To be devil’s advocate: We already know China loves to be meddlin’ in Western elections, so both parties have a vested interest in getting them out of their pants.
That being said, China can easily meddle all over the place, so I don’t consider that the primary motivator. Like I said before, this is 98% about protectionism.
TikTok is a massively powerful tool of influence and intelligence, in the hands of an adversary that is well understood to proactively meddle with democratic elections.
Yes, obviously the CCP will unabashedly pursue other interference vectors. That should be viewed as more reason to curtail TikTok, not less.
You’re missing the point, though. China has sizable stakes in multiple social media and streaming platforms, movie studios, and popular videogame studios (like the makers of Fortnite). But the fact those are all primarily owned by US companies makes it okay (in this context–I know China has stakes in similar businesses around the world, too).
TikTok is a threat to Meta and Co’s dominance and American companies can’t simply buy it out to make it go away or at least make it directly benefit them. Don’t mistake me in saying it isn’t a national security threat. What I’m saying is, if TikTok is a threat, then all of these corporate platforms are a threat. The government should targeting all of them! But they’re not, and the reason seems pretty obvious to me.
I mean do you think Fortnite has anywhere near the same level of ability to disseminate information or surveil people as TikTok does?
And actually it makes a material difference that ByteDance is based in Beijing, as opposed to just having Chinese investors. Those social platforms, movie studios, etc., being headquartered in the US is exactly what makes it different. Can Chinese firms apply financial pressure to compel them to act against the interests of US citizens? Yes, of course, and they do.
But that’s categorically different than being legally obligated to comply with the CCP, which ByteDance is.
They have until January 19th to divest, with a 90-day extension if they are pursuing sale. They aren’t mandating that it be done by November’s election regardless of the outcome.
Seriously, going through these comments, it’s clear most people didn’t read the article or didn’t learn how calendars work in school (or are part of the Russian Internet Research Agency and trying to sow doubt in Biden).
Based on the timeline, it’s clear the intention wasn’t to protect against the 2024 election, since the potential ban would go in place after the election happens.
