On Friday SCOTUS Will Decide Whether TikTok Can Be Banned; We Told It The First Amendment Says No
On Friday SCOTUS Will Decide Whether TikTok Can Be Banned; We Told It The First Amendment Says No
It seems unfathomable that we’re even here. The First Amendment is one of our clearer constitutional provisions. “Make no law,” it says, “abridging the freedom of speech.” And yet, with the “Protec…
SCOTUS will decide after they check their bank account balances. But they'll probably ban it, because China.
Is it actually a free speech issue, though?
It's not as though SCOTUS is trying to rule on whether to ban short-form video or content from particular person. The allegation in regard to TikTok isn't 'dangerous speech', it's the platform's collection of user data and the manipulation of available content via an algorithm that they claim is a tool of a hostile foreign entity. Neither of those issues constitute 'speech' whether related to a foreign or domestic company.
It seems to me like this is being framed as a speech issue to protect other vendors with hostile algorithms. If Google were forced to stop pushing AI and paid results to the stop of its searches, would that be a free speech issue? If Facebook were forced to put more weight on users' choices about what shows up on their feed rather than pushing dodgy political posts and paid advertisements, would that be a speech issue?
Honestly, deciding that toxic algorithms are protected speech seems like a much more dangerous precedent to me than coming to a conclusion that a company that's beholden to a foreign entity that may be forcing it to engage in hostile intelligence operations and soft power can be restricted.
If someone made a piece of malware that ropes your PC into a botnet and uses it to perform DDOS attacks, would banning it be a speech issue if it happens to come in the form of a blogging platform? A chat client? A music sharing service?
Just having speech on a platform doesn't mean everything that platform does qualifies as speech and requires first amendment protections.
The allegation in regard to TikTok isn’t ‘dangerous speech’
...On the very surface level, sort of.
Romney replied, "Some wonder why there was such overwhelming support for us to shut down potentially TikTok or other entities of that nature. If you look at the postings on TikTok and the number of mentions of Palestinians, relative to other social media sites — it's overwhelmingly so among TikTok broadcasts."
The allegation in regard to TikTok isn’t ‘dangerous speech’, it’s the platform’s collection of user data and the manipulation of available content via an algorithm that they claim is a tool of a hostile foreign entity.
If the US government really cared about collection of user data and manipulation of content, they could demand things like increased transparency and open protocols for social media. Instead, they are here requiring that the issue be redressed with TikTok being shut down or handed over to a company subject to direct US influence and control.
This is indistinguishable from an act of censorship. If the government is intimately connected with the people and companies running the oligopoly of services which control moderation of virtually all public discourse in the US, when it uses force to defend that oligopoly and eliminate competition that is not in the club it is abridging the freedom of speech, even if it is doing so through one layer of proxy.
I'm pretty close to a free speech absolutist. I don't think I've ever disagreed so completely with TechDirt. This is not a TikTok ban. It's a ByteDance ban. Corporations aren't people. The government is fully within it's rights to force a foreign state owned corp to sell or shutdown operations in the US.
Like you said this is another Corp vs Gov power play, and the public has largely been duped into supporting the Corpos again.
the platform’s collection of user data
this "oh banning TikTok is good because TikTok collects a bunch of user data" talking point has hoodwinked a whole lot of tech-savvy, generally-left-of-center people who really should know better.
thought experiment: I go out and buy a brand-new phone. Apple or Android, it doesn't matter.
I install some apps. let's say TikTok, Facebook, and Twitter.
all of those apps use the platform APIs published by Apple or Google respectively.
all of them are equally capable of collecting user data.
TikTok is not unique or special in any way when it comes to data harvesting.
oh, except TikTok is owned by Ghyna, and everyone knows that Ghyna is evil and scary. surely that makes it different, right? US-based companies can harvest our data all they want, and sure maybe an EU-based company too. but Ghyna harvesting our data? that's a bridge too far!
and that's why we need to ban companies owned by Ghyna from harvesting our data!
here's the problem with that. I install another app. I don't like the stock Weather app that comes with my phone, so I install Totally Trustworthy Weather from a developer named Absolutely Not Spyware LLC.
that weather app needs location permissions, obviously. and network access. and to be allowed to run in the background constantly.
because it's given permissions to run in the background, there's a decent chance the weather app can actually collect more info about me than TikTok/Facebook/Twitter/etc.
but, why would a weather app collect data like that? what's it going to do with it? it's just a weather app, surely it doesn't care, right?
wrong - it's going to sell all the data it collects on me to a data broker.
(read Temptations of an open-source browser extension developer if you're skeptical of how much money is thrown around in order to collect data of this sort)
if those nefarious people in Ghyna want data about you...they'll just buy it from a data broker, the same way everyone else (including the FBI) does.
if Congress had passed some sort of GDPR-ish law, that applied across the board to all forms of data harvesting, I'd be all in favor of it. but obviously they're never going to do that.
instead, what started out in 2020 as a "Ghyna bad" policy from Trump now has bipartisan support and people on the left defending it on data privacy grounds. we live in the stupidest goddamn timeline.
the comment you are responding to pretty levelheadedly describes why they dont agree that it's only tiktok bad and that being in favor of this being a 1st ammendment issue specifically could make every issue you bring up actively worse. it does not appear you are responding to them. the problem you are describing is real, there's a substantial nationalism component to this and it's bad when us companies do it as well. but you arent responding to their point about framing this as a 1st ammendment issue being problematic.
To me the issue is tik-tok could be used to sideload data gathering for China, such as government officials camera or microphone use, beyond the worry of poisoning our society with propaganda. There have already been binary apps with malicious backdoors. Compared to a weather app that may harvest location, contacts, etc, but most likely verifiable content.
But that's why I don't install garbage apps, run GrapheneOS and Linux to try to minimize data gleaning.
This is just part of a historical trend to tighten the hegemonic narrative and continue brainwashing people to support genocide. TikTok is just one of the targets. It's similar to recent attacks on Al Jazeera, Wikipedia, etc.
TikTok engages in interstate commerce by selling ads on its platform. Congress can't prevent TikTok's speech, but they can shut down their business.
First amendment? That was during democracy,
Did the TikTok CEO donate some millions to Trump like all the others? Yes, someone in the bytedance board donated 1.4 millions to Trump super PAC, so that's what it counts.
Article from 2024 which presents why a flat ban of tiktok is an issue.