The TikTok Shutdown: Who’s Really Responsible
Even if you aren’t interested in national security, the national security state is interested in you
Many of the 170 million Americans blocked from using TikTok last night seem to have no idea it was the handiwork of the national security state.
Sure, Trump initially supported the ban and Congress overwhelmingly voted for it before Biden ultimately signed it into law. But behind the scenes was an intense lobbying campaign by the intelligence community, from the FBI to the CIA. In one classified briefing after another, intelligence officials succeeded at scaring the shit out of our elected leaders about China using the app to collect Americans’ data or covertly influence them. Never mind that the threat is purely hypothetical, that China can already buy Americans’ information from private data brokers, or most importantly, that foreign influence campaigns are largely ineffective. None of that matters because in Washington, three magic words can override almost anything: national security threat.
The absurdity of this all is evident in Congress’ practically overnight reversal on the issue just before the ban, amid public backlash. How serious could the threat have been if they folded instantly? Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who voted for the law, pled with Biden to delay the ban. In my view, anyone who did not anticipate the TikTok ban would, uh, tick people off, should not be in politics. But they are, and that raises an interesting question: If governments can’t even understand their own public, should we really be so worried about attempts by governments to influence foreign audiences they know even less about?
In September, Princeton announced it had been awarded a Pentagon-funded grant to examine the efficacy of foreign influence operations through social media campaigns. Participating professor Jacob Shapiro took a dim view of these capers, speculating that “we will find that most online efforts through social media don’t have much of an effect.”
That assessment is certainly in line with other research. In 2022, a study conducted by the RAND Corporation concluded that “The Russian disinformation machine has been neither well organized nor especially well researched (contrary to some implications in popular media)...”
The Supreme Court in its decision to uphold the TikTok ban stresses that it is merely deferring to the national security state’s “informed judgment” on threats:
“Even if China has not yet leveraged its relationship with ByteDance Ltd. to access U.S. TikTok users’ data, petitioners offer no basis for concluding that the Government’s determination that China might do so is not at least a ‘reasonable inferenc[e] based on substantial evidence. We are mindful that this law arises in a context in which ‘national security and foreign policy concerns arise in connection with efforts to confront evolving threats in an area where information can be difficult to obtain and the impact of certain conduct difficult to assess.’ We thus afford the Government’s ‘informed judgment’ substantial respect here.”
The Court cites the mere lack of opposition from politicians as evidence that the national security threat must be legitimate, writing:
“Indeed, it does not appear that any legislator disputed the national security risks associated with TikTok’s data collection practices…”
In other words, the Court is saying national security is above its pay grade. As a result, an app that millions of Americans rely on for not just fun videos but to get their news was shut down. TikTok was reinstated this afternoon following an assurance from President-elect Trump that the ban would be delayed for 90 days. But in three months we’ll be back to square one, all because Congress, the Supreme Court, and even the White House reflexively deferred to the national security state. The question is, will the public?
You might not be interested in the national security state, but the national security state is interested in you.
— Edited by William M. Arkin
The thing that baffled me most was that nobody asked the very simple question: how is this supposed "foreign influence" an actual THREAT? "Threat" means something harmful. *Hearing words* isn't going to hurt anyone, even if these words are "anti-American" or whatever. We should have a much higher standard for what "threat" actually means.
I wanted someone, anyone, to break down exactly what was supposed to happen, and how China was supposedly going to harm Americans via a silly video app. Who's supposedly going to die? Who's going to get hurt? Such an obvious question, but nobody asked it.
This whole thing is so dumb.
"In other words, the Court is saying national security is above its pay grade. "
The Supreme Court doesn't strike down laws because they are stupid of bad, only if they are un-Constitutional. Or at least that's their supposed role.
The court said that Congress made a reasonable claim on national security, not necessarily an accurate one. They refused to consider secret evidence that TikTok's lawyers couldn't see. And they also noted that even TikTok's lawyers "do not dispute that the Government has an important and well-grounded interest in preventing China from collecting the personal data of tens of millions of U. S. TikTok users."
The question before the court is whether the law is Constitutional, not whether it's good policy. The court said it's constitutional because foreign corporations do not have free speech rights, and regulations of corporate ownership that have content-neutral impacts on speech have less protection under the First Amendment. They basically said 'this is Congress regulating a microphone, not what someone says into that microphone.'
And a reasonable articulation of national security interests is enough, just as any other state interest might be enough. The alternative is to create a Constitutional prohibition against regulating most tech firms or foreign speech in U.S. elections.
The Supreme Court is not supposed to make policy, it's supposed to determine what the law is. Blame Congress for a law you don't like, don't demand the court further extend the Citizens United-style caselaw.