foreign adversary fails to comply with this part of the law,
Speaker 1: then they would be fined five hundred dollars per active
Speaker 1: user in the US, which is not nearly as hefty
Speaker 1: a hit obviously, but also I'm not sure how the
Speaker 1: US would ever collect on that, because again, if it's
Speaker 1: a foreign adversary controlled app, I don't know that there's
Speaker 1: the leverage to force the foreign adversary to pay up
Speaker 1: the fine. You could definitely go off against the US
Speaker 1: infrastructure that the government would be able to do, at
Speaker 1: least initially. I'm sure it would be immediately challenged in court,
Speaker 1: but this bill would at least allow for that approach.
Speaker 1: I don't know how you would do it for a
Speaker 1: foreign adversary, Like you could point to the company and
Speaker 1: say you owe us X amount of money, and the
Speaker 1: company says, okay, but we're over here, then you're over there,
Speaker 1: so I don't know. The bill goes on to single
Speaker 1: out TikTok and byte Dance again, but also states that
Speaker 1: the President can send a report to Congress identifying other
Speaker 1: apps that meet certain criteria, including specific threats to US
Speaker 1: national security, as well as what aspects of the app
Speaker 1: would need to be divested in order to avoid a ban.
Speaker 1: So if the President says, hey, this other app also
Speaker 1: I want to put under this same list of restrictions,
Speaker 1: you would have to have the President send that message
Speaker 1: to Congress and say specifically how this app represents a
Speaker 1: threat to national security. You can't just have a blank
Speaker 1: it approach. Presumably after a public report and the detailed
Speaker 1: account to Congress, the designation would then be acknowledged and
Speaker 1: the clock would begin to tick for that app. Now
Speaker 1: there's a bit more to the bill, including what measures
Speaker 1: a party can take to challenge the bill, but I
Speaker 1: think that's enough to have a conversation about this. By
Speaker 1: the way, the bill is just thirteen pages long, and
Speaker 1: by thirteen pages long, I mean like you've got to
Speaker 1: remember bills have lots of indented segments. So it's not
Speaker 1: even a full page of material. It's a pretty easy read.
Speaker 1: By the way, there's hardly any jargon in it. It
Speaker 1: isn't like one of those where you're like, whereas and
Speaker 1: so forth and a fourthwith and et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 1: It doesn't come across like that. So I urge all
Speaker 1: of y'all to check it out if you prefer to
Speaker 1: have firsthand knowledge of a text as opposed to just
Speaker 1: relying on news articles and opinion pieces, some of which
Speaker 1: I suspect the writers never read the bill in the
Speaker 1: first place. Again, that's Hr. Five two one, and yeah,
Speaker 1: it's a quick read. It's not a fun read, but
Speaker 1: it is quick, So check it out now. For TikTok specifically,
Speaker 1: this bill essentially says either Byte Dance sells TikTok to
Speaker 1: some other entity, an entity that does not reside or
Speaker 1: exist inside an adversarial country, or we will bring down
Speaker 1: the power of the US government on the distribution infrastructure
Speaker 1: for the app to make sure that no one in
Speaker 1: the US can get it or use it. That's a
Speaker 1: pretty massive ultimatum, you know, divest TikTok or the TikTok
Speaker 1: will face a national band. So how did we get here?
Speaker 1: Now that question is actually super complex because there are
Speaker 1: a lot of different reasons why various political leaders have
Speaker 1: taken aim at TikTok in particular. Now, chief among them
Speaker 1: is that byte Dance is a Chinese company, and the
Speaker 1: Chinese government has been known to get very involved with
Speaker 1: Chinese enterprises. It's common in China for large companies to
Speaker 1: reserve a spot at the highest levels of company oversight
Speaker 1: and governance for a representative of the Chinese Communist Party.
Speaker 1: So there's this perception that the Chinese Communist Party has
Speaker 1: literally a seat at the table of all these massive
Speaker 1: companies in China. Famously, China enacted a national intelligence law
Speaker 1: in twenty seventeen that compels Chinese citizens and organizations to
Speaker 1: quote support national intelligence work end quote, and that the
Speaker 1: government can actually demand cooperation that they do so. That's
Speaker 1: covered under articles seven and fourteen of that twenty seventeen law.
Speaker 1: So one interpretation of this law is that the Chinese
Speaker 1: government could go to byte Dance and demand that the
Speaker 1: companies share all the data it has through an app
Speaker 1: like TikTok, and byte Dance would be required by Chinese
Speaker 1: law to do so. They would have have to hand
Speaker 1: that data over to the Chinese Communist Party. Now, if
Speaker 1: that information included sensitive data that could compromise the national
Speaker 1: security of the United States, that's a problem. If in fact,
Speaker 1: this would serve as a type of espionage, that's a
Speaker 1: huge issue. But that's a big if. And here's the thing.
Speaker 1: If the possibility exists, unfortunately, that's enough. It's kind of
Speaker 1: like trying to undermine democracy. You don't actually have to
Speaker 1: compromise voting machines to undermine democracy. All you have to
Speaker 1: do is prove that it's possible to compromise a voting machine.
Speaker 1: If you prove it's possible, well then you insert doubt
Speaker 1: into the minds of citizens. Because if it's possible to
Speaker 1: manipulate votes, well, then you can never be sure that
Speaker 1: the votes that came out actually reflect the will of
Speaker 1: the people, right, you can't be sure that the results
Speaker 1: of any election are legitimate, And by undermining the confidence
Speaker 1: people have in the process, you undermine democracy itself. Democracy
Speaker 1: with a big d the doubt is all that's needed. So,
Speaker 1: if it's possible the Chinese Communist Party could force Byteedance
Speaker 1: to hand over gobs of data belonging to American citizens.
Speaker 1: That's all that's needed to serve as a threat, even
Speaker 1: if the actual scenario never happens. So you could argue, well, technically, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's possible, but it hasn't happened, and everyone at Might
Speaker 1: Dance has expressed that this would never happen. That's not
Speaker 1: good enough, at least not in the eyes of the
Speaker 1: leaders who are concerned about this. Okay, I've been ranting
Speaker 1: for a bit, but we've got a ton more to
Speaker 1: get through about this issue, So let's take a quick
Speaker 1: break to thank our sponsors. Okay. So I was talking
Speaker 1: earlier about how the perception of a threat is the
Speaker 1: same thing as a threat in the eyes of politics,
Speaker 1: like it doesn't matter if the threat is real or not,
Speaker 1: which is infuriating, but it's also unfortunately true. TikTok and
Speaker 1: Byte Dance representatives have said numerous times that China's Communist
Speaker 1: Party has never interfered, has never been able to access
Speaker 1: this information, and that in fact, TikTok has taken steps
Speaker 1: to make sure to prevent that eventuality. So, for example,
Speaker 1: TikTok moved all US citizen data to servers within the
Speaker 1: United States that would not be accessible by Chinese Communist
Speaker 1: Party representatives. These servers belonged to the US company Oracle,
Speaker 1: so the company that actually is overseeing the servers is
Speaker 1: an American company that does not have ties to byte Dance.
Speaker 1: This was all part of Project Texas. As TikTok explains,
Speaker 1: that project has five pillars that encompass independent governance, data
Speaker 1: protection and access control, software assurance, content assurance, and monitoring
Speaker 1: and compliance. TikTok says, it quote spent the last two
Speaker 1: years developing a framework through discussions with the Committee on
Speaker 1: Foreign Investment in the United States, and we've spent roughly
Speaker 1: one point five billion dollars to date on implementation end quote.
Speaker 1: So what TikTok is saying is, hey, we've been working
Speaker 1: in good faith with the US government for years now
Speaker 1: to ensure that this data remains safe and secure and
Speaker 1: within the boundaries and borders of the United States. Part
Speaker 1: of those efforts included the formation of a subsidiary called
Speaker 1: TikTok Us Data Security, which is quote an entirely independent
Speaker 1: business entity tasked with managing all business functions that require
Speaker 1: access to user data identified by the US god government
Speaker 1: as needing additional protection and safeguarding the systems that deliver
Speaker 1: content on the app in the US to ensure that
Speaker 1: it is free from foreign manipulation end quote. Now there's
Speaker 1: a ton more to say about TikTok's efforts to avoid
Speaker 1: the situation that would fall on the company if this
Speaker 1: bill were to get passed into law, but I urge
Speaker 1: you to check out TikTok's post on the matter. You
Speaker 1: can find it at USDs dot TikTok dot com slash
Speaker 1: USDs dash about. That's a lot, but that's where you
Speaker 1: can read up on TikTok's policies here. Now, I will
Speaker 1: also add there have been reports, whether you know, legitimate
Speaker 1: or not, people in China allegedly accessing TikTok data, not
Speaker 1: always US citizen data, but that in fact Byteedance employees
Speaker 1: have been able to access user information through TikTok. So
Speaker 1: there are a lot of conflicting reports about whether or
Speaker 1: not TikTok's infrastructure is sort of air gapped from China
Speaker 1: or not, and their conflicting reports about whether ByteDance has
Speaker 1: access to the information. That uncertainty has further fueled the
Speaker 1: political scenario that we're in today. Now, why did Project
Speaker 1: Texas happen? In the first place. Well, it became a
Speaker 1: necessity because back in twenty twenty, the then US President
Speaker 1: Donald Trump had identified TikTok as a threat to national security. Now,
Speaker 1: in many ways, this was really a part of a
Speaker 1: larger trade conflict that the United States had with China.
Speaker 1: At that time, Trump and China had engaged in sort
Speaker 1: of a trade war with one another, and some argued
Speaker 1: that Trump's reasoning was based more on a desire to
Speaker 1: find leverage against China and not so much about responding
Speaker 1: to a perceived threat to national security. So some were
Speaker 1: saying that the national security message was really just kind
Speaker 1: of a front and that really this was more of
Speaker 1: the trade situation. Others felt that this was just the
Speaker 1: latest in a very long line of xenophobic positions that
Speaker 1: various US leaders have taken over the years, and this
Speaker 1: is not related to any specific party. This has happened
Speaker 1: over and over with leaders across all different political ideologies.
Speaker 1: That despite the fact that America is made up of
Speaker 1: a people who mostly come from other places, apart from
Speaker 1: Native Americans who were here before everybody else, there's still
Speaker 1: a really healthy distrust among some circles of citizens of
Speaker 1: anyone who comes from anywhere other than the United States.
Speaker 1: In order to really see this in action like highlighted
Speaker 1: to an absurd degree, just watch footage of any wrestling
Speaker 1: promotion from the nineteen seventies to the early two thousands
Speaker 1: in which the foreigner gimmick was used to as establish
Speaker 1: a heel or a bad guy. You would get people
Speaker 1: channing USA, USA, USA. It's the jingoism is ridiculous at
Speaker 1: that level, but it does kind of highlight something that
Speaker 1: was present in other parts of society, just to an
Speaker 1: absurd degree. But whatever Trump's motivation was, there were plenty
Speaker 1: of critics who said there were very good reasons to
Speaker 1: be concerned about TikTok, and right away the folks at
Speaker 1: TikTok got to work creating a system that would attempt
Speaker 1: to mollify the concerns of US critics. Now, interestingly, this week,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump has argued that a ban on TikTok would
Speaker 1: be a bad idea. And we'll get into why he
Speaker 1: has reversed his position after he led the charge to
Speaker 1: go after TikTok just four years ago. Spoiler alert, It
Speaker 1: probably has a lot to do with gobs and gobs
Speaker 1: of money as well as an axe he has to
Speaker 1: grind against one of TikTok's competitors, all right, So one
Speaker 1: reason that US leaders have sought ban on TikTok has
Speaker 1: to do with this perceived threat of Chinese espionage. Never
Speaker 1: Mind if it's a real threat or not, the perception
Speaker 1: is all that matters. That American citizens, through their obsession
Speaker 1: and use of this app, would essentially be handing over
Speaker 1: loads of information and intelligence to a foreign adversary, and
Speaker 1: the United States would be weakened from a national security level.
Speaker 1: But that's not the only reason some leaders have their
Speaker 1: sites set on TikTok. Another is a concern that the
Speaker 1: app is manipulating users, particularly young users, either intentionally or
Speaker 1: otherwise by algorithmically sharing misinformation, propaganda, and harmful material. So
Speaker 1: if we assume there's an intentionality to this, that TikTok
Speaker 1: is purposefully doing this, then there's a fear that TikTok,
Speaker 1: through influence from Byteedance and then by extension, the Chinese
Speaker 1: Communist Party, would use this app to deliver, say, Chinese
Speaker 1: propaganda to US users. This is the someone please think
Speaker 1: of the children argument. Now, I would argue that even
Speaker 1: if this were true, it's a dumb reason to specifically
Speaker 1: target TikTok. In fact, it's a dumb reason to target
Speaker 1: apps that are controlled by a foreign adversary. So why
Speaker 1: do I think it's a dumb idea? Well, I think
Speaker 1: it's a dumb idea because China is already doing this
Speaker 1: on all social apps out there. They are flooding social
Speaker 1: apps with propaganda and misinformation. We've actually seen plenty of
Speaker 1: cases in which Chinese backed agents have created and shared
Speaker 1: misinformation across platforms that include Facebook and x formerly known
Speaker 1: as Twitter, among others. China doesn't even need to have
Speaker 1: back end access to any of these platforms to do it.
Speaker 1: They don't have back end access to Meta or to X.
Speaker 1: They don't own those platforms, but they don't need to
Speaker 1: in order to meet the goal of flooding social media
Speaker 1: with misinformation in an attempt to disrupt or manipulate the
Speaker 1: American public. Whether TikTok has a Chinese parent company or not,
Speaker 1: in no way changes how China is using social media
Speaker 1: to target Americans. I guarantee you if this bill became long,
Speaker 1: and if my Dance was compelled to divest itself of TikTok,
Speaker 1: that would not stop China from using TikTok to deliver
Speaker 1: misinformation because they don't need back end access to do that.
Speaker 1: They just post just like anybody else. So yeah, that's
Speaker 1: a really dumb reason to single out TikTok. In my opinion,
Speaker 1: there's a legitimate concern that TikTok's recommendation algorithm can create
Speaker 1: a bad situation or make a bad situation way worse
Speaker 1: than it was, because engaging with content on TikTok essentially
Speaker 1: tells the app, hey, this is the kind of thing
Speaker 1: I'm into now. At that point, the app starts to
Speaker 1: pull similar content to serve up to you. Like, people
Speaker 1: who like this typically like that, So let's serve that
Speaker 1: to this user now. And if you've indicated that you
Speaker 1: like a particular kin of content, the app's going to
Speaker 1: make sure to bring other stuff like that to your
Speaker 1: attention because the app's goal is to keep you on
Speaker 1: the app for as long as possible, or to bring
Speaker 1: you back to the app whenever you stop to go
Speaker 1: do something else. So if the algorithm was just serving
Speaker 1: up random stuff and most of it didn't appeal to you,
Speaker 1: well you would probably lose interest in the app and
Speaker 1: you'd stop using it. That's not good for the app.
Speaker 1: So if you watch a video all the way through,
Speaker 1: and let's say that video promoted misinformation or an extremist
Speaker 1: stance on a particular subject, well, you'd be more likely
Speaker 1: to see similar stuff in the future, and that could
Speaker 1: be one factor that could help lead a person to
Speaker 1: adopt more radical views of their own. I'm not going
Speaker 1: to suggest that TikTok on its own is responsible for
Speaker 1: radicalizing populations of people, but it can be a contributing factor. However,
Speaker 1: this is the case with lots of recommendation algorithms, not
Speaker 1: just on TikTok, not just on on foreign controlled apps.
Speaker 1: Algorithms are amorl They don't judge the content. They're just
Speaker 1: looking for stuff that keeps you on the respective platform,
Speaker 1: the stuff that keeps you engaged and your eyeballs glued
Speaker 1: to the screen. It doesn't matter to these apps if
Speaker 1: the content happens to be cute puppies or you know,
Speaker 1: like dude Bros who are pumping out a set of
Speaker 1: tricep dips, or if it's some random person complaining about
Speaker 1: you know, liberal politics or conservative politics. The algorithm doesn't
Speaker 1: care what's in the posts. It just cares that you
Speaker 1: care and that's true on Facebook and other places, not
Speaker 1: just TikTok. So again, it makes no sense to single
Speaker 1: out TikTok for this problem because it's not a problem
Speaker 1: that's just a TikTok problem. This is a bigger issue.
Speaker 1: So either way, singling out TikTok simply because it has
Speaker 1: a Chinese parent company is really short sighted. The problems
Speaker 1: associated with recommendation algorithms are real. In my opinion, I
Speaker 1: do think recommendation algorithms cause a lot of issues or
Speaker 1: exacerbate a lot of problems. Maybe they don't cause them,
Speaker 1: but I think they can make them way worse. If
Speaker 1: there's already a seed there, they can really make that
Speaker 1: seed grow into a pretty toxic plant. They ignore international borders.
Speaker 1: This is not something that's specific to Chinese owned companies.
Speaker 1: It might be possible for Chinese interference to force Byteedance
Speaker 1: to in turn force TikTok to manipulate the recommendation algorithm
Speaker 1: and skew it in some way, but that's not really necessary.
Speaker 1: You don't need to go to that length. The skewing
Speaker 1: just happens through the use of the app itself. However,
Speaker 1: just because there might be a possibility is all it takes,
Speaker 1: because again it's the perceived threat that's important, not whether
Speaker 1: or not the threat is real. Anyway, a ton of
Speaker 1: politicians have expressed concerns that content on TikTok can be
Speaker 1: mentally harmful to users, that it can promote dangerous activities
Speaker 1: and stunts, and it can radicalize individuals, and it can
Speaker 1: reinforce harmful self images, and I can't necessarily argue against
Speaker 1: that other than to say the problem is much bigger
Speaker 1: than just TikTok. As for data collection, I've said this
Speaker 1: on the show before too. Data collection can be a problem.
Speaker 1: But again, it doesn't have to be a foreign owned
Speaker 1: app that creates this problem. All of these different apps
Speaker 1: and platforms are collecting huge amounts of information. Meta is
Speaker 1: collecting truckloads of data on all of its users every
Speaker 1: single day, and a lot of this information ends up
Speaker 1: making its way to markets. There are companies that buy
Speaker 1: and sell information about people, and you don't have to
Speaker 1: be the company behind the platform to access that information.
Speaker 1: You can just purchase it on the market. So arguably
Speaker 1: you don't even have to have any interest in a
Speaker 1: particular app at all in order to take advantage of
Speaker 1: how those apps are collecting data. You can just purchase
Speaker 1: data from data brokers, and that's a problem that is
Speaker 1: independent of ownership of these platforms. So again, to actually
Speaker 1: address the problem of data collection, you can't just look
Speaker 1: at the app itself. You've got to look at the
Speaker 1: larger ecosystem. If all you're doing is stopping one app
Speaker 1: from being owned by a foreign company, you're plugging a
Speaker 1: tiny leak in a dam that has a massive crack
Speaker 1: all the way through the middle of it, and you're
Speaker 1: not really helping again, in my opinion, Okay, we're not
Speaker 1: done yet. We've got more to say about this whole situation.
Speaker 1: But before we get to that, let's take another quick
Speaker 1: break to thank our sponsors. Okay, we're back. So some
Speaker 1: US leaders are worried that TikTok report sense a data
Speaker 1: collection tool for the Chinese Communist Party. Some leaders are
Speaker 1: worried TikTok use is harmful on a more individual level.
Speaker 1: Some are worried that it's a misinformation delivery system. Some
Speaker 1: are arguing that it's a combination of all of these things.
Speaker 1: And that's what led to the House of Representatives in
Speaker 1: the United States voting overwhelmingly in favor of passing this
Speaker 1: bill that would ban TikTok unless it was divested from
Speaker 1: byteedance if it becomes law, And by overwhelming, I mean
Speaker 1: it passed three hundred and fifty two to sixty five,
Speaker 1: So three hundred and fifty two representatives voted in favor
Speaker 1: of it, only sixty five voted opposed. Fifty of those
Speaker 1: were Democrats, fifteen were Republican. Now that doesn't mean that
Speaker 1: this automatically becomes law. That's not how it works here
Speaker 1: in the United States. So the bill then must go
Speaker 1: to the US Senate, and the Senate has the opportunity
Speaker 1: to debate the bill, potentially to make changes to it
Speaker 1: before voting on it. And there's no guarantee that if
Speaker 1: the Senate does vote on this, because maybe they don't.
Speaker 1: But if they do vote on it, there's no guarantee
Speaker 1: they're going to follow the lead of the House of Representatives.
Speaker 1: President Joe Biden has indicated that he would sign such
Speaker 1: a bill into law if it makes it to his desk.
Speaker 1: So if the Senate does vote in favor of this bill,
Speaker 1: it's unlikely that Biden would veto it. It seems pretty
Speaker 1: likely that he would sign it into law. But these
Speaker 1: are still big ifs. And here's where we get into
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of politics. So, when this bill was
Speaker 1: coming up for a House vote, TikTok urged some of
Speaker 1: its users to reach out to their local representatives to
Speaker 1: urge them to vote against the bill, and reportedly tons
Speaker 1: of young people followed that request, and many of them
Speaker 1: were under the age of eighteen. That means they're not
Speaker 1: legally allowed to vote. You can't vote until you're eighteen,
Speaker 1: and that makes their voices carry far less weight. If
Speaker 1: I'm being honest, a politician will pay if constituents of
Speaker 1: a voting age reach out to express an opinion about
Speaker 1: a particular piece of legislation. This is because politicians, generally speaking,
Speaker 1: liked to get re elected. But if constituents aren't legally
Speaker 1: able to vote, well, there's not really any pressure there.
Speaker 1: Various folks in politics stated that kids were flooding office
Speaker 1: phone lines about this upcoming band, and most of them
Speaker 1: had no clue what Congress is, what the House of
Speaker 1: Representatives happens to be, what a representative is. There was
Speaker 1: a lot of ignorance being reported, and so staffers were
Speaker 1: having to field all these calls from children who were
Speaker 1: just upset that an app they liked was targeted, but
Speaker 1: they clearly had little to no idea what they were
Speaker 1: supposed to actually do, and so this plan backfired. A
Speaker 1: lot of representatives had this experience, and they said, see,
Speaker 1: you can see how this app is manipulating American children.
Speaker 1: That proves that our concerns are valid. So womp womp.
Speaker 1: TikTok's plan ended up kind of cementing one of the
Speaker 1: perceived threats that leaders have about this app. However, that
Speaker 1: being said, a whole bunch of TikTok's users are of
Speaker 1: voting age, like it might have been all the kids
Speaker 1: who are calling in, but that doesn't mean that only
Speaker 1: kids are using TikTok. Like seventy five percent of TikTok's
Speaker 1: users at least are of voting age. This is according
Speaker 1: to Explodingtopics dot Com, which has a page on TikTok's demographics,
Speaker 1: and it says one in four TikTok users are under
Speaker 1: the age of twenty, So even saying seventy five percent
Speaker 1: is being conservative because obviously under the age of twenty,
Speaker 1: anyone who's eighteen or nineteen can still vote in the
Speaker 1: United States, so some of that one in four statistic
Speaker 1: are still a voting age, So at least seventy five
Speaker 1: percent of TikTok users in America are of voting age.
Speaker 1: The majority of users on TikTok are between the ages
Speaker 1: of eighteen and twenty four. That is a lot of
Speaker 1: young people who are eligible to vote. So there is
Speaker 1: a worry among the US Senate that's supporting a bill
Speaker 1: that would ban this app would in turn sour the
Speaker 1: users who are in that age range. In an election year,
Speaker 1: which it is here in the United States, with an
Speaker 1: uncertain outcome where you don't know who's going to come
Speaker 1: out up front, you know, there's a gamble that you
Speaker 1: would take to support a bill that would be incredibly
Speaker 1: unpopular among young voters, and not everyone the Senate is
Speaker 1: really eager to take that gamble. So there's a real
Speaker 1: reason that a lot of Senators, a lot of Democrats
Speaker 1: in particular, are not eager to go along with this
Speaker 1: bill because it could mean losing the support of young voters. Now,
Speaker 1: this doesn't mean that the senators necessarily disagree with the
Speaker 1: premise of the bill. You know that TikTok could pose
Speaker 1: as a potential threat to US national security. Maybe they
Speaker 1: actually believe that, but they wouldn't necessarily like the consequences
Speaker 1: that would come with supporting such a bill. There could
Speaker 1: be a serious political backlash. So would young voters actually
Speaker 1: turn on leaders who voted in favor of banning TikTok?
Speaker 1: That's hard to say. I suspect a lot of senators
Speaker 1: worry that it's all it would take that just by
Speaker 1: opposing this app it would make voters say, that's it,
Speaker 1: I'm switching to the other side, you know, forget all
Speaker 1: the other issues that I disagree with politically or ideologically.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna swap because they ban TikTok. I don't know
Speaker 1: if that's actually true. That seems to me to not
Speaker 1: give enough credence to individual beliefs, but I don't know.
Speaker 1: I'm also old, so who knows. But anyway, all of
Speaker 1: that discussion is really for a different podcast. So the
Speaker 1: thought that senators would vote against their own convictions in
Speaker 1: order to preserve their political position is not very fun
Speaker 1: to think about. It kind of goes against the idealism
Speaker 1: that Americans are urged to adopt. But we all suspect,
Speaker 1: or at least feel like this is something that happens
Speaker 1: quite a bit, and you could argue that a senator
Speaker 1: is actually just voting in line with their constituents. That
Speaker 1: makes it a little bit easier to swallow. Right, If
Speaker 1: you vote against your own beliefs because the people you
Speaker 1: represent believe something else, that seems far more noble than
Speaker 1: you voting against your own beliefs just so that you
Speaker 1: get re elected in the future. Now, let's get back
Speaker 1: to Donald Trump. As I said earlier. In twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: he famously targeted TikTok. He issued an executive order quote
Speaker 1: addressing the threat posed by TikTok end quote. Now. That
Speaker 1: executive order demanded that byte Edance divest itself of TikTok
Speaker 1: and allow an American company to acquire it or else
Speaker 1: face a ban, which sounds kind of familiar, right. Trump
Speaker 1: cited concerns of Chinese interference in American affairs, including threats
Speaker 1: to US economy and national security, as reasons for this order.
Speaker 1: The executive order never went into effect, partly because of
Speaker 1: a legal challenge against the order that was brought in
Speaker 1: a federal court. But now Trump has reversed his position
Speaker 1: on TikTok. He has said that a ban on TikTok
Speaker 1: would be a bad idea. So what gives what has
Speaker 1: changed in the last four years that would cause such
Speaker 1: a dramatic reversal. Well, a lot of the following would
Speaker 1: be based on assumptions that various people have made, But
Speaker 1: let's start with what Trump has said publicly. One thing
Speaker 1: he has mentioned is that a lot of people love
Speaker 1: TikTok and that quote a lot of young kids on
Speaker 1: TikTok will go crazy without it end quote. But you
Speaker 1: know that was true in twenty twenty two. It's not
Speaker 1: like in twenty twenty. Also, I guess I should say
Speaker 1: not twenty twenty two, but it was true in twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: So that doesn't seem like it should be enough to
Speaker 1: change his position unless over time he's developed more of
Speaker 1: an appreciation for how many people love their ding Dang
Speaker 1: tiktoks like that. That was never in doubt. But here's
Speaker 1: another potential reason for his change of heart. And that
Speaker 1: reason has a name, and that name is Jeff Yas.
Speaker 1: So who is Jeff Yas? He's a conservative billionaire and
Speaker 1: by that I mean he's worth nearly thirty billion dollars
Speaker 1: and he's contributed significantly to multiple conservative political organizations. And
Speaker 1: campaigns over the years. He's also a significant investor in
Speaker 1: Byte Dance. His investment firm reportedly owns a fifteen percent
Speaker 1: stake in Byte Dance. Obviously, Bye Dance's value hinges largely
Speaker 1: on TikTok remaining available in the United States, So Trump,
Speaker 1: as the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party in the
Speaker 1: presidential election, has a very strong incentive to not upset
Speaker 1: Yas's apple cart. Yas has donated a lot of money
Speaker 1: to a political organization called Club for Growth, which earlier
Speaker 1: actually opposed Trump's nomination as the Republican can and it's
Speaker 1: spent a lot of money trying to support alternative candidates,
Speaker 1: but none of that worked because the voters didn't care.
Speaker 1: And I'm pretty sure with a lot of grinding of teeth,
Speaker 1: the Club of Growth shifted its stance to align with Trump,
Speaker 1: and Trump has said publicly quote we're back in love.
Speaker 1: In the quote in response, I'm not kidding about that.
Speaker 1: I'm not paraphrasing. That's what Trump has said about his
Speaker 1: relationship with this organization. So you could argue that Trump's
Speaker 1: reversal instance has a lot more to do with him
Speaker 1: aligning with money that would support him in his effort
Speaker 1: to become president again than it does with a fundamental
Speaker 1: change of heart, and to me, it seems like a
Speaker 1: pretty safe bet. But there are also other reasons. Trump
Speaker 1: has said that one consequence of a ban on TikTok
Speaker 1: is that that would be incredibly beneficial to another company,
Speaker 1: namely Meta, and Trump has identified Meta as an enemy
Speaker 1: of the people. Now, a ton of the reason behind
Speaker 1: that deals with perceptions that Meta somehow interfered in the
Speaker 1: twenty twenty election by perhaps suppressing information that would have
Speaker 1: helped Trump or promoting information that would harm Trump politically. Now,
Speaker 1: I'll note that there are Democrat leaders who feel that
Speaker 1: the exact opposite scenario happened, that in fact, Meta was
Speaker 1: responsible for promoting misinformation or promoting Trump and suppressing information
Speaker 1: that would have been critical. So it's interesting to me
Speaker 1: that from both political sides there are completely opposite views
Speaker 1: as to what happened on Meta in the twenty twenty election.
Speaker 1: There's also the whole element of foreign interference using platforms
Speaker 1: like Facebook to manipulate voters. We know that happens. We
Speaker 1: know that Russia and China both have held massive campaigns.
Speaker 1: I guess really, what it boils down to is that
Speaker 1: Meda is a pretty lousy company from a political standpoint.
Speaker 1: Doesn't matter what side of the aisle you're from, Medda's
Speaker 1: not good. So part of Trump's reversal may have nothing
Speaker 1: to do with TikTok directly, but more to do with Meta. Now, personally,
Speaker 1: I'm not a fan of Zuckerberg or his company. I
Speaker 1: think Meta has done a lot of shady things, and
Speaker 1: has over the years leaned very hard on the political
Speaker 1: system to make sure these shady things didn't lead to
Speaker 1: negative consequences for the company. I don't necessarily believe that
Speaker 1: Meta has intentionally tried to sway politics one way or
Speaker 1: the other, apart from, you know, favoring Meda's business practices.
Speaker 1: But I do think tons of parties with various motivations
Speaker 1: have leveraged Meta's platforms in order to manipulate voters, and
Speaker 1: Meta has not done enough to counter that anyway. It's
Speaker 1: interesting to see that Donald Trump hasn't addressed TikTok's link
Speaker 1: to China, which of course is what he cited as
Speaker 1: his concern back in that executive order in twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: He hasn't talked about that really, at all. Instead, he's
Speaker 1: talked about how kids love the app and how TikTok's
Speaker 1: absence would benefit META. It actually would be pretty easy
Speaker 1: for Donald Trump to acknowledge TikTok's efforts to comply with
Speaker 1: US concerns, you know, with Project Texas. I think that
Speaker 1: would actually go a long way to stop people from
Speaker 1: asking how his view could change so dramatically in four years.
Speaker 1: And if he just said, look, TikTok took strides to
Speaker 1: protect US interests, like they spent more than a billion
Speaker 1: dollars to do so. If he said that, I think
Speaker 1: that would go a long way to assuaging the concerns
Speaker 1: about potential hypocrisy. And that's where we are. That's the
Speaker 1: technical and political situation here in the United States with
Speaker 1: regard to TikTok. Will the Senate follow the House of
Speaker 1: Representatives lead and pass the bill. That's not certain. I
Speaker 1: have my doubts because again, I think senators are going
Speaker 1: to worry about the political fallout if they make that
Speaker 1: kind of decision. If it weren't an allection year, I
Speaker 1: think things could potentially go a lot differently. But because
Speaker 1: it's an election year, because people are worried that would
Speaker 1: have an impact on the elections. I'm not entirely sure.
Speaker 1: I don't know that this bill's going to go any further.
Speaker 1: As for the idea of the US government stepping in
Speaker 1: to force a foreign owned company to divest itself of
Speaker 1: a property that is within the United States borders that
Speaker 1: actually has a precedence, like, it might seem like that's
Speaker 1: overstepping your bounds to like wrench assets from a company
Speaker 1: that is foreign based, but it's happened in America before. Famously,
Speaker 1: during World War One, the United States Navy essentially took
Speaker 1: over civilian radio stations that belonged to the Marconi Company,
Speaker 1: America's branch of the Marconi Company, which was based largely
Speaker 1: out of the UK, but also in other places. And
Speaker 1: after World War One, instead of returning those stations to
Speaker 1: the American Marconi Company, the Navy at first wanted to
Speaker 1: retain cont of those radio stations. They were not allowed
Speaker 1: to do that, and so ultimately General Electric stepped in
Speaker 1: and formed the Radio Corporation of America, and these previously
Speaker 1: foreign owned radio stations became American owned. There's an entire
Speaker 1: Tech Stuff episode about that in the archives if you
Speaker 1: want to learn more. About the Radio Corporation of America
Speaker 1: or RCA. So yeah, there is precedence for this. It's
Speaker 1: not like this kind of thing is completely unheard of. Again,
Speaker 1: in my own personal opinion, although I'm not a fan
Speaker 1: of TikTok, I feel like it does a lot of harm.
Speaker 1: I also have to admit one the ACLU argues that
Speaker 1: TikTok has First Amendment rights and that a lot of
Speaker 1: this bill essentially is ignoring that, and so it's unconstitutional.
Speaker 1: I acknowledge that there are a lot of people who
Speaker 1: make a living on TikTok, and it does seem unfair
Speaker 1: to just deny them their living. I don't really like that.
Speaker 1: And also, as I've said multiple times in this episode,
Speaker 1: the problems that leaders cite with TikTok are so much
Speaker 1: bigger than TikTok, and they go so far beyond a
Speaker 1: single platform and have nothing to do with you. Whether
Speaker 1: the ownership is domestic or foreign, it's such a smoke screen.
Speaker 1: It doesn't really matter, because we have this much larger
Speaker 1: issue with the way our data gets collected and bought
Speaker 1: and sold that have nothing to do directly with the
Speaker 1: platforms themselves. Apart from the fact that the platforms are
Speaker 1: sort of the siphon pulling all the data into the system.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I think this bill's misplaced. And it's not
Speaker 1: because I'm a TikTok fan, but because I think it's
Speaker 1: not looking at the real issue. It's not looking at
Speaker 1: the big picture, and I worry that it'll be ages
Speaker 1: before the United States takes a serious look at the
Speaker 1: big picture, largely because a lot of the leaders in
Speaker 1: the US government are old and they don't have a
Speaker 1: full understanding or appreciation for the tech ecosystem that exists
Speaker 1: that powers all of this, and it's going to take
Speaker 1: a while before you have folks who do have that
Speaker 1: appreciation to be in seats of power. So yeah, pretty
Speaker 1: rough week in tech from the US political perspective. And
Speaker 1: it'll be interesting to see how this plays out over
Speaker 1: the following months, whether or not senators will handle this
Speaker 1: or back away from it like it's radioactive, if it
Speaker 1: will have any impact in the actual election process later
Speaker 1: in the year. But that's it. That was our one
Speaker 1: big news item for this week that I really wanted
Speaker 1: to tackle. I originally was going to put in some
Speaker 1: other news items at the end, but I realized that
Speaker 1: this was just such a huge topic that I wouldn't
Speaker 1: really have space for it. But next week we should
Speaker 1: be back to doing other tech news episodes. We'll also
Speaker 1: have parts two and three of the rooster Teeth story,
Speaker 1: and my dog will hopefully apply to be an official
Speaker 1: correspondent as opposed to just insisting that he be part
Speaker 1: of this. I hope you are all well, and I'll
Speaker 1: talk to you again really soon. Tech Stuff is an
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio production. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.