“Sociable” is the newest commentary on essential social media developments and trends from industry expert Andrew Hutchinson of Social Media Today.
TikTok has launched a legal challenge against the U.S. government, saying that the recently approved bill that may force it to be sold to a U.S.-based owner is unconstitutional, unfounded, and is definitely designed to ban the app within the nation.
The full filing outlines TikTok’s case against the “Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act,” which they claim is designed to specifically goal TikTok and parent company ByteDance, for no reason outside of the “hypothetical possibility” that the app poses an actual threat.
As per the filing:
“Congress has taken the unprecedented step of expressly singling out and banning TikTok: a vibrant online forum for protected speech and expression utilized by 170 million Americans to create, share, and look at videos over the Internet. For the primary time in history, Congress has enacted a law that subjects a single, named speech platform to a everlasting, nationwide ban, and bars every American from participating in a novel online community with greater than 1 billion people worldwide.”
TikTok has been pushing the “total ban” angle for the previous couple of months, which has angered some U.S. politicians who’ve claimed that that is deliberately misleading, in that the bill will not be a ban, as such.
But TikTok says that, in effect, the bill is a ban, since it simply won’t have the option to divest itself to the degree required to fulfill the bill’s specifications.
“The ‘qualified divestiture’ demanded by the Act to permit TikTok to proceed operating within the United States is solely impossible: not commercially, not technologically, not legally. And definitely not on the 270-day timeline required by the Act. [We] have repeatedly explained this to the U.S. government, and sponsors of the Act were aware that divestment will not be possible. There is absolute confidence: the Act will force a shutdown of TikTok by January 19, 2025, silencing the 170 million Americans who use the platform to speak in ways that can not be replicated elsewhere.”
TikTok says that the bill relies on speculation concerning the possible threat posed by the app and nothing more, with senators failing to articulate any legitimate cause for concern. Which has been noted by many onlookers, because while senators have been briefed by cybersecurity experts, those briefings have happened behind closed doors, keeping the detail of the TikTok threat out of the general public domain.
But the premise, essentially, except for data gathering concerns, is that TikTok is also used to spread pro-China talking points, as submitted by the Chinese government. And given the various China-based mass influence efforts which can be being conducted in other social apps, it does stand to reason that a Chinese-owned app, over which the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can exert more control, would even be used for a similar.
Indeed, recent reports have indicated that Chinese groups have sought to influence political process in Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan and the United Kingdom, while EU officials have also raised concerns about Chinese influence activity, within the lead-up to their polls.
Virtually every social platform has reported the detection of such initiatives, and which may be enough to implicate TikTok in itself. Or, because the filing claims, there might not be direct evidence to point a TikTok-specific threat, outside of those assumptions.
Either way, TikTok says the bill is unconstitutional:
“Banning TikTok is so obviously unconstitutional, in reality, that even the Act’s sponsors recognized that reality, and subsequently have tried mightily to depict the law not as a ban in any respect, but merely a regulation of TikTok’s ownership.”
TikTok’s final rebuttal is a criticism of what it sees as U.S. government overreach, which it says may very well be used more broadly in future:
“If Congress can do that, it might probably circumvent the First Amendment by invoking national security and ordering the publisher of any individual newspaper or website to sell to avoid being shut down. And for TikTok, any such divestiture would disconnect Americans from the remainder of the worldwide community on a platform dedicated to shared content — an consequence fundamentally at odds with the Constitution’s commitment to each free speech and individual liberty.”
Which will not be true. The bill relies on national security concerns, with the required stipulation of “foreign adversary” control of said platform. Which is a fairly finite scope, but still, TikTok’s seeking to use this angle as a way to reinforce opposition to the proposal, by scary fears of presidency control, seemingly to assist ramp up public disapproval of the identical.
Which holds no legal standing, and won’t be factored into the judgment. But TikTok appears to be of the idea that by invoking the platform’s usage, and impact, and the effect such a ruling can have on the people, that will profit its case.
But it’s all technical now, with the case set to be heard on the legal merits of the challenge, not on the emotional or economic impact, that are except for the law. Cause and effect are unrelated on this context, because it’s not the recognition of the app that’s in query, but the priority, under national security consideration, that it may very well be used to influence people outside of China.
Which seems to melt TikTok’s counter-argument somewhat. But the court will now have to make your mind up, with TikTok submitting its challenge to the Federal Court.
Read the complete article here
