The manufacture, Apple removed WhatsApp and Threads from its App Store in China following orders from the Chinese authorities.
On Saturday, a The foreign aid package passed the US House with legislation to ban social media platform TikTok if its China-based owner does not sell its stake within a year. The Senate voted on the legislation on Tuesdayand President Joe Biden signed it Wednesday.
Social media has officially entered world politics.
But Northeastern University media and technology experts say banning TikTok in the United States may be the wrong geopolitical move.
“I think Congress is focusing on the right problem, with the very wrong solution,” says David Choffnes, associate professor at Northeastern's Khoury College of Computer Sciences and executive director and founding member of the Cybersecurity and Privacy Institute. “What I would like to see is a comprehensive federal privacy law that protects users from all privacy threats, whether they come from companies that are domestic or foreign.”
John Wihbey, associate professor of media innovation and technology in the College of Arts, Media and Design at Northeastern and founder of Northeastern's Internet Democracy Initiativeagrees.
“The politics around it is funny,” Wihbey says. “There are some legitimate concerns that the bill tries to address, but it does so in a haphazard way that is very much about pomp and theater and does not address the privacy concerns that Americans have about all the social media technologies that based on monitoring.
“I think a more comprehensive approach to privacy would be a better approach to this particular problem,” Wihbey continues.
On Saturday, Apple complied with requests from Chinese authorities to remove messaging platform WhatsApp and Threads – both owned by Meta – from its App Store in China. Chinese authorities said national security concerns.
Meanwhile, the House passed legislation on Saturday as part of the foreign aid package that would ban TikTok in the United States if the popular China-based social media platform's owner, ByteDance Ltd. not sell his share within nine months or up to one year if a sale is in progress. Democrats and Republicans had cited national security concerns in passing an earlier version of the legislation in March and the measure comes after years of consideration.
Wihbey says the potential US ban on TikTok and the removal of WhatsApp and Threads in China is “clearly” a confrontation.
“China's refusal to allow our technology into their market is now being met with our response,” says Wihbey.
This feeds it controversial trade relationship between the US and China which has been going on for decades, even centuries.
But the dominance of the American tech industry has arguably given the United States the upper hand in potential disputes over social media apps. Until TikTok.
“TikTok is the platform that challenged American companies at their own game and won,” says Wihbey. “It's taking away tons of ad dollars that Meta and Google had and creating really remarkable innovations within our borders.”
Wihbey says there are legitimate privacy concerns about TikTok — especially given its geolocation capabilities and its ubiquitous presence on millions of Americans' personal phones.
But there are other ways to address these concerns — for example, a comprehensive privacy law or technology security regulations similar to those passed in United Kingdom, India and other countries. The United States, meanwhile, relies primarily on Section 5 from Federal Trade Commission Actlegislation passed in 1914.
“We don't really have anything to show for it,” says Wihbey. “We are not providing meaningful leadership to the world.”
Choffnes says there is “no perfect solution” to what the US could do to address privacy. But he mentions positive aspects of it General Data Protection Regulation of the European Union as well as emphasizing the importance not only of privacy policies but also of money to enforce said policies.
“We've seen so many pieces of legislation that sound good but don't have the money to enforce them,” says Choffnes. It has to be a combination of policy and control zeal that has been historically lacking.”
But both Choffnes and Wihbey said banning TikTok was not the right thing to do.
“Here we are, the world's leading democracy promoting a set of values that we say are important to the world, and we're banning an app in a way that looks a little bit like authoritarian governments do in a jerky way,” says Wihbey. .
“It authorizes, morally, an approach where people just ban things they don't like based on a national security concern,” Wihbey continues.
Choffnes agrees, adding that such a ban might, ironically, signal that the United States is willing to do exactly what it criticizes China for doing — banning apps and cracking down on free speech.
Choffnes also worries that a ban would make it less likely for foreign companies to do business with or with the United States, and that a ban would continue the path of an “internet” — the idea that the open, globally connected Internet is divided into regionally fragmented networks controlled by governments or companies.
“Creating these pockets of the Internet where some things are allowed or some things are not allowed is a net loss for the world and certainly for the US,” says Choffnes.
Wihbey also worries that a ban could start a trend — what international relations scholars call a “norm cascade.”
“We could see cascades where various applications are banned around the world,” Wihbey said. “There are a lot of countries on the fence about whether they want to be more like censors or defenders of free speech, and they're trying to get a signal.”
A TikTok ban would definitely send a signal.
“I worry that it sets a bad precedent that is not where the United States wants to be,” says Wihbey.
Of course, that's if we even get to it. There is a very, very likely stop first.
“We're almost certainly going to go to court,” says Jeremy Paul, a professor at Northeastern University School of Law. “TikTok's lawyers have had a long time to think about this and I expect lawsuits to be filed within weeks.”
Paul predicts that TikTok will challenge the law on free speech grounds — arguing that Congress is trying to shut down speech it doesn't like under the guise of trying to protect user data from theft. and also trying to “clamp down” on the free speech rights of TikTok users.
It also anticipates that ByteDance will argue that they are being unfairly singled out in violation of equal protection grounds.
Paul does not necessarily believe that these arguments will be successful.
He notes that the United States has long regulated ownership interests in the media — for example, preventing monopolies of newspapers or radio stations.
As for freedom of speech…
“They're not banning speech, they're banning a Chinese vehicle owner from speaking,” says Paul. And he notes that the legislation makes it illegal to sell data to foreign governments. “We can't regulate you for what you say, but we can for what you do.”
And while he notes that legislation targeting a particular company is “unusual,” he says it's “not unprecedented.”
That said, the Chinese government has deep pockets to finance a court case and — with this Supreme Court — who knows?
“It's new enough, and there's enough smoke involved in free speech, that you find the right judge on the right day and anything can happen,” says Paul.