TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee Thursday about safety and national security concerns surrounding his social media behemoth. He was not well received.
Members of both parties grilled Chew relentlessly over TikTok’s ties to the Chinese government and its data practices because its parent company, ByteDance, is based in China. The hearing came as President Joe Biden and lawmakers in both parties are considering laws that could regulate or ban TikTok from the U.S. — a hot-button issue since nearly half of the country is on the viral video-sharing platform. While lawmakers did touch on other issues, such as whether the video’s algorithm promotes dangerous content to children, the main focus was how TikTok could be weaponized against Americans through data surveillance or algorithm manipulation.
It’s not sinophobic to ask questions about how to guard against TikTok’s misuse. It’s common sense.
Some critics responded to the harshness of the hearing as proof of bigotry. TikTok’s Chief Operating Officer Vanessa Pappas said the committee’s interrogation was “rooted in xenophobia.” Some progressive commentators have said the same. Rep. Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y., told NBC News this week ahead of the hearing that fearmongering about TikTok was related to “xenophobia around China” and has warned against what he calls the “racist” reasoning behind talks of a ban.
There’s no doubt that the posture of some lawmakers on TikTok is racialized and grounded in a hawkish attitude toward China. But that’s not the whole story. Given what we know about how Big Tech abuses data, about how China’s authoritarian government systematically embraces surveillance as a tool of social control, and about the increasingly adversarial geopolitical relationship between the U.S. and China, it’s not sinophobic to ask questions about how to guard against TikTok’s misuse. It’s common sense.
While a ban is probably too drastic and may fail to solve all the issues at hand, regulating the company is sensible. Fortunately, one of the key ways to address some of the concerns posed by TikTok — restricting all companies’ capacity to collect data on Americans — could help us solve problems with online life that extends well beyond this social media platform.
Under Chinese law, a Chinese company is obligated to turn over personal data that the Chinese government says is relevant to its national security. Thus, it’s not hard to see how TikTok could easily be weaponized against the U.S. China-based ByteDance employees have already accessed nonpublic data about American TikTok users in the past, and spied on journalists in an attempt to crack down on leaks. It is within the realm of possibility that extremely personal data could be traced to influential political actors in the U.S. and used for blackmail, and that algorithms could be tweaked to spread political disinformation.
Chew claims TikTok would never turn over data to the Chinese government and is making efforts to create a “firewall” for U.S. data storage to prevent it from being accessed abroad — but it seems injudicious for government leaders to take his word for it. The app has 150 million monthly American users and has become a major force in American cultural life. In an era in which information warfare has the capacity to spawn enduring conspiracy theories, energize insurrections and tip elections, it only makes sense to try to anticipate how TikTok could be weaponized.
A complete ban on Tik Tok is a radical step and could potentially be challenged on First Amendment grounds. Moreover, some experts note a ban would not prevent China from buying data about American online users from data brokers and attempting to use such information maliciously. But the U.S. should find ways to regulate TikTok.
To increase public trust and transparency, TikTok is reportedly negotiating with U.S. officials and lawmakers the possibility of having its algorithm audited by third parties. Evan Greer, the director at Fight for the Future, a digital rights organization, said such an arrangement could be a “step forward” and that it could exceed what a lot of social media companies are willing to do today. Monitoring TikTok’s algorithm can reduce the chances that the company could alter its its algorithm for specific political purposes without it being noticed. But she cautioned that that the devil is in the details. The efficacy of such a setup would depend on who is doing the auditing, what’s being audited and if the materials handed over are presented in a way that auditors (and even TikTok itself) can actually make sense of it. Ultimately, how much trust Tik Tok could build with such an arrangement would depend on what TikTok is willing to expose about its valuable algorithm. But again, we can’t depend only on what TikTok is willing to agree to. Some experts say the best way to regulate TikTok is to craft policy that applies to all companies that use online surveillance as part of their business model. Greer told me she believes members of Congress laser focused on TikTok are “on a sidequest” in the scheme of a bigger crisis of surveillance of online life; she points to the American Data Privacy and Protection Act as a potential solution. That law would put in place strong data minimization policies, strictly limiting how and how much data companies can collect on people online. It also would deal a huge blow to the power of the algorithms of TikTok and other social media apps because their content recommendation relies on collecting huge amounts of data about its users. The passage of that act would force any company operating in the U.S., not just TikTok, to collect far less data — and reduce all social media companies’ capacities to shape the flow of information through algorithmic amplification. In addition to privacy legislation, the Federal Trade Commission could play a more aggressive role in creating and enforcing rules around commercial surveillance, Greer pointed out. TikTok raises legitimately tricky questions about national security. But it’s not the only social media company that does, and national security concerns aren’t the only reason to rethink the freedom we’ve given to social media companies in our society. Any time a powerful actor has vast control over the flow of information, it should be scrutinized as a possible source of exploitation, censorship and manipulation — and, when appropriate, regulated. TikTok should serve as the springboard for that conversation, not the beginning and ending of it.
Zeeshan Aleem is a writer and editor for MS NOW. He primarily writes about politics and foreign policy. 
