What Elaborate Tales Were Spun in the TikTok Congressional Hearing
TikTok's CEO, Shou Zi Chew, essentially attempted to gaslight the audience and downplay the legitimate concerns of millions of users about the company's Chinese ownership
Note: Shou Zi Chew is the CEO of Beijing-based ByteDance, the parent company of TikTok. Chew was the former CFO of Xiaomi and also worked at DST Global. Prior to Chew, Kevin Mayer served as TikTok's CEO from June 2020 to his resignation on August 26, 2020. During his tenure, Mayer also served as the COO of ByteDance, reporting directly to CEO Zhang Yiming.
During the hearing, members of the committee raised concerns about how much access the Chinese government has to user data and the potential for censorship and propaganda. Chew defended TikTok's data practices and insisted that the app was not a threat to US national security. He also claimed that it was not a good idea for TikTok to divest from Chinese ownership because of the poor track record of US ownership of social media companies. In his own words, he states:
I don’t think ownership is the issue here. With a lot of respect, American social companies don’t have a good track record with data privacy and user security. I mean, look at Facebook and Cambridge Analytica — just one example. (by ceo of tiktok)
This statement is essentially gaslighting, attempting to shift the focus away from the real issue at hand. By saying that ownership is not the problem, the CEO of TikTok is downplaying the legitimate concerns of millions of users and critics about the company's data privacy and security practices.
Furthermore, the attempt to draw a comparison between Facebook and Cambridge Analytica is a logical fallacy known as a false equivalency. While it is true that Facebook has had issues with data privacy, it is not equivalent to the concerns raised about TikTok's practices, which are specific to the Chinese Communist Party's influence and control over the company. It is important to recognize that while no company is perfect and all have had issues with data privacy, the specific concerns surrounding TikTok's practices are serious and need to be addressed. Attempts to deflect criticism by pointing fingers at other companies or arguing that ownership is not the problem only serve to diminish the importance of addressing these issues and protecting users' privacy and security.
Chew's defense of Chinese ownership is hypocritical, given that the Chinese government has a history of censoring and surveilling its citizens. Some have also noted that TikTok itself has been accused of censoring content critical of the Chinese government and spreading propaganda. Leaked documents revealing TikTok's moderation guidelines indicate that the popular social media platform, which is owned by a Chinese company, directs its moderators to censor content related to sensitive political topics such as Tiananmen Square, Tibetan independence, and the banned religious organization Falun Gong.
China has a long history of censoring and controlling online content, with the country's National Intelligence Law giving the government broad powers to access and collect user data. This has raised concerns about the potential impact of Chinese ownership of social media companies on user privacy and data security. In comparison, the US has only been criticized for its lack of regulation and oversight of social media companies. In response, the US government has taken steps to address some of these concerns, such as the passage of the Honest Ads Act and the creation of the Office of Digital Strategy, but there is still much work to be done.
The risks associated with Chinese ownership of TikTok are numerous. The Chinese government could use the app to influence users or gain access to their data, potentially compromising their privacy and security. The app could also be used to spread propaganda and manipulate public opinion. Take for instance, Vica Li, a popular "life blogger" and "food lover" with 1.4 million followers across TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube, who seemingly wants to educate her fans about China to make their travels around the country more comfortable. She claims to show her followers China through her lens and that she has created all her channels independently. However, she has regularly appeared in broadcasts for CGTN, the Chinese state-run TV network, and is listed as a digital reporter on their website. Despite this, Li claims to have full control over her accounts, but her Facebook page reveals that at least nine people manage her page. China has leveraged U.S.-owned social media platforms to expand its already significant influence as it continues to assert its economic power. The Associated Press investigation found that China has created a network of social media personalities who echo the government's position in posts viewed by hundreds of thousands of people. These personalities act in lockstep to promote China's achievements, deflect international criticism of its human rights violations, and advance Beijing's views on global affairs like Russia's conflict with Ukraine.
Chew's argument that Chinese ownership is preferable to US ownership is problematic and potentially misleading. While US social media companies have their own set of problems, Chinese ownership raises unique concerns given the country's history of censorship and surveillance. In fact, in the near future, China aims to implement an all-encompassing system of algorithmic surveillance. Through the use of artificial intelligence and data analysis, China's communist party-state is constructing comprehensive profiles of each citizen in order to establish a "citizen score" and incentivize "good" behavior. Additionally, a vast network of surveillance cameras will be deployed to constantly monitor citizens, ostensibly to decrease crime and terrorism. Although this expanding system of surveillance may improve "public safety," it poses a concerning threat to civil liberties in a country that already has one of the most oppressive and controlling governments in the world. Access to social media apps like TikTok that can mine large amounts of data from foreign citizens, and potentially regime dissidents that choose to live abroad in the interest of personal safety, would be a large force multiplier for such an algorithmic surveillance system.
The outcome of the congressional hearing is unclear, but it could have major implications for TikTok's future in the US. If the US government determines that TikTok poses a national security threat, it could be banned or forced to divest from Chinese ownership. TikTok has already faced scrutiny from regulators around the world, and its future remains uncertain.
In conclusion, TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew's defense of Chinese ownership has been criticized as hypocritical, given the Chinese government's history of censorship and surveillance. The outcome of the congressional hearing could have major implications for TikTok's future in the US and its global expansion plans. It is important for regulators to address the risks associated with Chinese ownership of social media companies while also addressing the issues of regulation and oversight in the US.
As we navigate the complex landscape of social media and its various players, it's important to keep in mind the potential risks involved. While TikTok's soaring popularity and user-friendly interface are hard to ignore, the concerns over data privacy and censorship remain very real. As Orwell once wrote, "the choice for mankind lies between freedom and happiness and for the great bulk of mankind, happiness is better." Yet, it's crucial to remember that the two are not mutually exclusive, and we must strive to find a balance between them.
While American social media companies have faced their fair share of controversies and criticisms, they have also taken steps toward greater transparency and accountability. It's up to us, as consumers and citizens, to hold these companies to the highest standards and demand nothing less than the protection of our privacy and freedoms.
As for TikTok, we must approach them with a healthy dose of skepticism and caution. It's not a matter of demonizing any particular country or culture, but rather recognizing the potential risks involved and taking proactive steps to mitigate them. In the end, as Orwell reminds us, "Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." Let's exercise that right wisely and with foresight.
this reads like it was written by an American owned anti-China propaganda machine..