TikTok Ban - "Constructive Vigilance" Conditions for a Resolution

with Dan Zehr

Last Thursday, TikTok CEO Shou Chew went through 5 hours of grilling by U.S. lawmakers. The rancorous tone of the Congressional hearing was hardly novel in this era of bitter bipartisanship, but what was novel was the fact that Republican and Democratic representatives stood together as they directed their ire at Chew signaled trouble for the company. As the?New York Times?reported, one Republican representative from Texas remarked that TikTok “had inspired a political unity that hadn’t been seen in three of four years.” Both sides of the aisle rallied in a strong, assertively defensive posture against the influence of China and its companies on American soil.?It is the latest episode of "geotech," i.e. tech taking center stake in geopolitics.

Amidst the grand strategy between the two most powerful economies on the planet, Chew fought hard, but not credibly. Responding to concerns about data leaks and surveillance of U.S. citizens by arguing that the company keeps data on U.S. soil and that it’s not owned by the Chinese government proved futile. Representatives bought neither of those arguments, but particularly the idea that Beijing does not wield control over TikTok. Indeed, that idea is nothing short of ludicrous, and leads me to believe that his political advisors don’t know their craft well enough.?The Chinese government has its hands in its global digital companies through political agents in management and boards, as well as through “golden shares,” which it holds in ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company.?This overbearing posture by Beijing of exercising political influence in China's private sector actors is now backfiring internationally in the world's largest digital market. And ultimately, Chew offered little incentive for Congress or the White House to ease the pressure. Arguably, even if he had, it would not have made a difference - the political deck is stacked against him, and for many of the right reasons.?

Now, however, the big question is:?Can we guide this into some constructive solution that protects US citizens, or have we finally had enough such that we are willing to escalate??So, the administration now has three choices:

(1) Ban TikTok — This is justified under national security concerns, especially seeing the evidence of ByteDance’s surveillance of U.S. journalists and recognizing that platforms are critical communications infrastructure. However, doing so would be politically tricky, because 150 million mostly young U.S. users, many of whom vote, wouldn’t be happy.?New polling?from?The Economist?and YouGov shows that younger Americans are much less hostile to China than their parents are; wonky rationales of national-security risk won’t persuade them if their favorite app is nixed.?And in addition, the move could in turn lead to retaliation or sabotage against US companies in China, - a slippery slope both sides would ideally be able to avoid.

(2) Insist that ByteDance divest itself of all, or at least a majority share, of TikTok — A partial divestiture could leave control over technology and content in U.S. hands while allowing ByteDance to receive a sizable return on its investment to date.?China, of course, would have to agree to the sale of sensitive technology, and Beijing opposes such a deal. Insistence on this path could lead to a further escalation of tensions with China amidst the existing “hot pot” of issues such as Taiwan, trade imbalances, spy balloons and the origins of Covid. And it could lead to retaliation against US companies in China. And that is leaving aside the fact that a similar deal was struck down in U.S. courts under Trump once before. It would, however, be justified from a national security angle, because platforms are critical infrastructure for our society, both in civil society and in economic terms.

(3) Continue negotiations over technical safeguards for data sovereignty and security for TikTok’s US customers on US soil — This could require a further bolstering and risk-controlling of TikTok’s “Project Texas” with Oracle by demanding audits and real-time monitoring of Oracle servers by U.S. authorities.?This would essentially mean “surveilling the surveillers,” as it were, i.e. getting transparency on TikTok’s US data analytics and content programming decisions. ??It could also include bans on any user-related communications going back to China under a pending bill that gives the Commerce Department the?power to do so.?This would be "constructive vigilance" at work following President Reagan's adage "trust by verify" and is appropriate whenever civilian applications are at risk of getting weaponized for mass influencing campaigns.

If this latter option or a hybrid between it and a partial divestiture get revived, and US lawmakers’ concerns can be addressed with appropriate guardrails, Washington could prove that it can take the vigilant but productive high-road.?Beijing, on the other hand, could demonstrate that it respects the kind of " non-interference" in domestic affairs that it touts throughout its Belt-and-Road Initiative. But in his Congressional appearance, Chew failed to give lawmakers any incentive to take that path. Only a hard look at the "ground truth" inside TikTok's server centers will bring that about. If he, TikTok and ByteDance continue to play loosely and provoke Congress and the administration into the first option, they would not only prove beyond a doubt that customers are mere objects in a larger political game and that China's relations with the West deserve to take a further nose dive.?Needless to say, it is in both sides' interest not to let that happen. Too much is at stake globally, from climate change to migration management, from public health to the future of the global economy.