The Communications Act of 1934 limits foreign ownership of many communication technologies such as TV. TikTok has easily more influence than most TV channels so it does not seem strange to limit its foreign ownership. If the purchase of US steel by a Japanese company threatens national security, surely the ownership of TikTok is also one.
I'm surprised no one replied to your post but maybe that's because it shuts down most arguments. Most, if not all, states in a nation-state world have laws that allow them to ban the imports of foreign goods. Maybe at some point we'll get a global government to resolve inter-national conflict but until then, we have nation-states dividing humanity to protect "their" humans.
Without wanting to enter into ideological debate too much, it seems a contradiction to invoke such rules when precisely the country we're talking about has boosted their GDP by selling products that capitalized on the effective minimization of borders in the information age.
What I mean is: maybe it's not about protecting "their" humans (from what, exactly?), but protecting "their" corporations. Which is a very different goal.
Very possible. Most import tariffs and bans are to protect national industry. Still a "our humans are more important than yours" division of the world.
But yes, countries who impose import restrictions often don't want others to impose them.
The Communications Act of 1934 applies primarily to broadcast media, and many of the restrictions that it put in place were specifically justified by the inherent scarcity of broadcast spectrum, where the rationale that one party can dominate the airwaves and prevent others from rebutting them does have some relevance.
Restrictions that would be clearly invalid as applied to other forms of media were therefore allowed -- you need an FCC license to operate a radio station, but any proposal to require a federal license to operate a printing press, for example, would be extremely unconstitutional.
Once the licencing regime was in place for broadcast media, they were able to work other concerns into the criteria for issuing licenses. But the argument you seem to be making here -- that it's appropriate to regulate public communications in order to control, as an end in itself, who is allowed to have "influence" on public opinion -- flies in the face of the first amendment, and is entirely outside the legitimate role of the federal government.
The internet does not have the scarcity of communication channels that broadcast media does -- apps and websites are more like printing presses than radio stations.
On the same logic, youtube, facebook, google, etc. should not be owned by the parent company in other countries than the US because of the influence they have on ppls opinions (on policital elections and whatnot)
So, I guess China had it right with its great firewall then, right? I mean you have to protect your national interest against foreign corporations. I didn't know Americans would agree with CCP policies like this.
From the perspective of the Chinese government, yes.
I would say America has as much right to be upset at China blocking American websites within its borders, as China has to be upset at the US blocking Tiktok within its borders.
The downside is mostly in terms of PR. But I agree that Americans and American media would still probably call any foreign ban on Facebook or youtube "censorship". Or would say that Chinese style bans on foreign social media is wrong - except when they do it. So I guess I agree, there's no big downside for Americans.
Extrapolating your logic, I am not currently in a war-zone therefore my opinions on war don't matter. I'm not a politician so I shouldn't have political opinions.
TikTok and the Scope of the Communications Act of 1934 Are Different
The Communications Act of 1934 primarily targets traditional media (e.g., television, radio), while TikTok is an algorithm-driven social media platform where content is user-generated. Its operational model is fundamentally different from traditional media. Directly equating the two is unreasonable and does not align with the realities of the modern digital economy.
Foreign Ownership Does Not Equate to a National Security Threat
There is no publicly available evidence proving that TikTok has provided U.S. user data to a foreign government. TikTok has already implemented localization measures for data storage and operations (e.g., the "Texas Project"). In contrast, many U.S. tech companies (e.g., Facebook, Google) have faced scrutiny over data privacy issues but have not been restricted due to foreign ownership. Restricting TikTok solely based on "foreign ownership" lacks factual support.
Economic Impact: TikTok Is a Lifeline for Millions
TikTok provides a critical source of income for over 5 million small businesses and 1.5 million creators in the U.S. According to 2023 data, TikTok contributed $24.2 billion to the U.S. economy and supported at least 300,000 jobs. Restricting TikTok would directly threaten the livelihoods of these individuals, causing significant harm to social stability and economic vitality.
A More Reasonable Solution Is Strengthening Regulation, Not an Outright Ban
Rather than imposing a blanket restriction on TikTok, it would be more effective to strengthen data privacy protections through legislation, ensuring that all social media platforms (whether foreign or domestic) adhere to the same security standards. For example, TikTok could be required to further localize data storage and undergo independent audits. This approach would safeguard national security while avoiding unnecessary harm to users and creators.
>The Communications Act of 1934 primarily targets traditional media (e.g., television, radio), while TikTok is an algorithm-driven social media platform where content is user-generated. Its operational model is fundamentally different from traditional media. Directly equating the two is unreasonable and does not align with the realities of the modern digital economy.
I don't understand your point. Yes, TikTok and traditional media are different. But there are similarities. And you haven't pointed out any difference between them that would make a law restricting traditional media reasonable but a law restricting TikTok unreasonable.
>A More Reasonable Solution Is Strengthening Regulation, Not an Outright Ban
Why capitalize every letter of the sentence? This feels like it was generated by an LLM.
the crazy thing is the US isn't even limiting all foreign ownership with this act. all it says is that four adversary countries can't own it -- china, NK, Russia, Iran.
Sure, but just because its law doesnt mean its just. If you are just talking about "the law" you are talking about something very different than everyone else. Even if its the law, its obviously a violation of the intent behind free speech to limit speech only to those who the government can intimidate. If the only way to have free speech is to be within arms reach of the government's threats you arent really a bastion of free speech, you just practice speech within the bounds of what the government will allow. And as we have recently seen, that can change dramatically depending on who is paying.
