TikTok is one of the biggest stories in business and geopolitics. US President Joe Biden has recently signed a law that would ban the massively popular app in nine months if its Chinese owner, ByteDance, does not sell it to a non-Chinese entity.
TikTok, for its part, has called the law “political theater,” and it is probably right: There is always some theatrics in politics, and bashing China is one of the most popular shows in town. Almost no other issue can unite the two major parties.
However, given the arrogance TikTok exhibited in the weeks and months leading up to the bill’s passage, the company’s leadership clearly has a fundamental misunderstanding of the US and Americans.
Compared with policymakers in other countries, US lawmakers are usually reluctant to regulate business, and many had previously opposed a forced sale of TikTok for fear that it could create a perception of corruption, reduce business and investor confidence, and undermine free speech. Most agree that when regulation does happen, it should clear the relatively high bar of serving the public interest.
Until a month ago, the main public-interest concern was data privacy. Questions such as who can access user data, and whether that data can be put to malign uses, are pertinent to all large social-media platforms. Over the past decade, the US Congress has held many hearings on the issue, often targeting large US companies such as Meta and Google.
These concerns are amplified in TikTok’s case, because many US lawmakers assume that the Chinese government can force TikTok to hand over the data of its US users. Under laws China enacted in 2017 and 2021, all Chinese organizations are required to assist the government’s intelligence-gathering and counterespionage work, if asked.
TikTok promised that it would store Americans’ data on servers outside China. That did not satisfy US lawmakers and security officials, who continued to worry about “backdoors,” an issue that contributed to the US Federal Trade Commission’s decision two years ago to ban equipment made by Huawei Technologies.
Still, at one point, there was hope for a workable solution whereby US regulators would conduct detailed examinations of the company’s technology. As data privacy is an industry-wide concern, TikTok could have played the issue to its advantage, such as by investing in data safeguards and supporting independent research of its own platform.
It could have met US lawmakers halfway, and approached the issue proactively, transparently and in the spirit of collaboration. TikTok could have been a positive force for change in the US tech industry.
Instead, TikTok adopted an aggressive stance, hired expensive lobbyists and in a catastrophic misstep, even mobilized its (predominantly young) US users to call their representatives in Congress. Pop-up messages urged users to “let Congress know what TikTok means to you and tell them to vote NO.” Some congressional offices received more than 1,000 calls in the space of a day.
On the surface, that might have seemed like a savvy strategy, given Uber’s earlier success in mobilizing its users to lobby against legislation it opposed. TikTok overlooked a crucial difference: Uber is a US company. By intervening in the US political process, TikTok made the situation much worse for itself, highlighting a second major threat that its critics say it could pose to the public interest.
Over the past decade, Americans and US lawmakers have grown increasingly concerned about social media’s undue influence on users’ beliefs, behaviors and voting decisions, and on how hostile foreign actors can exploit the major platforms for their own purposes. This risk strikes at the heart of US democracy, and it is not just hypothetical. Russia and other governments regularly try to interfere in US and European elections.
Given this context, TikTok’s mobilization of its users was not just an annoyance to elected officials’ staffers, it was an alarm bell. Many of those who responded to the call seemed not even to know what they were protesting. A foreign-owned company had brazenly demonstrated just how easy it is to manipulate its users to serve its own interests, confirming that it knew all along how much political influence it could exert. Suddenly, and understandably, the focus in the US shifted from Russian voter manipulation to Chinese voter manipulation.
Perhaps nothing could have saved TikTok from the forced-sale legislation, given the geopolitical climate. We will never know what could have been, but it is clear that the company’s aggressive strategy backfired. TikTok launched what many saw as an attack on US democracy, and ended up ensuring the majorities that were needed to push the bill through the US Congress.
TikTok’s future in the US is uncertain. Before it weighs its next moves, the company should fire its lobbyists and consultants, who should have advised it to be more respectful of Americans’ legitimate concerns about data privacy and threats to democracy. All other non-US firms should learn from TikTok’s recent missteps on what not to do.
Nancy Qian, a professor of economics at Northwestern University, is codirector of Northwestern University’s Global Poverty Research Lab and founding director of the China Econ Lab.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS