Metastatic governments have penetrated every crevice of life and cannot get out of their own way. It justifies punitive measures against the Chinese-owned video-sharing app TikTok, calling it important to “national security.” But at the same time, the government claims that his takeover of US Steel by a Japanese steel company would threaten “national security.” Federal officials pretend to be wary of an allied company buying his U.S. Steel Corporation (this can only happen in the political arena). Although it is the largest steelmaker in the United States, the Defense Department currently buys just 3% of the domestic steel production it needs from it.
Under the new law, TikTok, which reportedly has 170 million users in the U.S. (2 billion worldwide), will be banned from U.S. app stores unless its Chinese ownership ends within 270 days. However, it may be extended by 90 days. This ownership probably has serious implications for national security. Recently retired Congressman Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) was an exemplary lawmaker who served as chairman of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party and was an architect of anti-TikTok legislation. He correctly views the Chinese Communist Party as the ultimate master of TikTok in China's Leninist party-state, and he correctly considers the Chinese Communist Party to be evil and dangerous. But these rulings are not enough to dispel doubts about the national security facts or the wisdom or constitutionality of the law.
Moderate Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, voted for the law, fearing precedent for forced sales and bans and questioning its necessity. The following is said about people who do: They haven't seen what Congress has seen. ” good.
At present, the government's “trust us” response has intensified rather than allaying suspicions. Therefore, Congress should share much of what it believes would justify a forced sale or ban of TikTok. And you need to explain what sources and methods are at risk by sharing everything.
On the potential risks of TikTok siphoning off user data: What kind of data? How is this dangerous? How is it different from Facebook and other services? Is it not possible to obtain an ocean of data from private data sellers?
Another question: In 1965, during the Cold War, the Supreme Court (BEG ITAL) unanimously (END ITAL) struck down a federal law that imposed burdens on citizens' “right to receive” communist propaganda mailed by foreign enemies. Overturned. So don't Americans have a fundamental First Amendment right to access the social media platforms of their choice, even those that distribute content from an evil regime?
Although the obvious target is TikTok, the new law also applies to other social media platforms that are “controlled by foreign adversaries.” This provision may be sufficient to protect the law from violating the Constitution's prohibition on achievement law, that is, laws that punish individuals or groups without trial. However, this provision appears to be merely superficial.
TikTok has successfully lured American users, who independent monitors say spend far more time on TikTok than Instagram or Snapchat, to flood Congress with petitions on behalf of the app. Lawmakers saw this as evidence of how easily manipulated Americans (especially but not just young people) are and why they need to be protected from TikTok. The argument for prohibition or divestment is therefore based on the idea that people should trust government, but government does not trust people to prepare their own minds.
Some Americans, unaware of their own cognitive dissonance, are warning of the impending arrival of domestic authoritarianism while expecting the imprisonment of the incumbent president's main opponents. One way our country can minimize the reputational damage it inflicts on itself is to not back down from defending the open internet.
Today's TikTok panic (a bill against TikTok passed the House of Representatives in 47 days) is happening in America, where commitment to free speech has waned in recent decades. Many progressives in particular believe that free speech is often harmful, which makes the First Amendment “problematic,” to use an adjective favored by progressives. Progressivism is inherently paternalistic – governments know best. Eating spinach will turn you into an infant. Many conservatives see this as a bipartisan temptation.
But respect for the First Amendment is eroding, and governments tend to insist that every new exercise of power justifies the next expansion of their claims. It is wise to assume this. TikTok will not be the last target of the government's desire to control the internet and the rest of society's information and opinion ecosystem.
As usual, governments will say that their steadily expanding control over our lives is for our own benefit. Regarding TikTok, the government says its controls are to protect us from influences that cannot be properly assessed. And, of course, to strengthen “national security.”
George Will at georgewill@washpost.com
