At issue before the Supreme Court this week is whether the national security implications of TikTok outweigh our right to freedom of speech. The belief here is we better cling to our First Amendment.
Elon Musk’s motivations for purchasing Twitter were to ensure there was a place to have free and open debate on social media. This purchase came after federal law enforcement leaned on Twitter to suppress stories related to Hunter Biden, and pressured other Big Tech companies to peddle a bogus COVID pro-lockdown narrative — which destroyed businesses and lives — on top of suppressing speech for anyone who dared to question the efficacy of child masking or “warp speed” vaccines.
As a direct result of Musk taking such bold leadership, thankfully, the zeitgeist of today has moved firmly in the direction of ensuring our speech is not policed. This is evidenced by Mark Zuckerberg conceding Meta had censored too much in the past, and made earnest changes to restoring free speech on his platform while also making a public commitment to resist federal efforts to influence Meta’s content going forward.
Yet while the nation’s spirit is firmly in the camp of free speech, some are unfortunately unable to apply the lessons above to TikTok, due to a misguided belief that it jeopardizes our national security. The national security arguments essentially boil down to two – a fear that China’s government could get ahold of user data, and a belief that the algorithm will be used to brainwash people into believing anything China wants.
The first national security argument seems to fall apart when considering that every app on your phone is collecting your data, and every app is selling it. This is admittedly an oversimplification for the point of clarity, but not by much. Any app on your phone is potentially capable of collecting the same sort of user data that TikTok does and selling it to anyone, anywhere in the world. Calli Schroeder of the Electronic Privacy Information Center called the ban “a form of security theater” because “You could get rid of TikTok today, and China would not lose any significant [amount] of personal information on Americans.”
The second national security argument is as wrong as it is insulting to our very intelligence. It reveals the typical elitist thinking from Congress that people are simply unable to critically discern information for themselves without the government “protecting us.” It’s no surprise that a government that brutally locked down our country just a couple of years ago strives for this sort of social media groupthink wherein their positions are de facto the correct ones. This is exactly what the animus of the country is now against.
More broadly, one can find intentional disinformation (including government propaganda), or content that is racist, ignorant, or otherwise immoral on any social media platform. Hello, Tim Pool. The idea that TikTok is the only social media platform where such “disinformation” has the potential to exist is ridiculous and demonstrably so.
So here is the national security risk I am asking the Supreme Court to weigh — the risk of banning it.
Politicians have already set their sights on banning more apps made in China, including Temu. This is tantamount to a witch hunt against a critical U.S. trading partner that has major ramifications for the future of commerce. Where does this end — a bifurcated Internet?
As Trump eloquently stated three weeks ago, “China and the United States can together solve all the problems of the world.” Our getting along as business partners – albeit competitive ones – best assures our mutual prosperity. And both sides should take with it an understanding that it’s never good business to bomb your customers.
However, if our nations strive for decoupling, and the TikTok ban (along with the subsequent app bans advocated by some in Congress) is successful, the true risk may lie in this isolation.
What signal does it send in telling countries they can’t make apps for us?
