TikTok dust up

This week's Goodfellows conversation was a bit more contentious than usual. The most interesting part, I think, is our little dust-up over TokTok, following Niall's Bloomberg commentary.

As in the rest of this series I am the skeptic of jumping in to Cold War II -- or at least against lashing out against all things China without an overall strategy. So I pushed hard on my colleagues -- Be specific. Just exactly what is the danger you fear about allowing a Chinese social media company to operate in the U.S?



Let us remember TikTok is a private company, not a direct arm of the Chinese Communist Party. It loudly says it keeps data private and locates that data outside China. Certainly, one could and should ask for long lists of assurances on data privacy to be allowed to operate in the US. Yes, under Chinese law, the Chinese government can demand data. And then we'll see what happens. But let us not confuse the facts on the ground as they are.

But admitting all that, be specific. Exactly what is the danger to US national security if the Chinese Communist Party gets TikToks data that finds Suzie Derkins really likes fluffy cat videos?

Judge for yourself, as it is unfair for me to post too many late hits at my colleagues' responses, but I remain unconvinced. Sure, 40 years from now Suzie might be a Supreme Court nominee and China might release an embarrassing video from her teenage years. But China can archive Reels or twitter or YouTube just as easily.

Many other answers seemed to me to veer off to other issues. Niall thinks TikTok is like crack cocaine, addictive to young and feeble minds, because it has AI algorithms that feed what you want to read. OK, but that has nothing to do with China and national security. Reels will be just as bad. HR is back to countering China's quest for "economic dominance." But I guess that means cutting off all Chinese companies, and we've had the argument before whether strategic mercantilism or innovation is the right answer there.

The argument broadened to one of general freedom of speech and regulation of the internet. Niall is still worried about all the fake news, and thinks that by regulating internet platforms as publishers all will be well. I notice current publishers are full of fake news too, and that the internet allows much more freedom to respond, and provide a counter-narrative. There is a bottom line, I think, whether one trusts people with freedom of speech and counter-speech, or some hope that some regulatory system, either top-down (which Niall disavows) or through the legal system, being able to sue publishers for wrong stories, will stem fake news and protect people from their feeble-mindedness. It's a second-best world -- I notice all the gatekeepers are just as feeble minded, and trust caveat emptor a lot more, I think, than my colleagues. Facebook's idea that all postings on covid-19 must conform to current CDC or WHO guidelines, for example, is laughable. The robust and acrimonious debate over policy in the current crisis has been enormously beneficial.

I do think traditional limitations on free speech are allowable, of course. Posting on Facebook "the cops are busy tonight, everybody meet at the Nike store on N. Michigan avenue," as apparently happened in Chicago last weekend, falls under the crying fire in a crowded theater exemption to free speech.

I won't prejudice the conversation further. We will surely return to these issues.

from The Grumpy Economist https://ift.tt/343xaY2