Right: Common ground; former US President Donald Trump and current President Joe Biden have similar views on banning TikTok.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments in favour of banning TikTok from personal devices
1. The United States sees TikTok as a threat to its national security, a view shared by some other Western nationsThose who want TikTok either banned from all devices used in the United States or forcibly sold to an American buyer are concerned that the company, as it currently exists, is a threat to United States' national security. Other nations, such as the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia appear to see TikTok as posing a similar threat to their security.
This concern derives from the fact that TikTok's parent company, ByteDance, is a Chinese-owned company headquartered in the capital Beijing and has an internal Chinese Communist Party (CCP) committee, with the firm's vice president, Zhang Fuping, serving as the company's CCP Committee Secretary.
The United States sees Chinese companies as inextricably linked to the Chinese government and the Chinese Community Party. This view was intensified with the passing of China's 2017 National Intelligence Law. Article 14 of the law obliges all Chinese firms (referred to as 'relevant institutions, organizations, and citizens') to give the government assistance in areas of intelligence and national security if requested. The same legislation prohibits the disclosure of this activity if the Chinese state deems it to be secret. Critics claim that this legislation would oblige TikTok (through its parent company ByteDance) to make users' private data available (on request) to the Chinese government.The Biden administration sees TikTok as an agent of the Chinese government and regards China as a hostile state. On March 7, 2023, a bill was put before the United States Congress titled 'The RESTRICT Act'. This proposed legislation would empower the United States Secretary of Commerce to act against foreign businesses who offer 'information and communications technologies products or services' that are considered a threat to national security. These foreign businesses would have to be under the control of what the proposed Act describes as a 'foreign adversary'. Six states are designated as 'foreign adversaries' - China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela.
The Chairman of the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Mark Warner, a Democrat representing Virginia, was a co-presenter of the RESTRICT Act. In a Fox News interview given on March 5, 2023, Senator Warner stated, 'Well I think for a long time, conventional wisdom was, the more you bring China into the world order, the more they're going to change. That assumption was just plain wrong. China...in 2016... [made] it explicitly clear that [for] every company in China, their first obligation is to the Communist Party. So, we have never had a potential adversary like China...They have $500 billion in intellectual property theft, and we are in a competition not just on a national security basis but on a technology basis. That's why national security now includes telecommunications, satellites, artificial intelligence, quantum computing...
[In] terms of foreign technology coming into America, we've got to have a systemic approach to make sure we can ban or prohibit it when necessary.'
The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has the same view of China. It has similarly stated, 'The counterintelligence and economic espionage efforts emanating from the government of China and the Chinese Communist Party are a grave threat to the economic well-being and democratic values of the United States... the adversary is not the Chinese people or people of Chinese descent or heritage. The threat comes from the programs and policies pursued by an authoritarian government.' The FBI has further stated its belief that 'the Chinese government is seeking to become the world's greatest superpower through predatory lending and business practices, systematic theft of intellectual property, and brazen cyber intrusions.'
Australia has been less explicit than the United States in identifying China as an espionage threat. However, on February 21, 2023, Mike Burgess, secretary-general of security at the Australian Security Intelligence Organization (ASIO), altered Australians to the general risk he believes Australia faces. He said, 'Based on what ASIO is seeing, more Australians are being targeted for espionage and foreign interference than at any time in Australia's history - more hostile foreign intelligence services, more spies, more targeting, more harm, more ASIO investigations, more ASIO disruptions.'
2. TikTok could exploit users' private data to harm their countries
Opponents of TikTok claim that China could require the company to pass on users' private data which could then be used against nations such as the United States and Australia.
Critics have warned that TikTok collects large amounts of potentially sensitive information from users. The United States Federal Communications Commissioner, Brendan Carr, has noted, 'TikTok is not just another video app. That's the sheep's clothing. It harvests swaths of sensitive data that new reports show are being accessed in Beijing.
TikTok doesn't just see its users dance videos. It collects search and browsing histories, keystroke patterns, biometric identifiers, draft messages, and metadata, plus it has collected the text, images, and videos that are stored on a device's clipboard.'
Ellie Abraham, writing for Indy100, in July 2022, further claimed, 'Whether or not you have signed up for an account on the app, the moment you access the site, cookies and other trackers are able to track you... It can also collect the metadata for content that you might make on the app but decide to not publish and delete.' TikTok generates data automatically by parsing through user-generated content. The digital privacy blog, Clario, explains what TikTok accesses and stores, '...[A]ny video or image made or uploaded to the platform (even if it was never published) provides audio and visual data for TikTok to analyze, including: biometric faceprints and voiceprints (as permitted by law); face and body features within imagery; text transcripts of spoken audio and identifying objects and environments.' Clario also notes, 'TikTok also has access to your messages - composed, sent, and received - and cookies that track your behavior on and off the platform.'
In addition, MakeUseOf.com notes, 'TikTok also takes advantage of every access permission you give it, collecting information about your phone's model, screen resolution, current OS, phone number, email address, location, and even contact list.' Critics claim that both the amount of data that TikTok acquires on any individual user and the
collective mass of data it has about a population pose dangers from a national security perspective. In the United States Republican Congressman Michael McCaul has called TikTok a 'spy balloon in your phone,' and fellow Republican Congressman Mike Gallagher has described TikTok as 'digital fentanyl.'
It has been suggested that individuals whom the Chinese government wished to target could be blackmailed or discredited through the information acquired from TikTok databanks. In an article published on October 20, 2022, the business magazine Forbes claims to have seen records of ByteDance plans to use data it held to locate and surveil individual American citizens. According to an internal email, TikTok has admitted that it used its own app to spy on reporters as part of an attempt to track down journalists' sources, The data was accessed by employees of ByteDance, TikTok's Chinese parent company, and was used to track the reporters' physical movements. IP addresses of journalists who were using the TikTok app were accessed to learn if they were in the same location as employees suspected of leaking confidential information. The effort was unsuccessful but resulted in at least four members of staff based in both the United States and China improperly accessing the data. The tracking of these reporters was done within the company for its own purposes and there is no suggestion of Chinese government involvement. However, the fact the ByteDance was prepared to use personal data in this way has provoked further concern about its lack of regard for data confidentiality.Some Australian commentators and politicians have also expressed dissatisfaction regarding TikTok's security protocols and their lack of openness about them. Ausma Bernotaite, a postdoctoral researcher at the Charles Sturt University Graduate School of Policing and Security, has stated, 'TikTok has not presented itself as a very trustworthy and transparent company on how... data is shared or accessed between different countries. It's not unreasonable to make an assumption that if TikTok data can be accessed in China it would be easily made available to public security and law enforcement.'
Opposition shadow minister for cyber security, James Patterson, has argued the Chinese government could request TikTok hand over data without the user - or TikTok Australia - even being aware. The Senator has stated, 'I don't use TikTok because I regard it as a serious national security threat.' 3. TikTok has the capacity to shape users' online information resulting in harmful or biased political messages
Those who believe TikTok should be banned from all private devices are concerned that the Chinese-owned platform will present a disruptive or biased worldview to its Western users and thus damage political life in other countries.
Critics note that the TikTok algorithms seem to polarize, or drive to opposing extremes, the political views of its users. In an opinion piece published in the John Hopkins Newsletter on October 1, 2023, Samhii Boppana stated, 'However TikTok's structure, algorithm and moderation are inherently hostile to productive political discussions and instead encourage extremism.' Boppana explains that the algorithm's function is to direct users toward their pre-existing preferences. This means the platform tends to intensify and simplify users' political views. Boppana states, 'In my experience with TikTok, the nuance of politics is lost. Buzzwords are privileged over reasonable and complex arguments. Short videos with outrageous and uncomplicated claims will gain more traction than longer videos discussing more detailed evidence and viewpoints...political positions... [are reduced to] black-and-white stances and... one side [is presented] as unequivocally right or unequivocally wrong.'
This tendency has been condemned as divisive and destructive of democracy. For example, extremist Republican claims made on TikTok about vote fixing seem to have fostered the belief among many people that the result of the 2020 United States presidential ballot was invalid. Relatedly, it has been claimed that TikTok seems prone to spread political misinformation. In October 2022 the digital watchdog Cybersecurity for Democracy published research findings that showed TikTok was failing to filter out false information in the leadup to the United States midterm elections. The researchers tested the effectiveness of the TikTok's vetting processes by posting false or harmful information on the platform. These posts included ads containing the wrong election date, false claims about voting requirements, and rhetoric dissuading people from voting. TikTok approved 90 percent of test advertisements featuring election misinformation. This was a far higher rate than that of the other social media platforms tested. Critics have noted that TikTok is not open to being scrutinized. Unlike Twitter and Meta, TikTok does not offer tools for external audits.
Apart from a systemic tendency to polarize user political views and a failure to detect and filter out misinformation, TikTok has been accused of deliberately censoring and misrepresenting political material in its feeds. For example, it has been claimed that TikTok has suppressed feeds dealing with the Chinese government's actions against a religious and ethnic minority group in China, the Uyghurs. In August 2020, of 444 publicly visible videos relating to the Uyghurs, only 5.6 percent were critical of the Chinese Communist Party's policies. It has been claimed that censorship was being practised regarding these posts. Posts on TikTok are ranked primarily according to the number of 'likes' they receive. Researchers noted that one video with the caption 'Free Uyghur' had 2,831 likes and was ranked 129th on the page whereas other videos expressing a different opinion but with similar numbers of 'likes' appeared among the top 30 videos.
In November 2020, TikTok's United Kingdom Director of Public Policy, Elizabeth Kanter, admitted during a parliamentary committee hearing that the app had previously censored content that was critical of the Chinese government in regard to forced labor of Uyghur Muslims in China. Kanter later withdrew this admission. Critics maintain that the TikTok platform could be used more generally to promote propaganda that conflicted with the interests of other nations. United States Senator Mark Warner has stated, 'TikTok can be used as a propaganda mechanism for the Community Party of China.'
The potential risks as seen by the United States were summed up by Salvador Rodriguez in an article published by CNBC on June 25, 2021. Rodriguez stated, 'One set of risks is how the Chinese government could spread propaganda or influence the thinking of the Americans who use TikTok each month. This could be done through short-length videos that the Chinese government may want to show to Americans, whether it be factual content or misinformation.' 4. TikTok has been accused of having adverse effects on children and young adults
Among those arguing for a ban on the use of TikTok on personal devices are those who are concerned about the app's negative effect on its young user base.
One of the major accusations levelled at TikTok is that its algorithms work in a way that effectively addicts its users to its content and that this effect is intensified among young users. Experts have claimed that children and teenagers find it very difficult to disconnect from the platform because the brain's prefrontal cortex that targets impulse control and decision-making does not fully develop until age 25. Dr. Michael Manos of Cleveland Children's Clinic has claimed, 'TikTok clips are designed to continue to engage attention and to turn away is very difficult because it's like, after you've been -- say -- fasting for three days, then there's a sumptuous meal in front of you, it's hard for anybody to pull back.'
The apps capacity to engage its users is shown by the fact that 90 percent of its users access it every day. The supposed addictive effect on young users is said to be particularly concerning given the large percentage of TikTok users who are 25 or younger. The health care digit marketing agency Omnicore found that in 2022, 21.5 percent of TikTok's global audience were females between the ages of 18 and 24 years, while male users of the same age made up approximately 17 percent of the platform's audience. In the United States, the biggest TikTok age group in 2022 were 18-19-year-olds (67 percent). It has also been claimed that the content TikTok offers young users is predominantly trivial and non-demanding. It is said that TikTok's sister platform, Douyin, which has been created exclusively for the use of the Chinese market, treats its young users far more carefully than TikTok does non-Chinese teens. Douyin has enforced limits which prevent long scrolling sessions. It also has different algorithms which direct young users toward educational content rather than the predominantly entertainment material offered to users outside China. The Douyin material features videos of teachers being celebrated, at-home science experiments and a man solving a Rubik's cube blindfolded. Psychologist Jean Twenge has stated, 'The contrast between the U.S. and Chinese versions is a great example of why the US needs more regulation around social media, especially for kids.' Others have claimed that the disruptive effect of the TikTok platform warrants it being banned.
Critics also claim that TikTok's algorithms intensify young users' exposure to potentially harmful content. Imran Ahmed of the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) has stated 'The algorithm recognises vulnerability and, instead of seeing it as something it should be careful around, it sees it as a potential point of addiction - of helping to maximise time on the platform for that child by serving them up content that might trigger some of their pre-existing concerns.' CCDH's research suggests that where a user's response to initial exposure material suggests an interest in dieting or cosmetic surgery they are directed toward sites which will increase the potential for self-harm. Ahmed said that the centre's research, which was based on 13-year-old users in the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, and Australia, suggested that, within about two-and-a-half minutes of setting up a TikTok account, young people could be pushed self-harm content - and eating disorder content within eight. Another of the centre's surveys suggested a 14-year-old boy on the platform was likely to be pushed content from the aggressively misogynist Andrew Tate in less than three minutes of setting up an account. Ahmed concluded, 'The truth is that they are being flooded with content that gives them an extremely distorted view of themselves, their bodies, their mental health, and how they compare to other people.'
The Australian eating disorder support body, Butterfly Foundation, has similarly warned that TikTok is fostering eating disorders. National helpline team leader and clinician, Amelia Trinick, has noted, 'These videos depict potentially harmful content that has the ability to reinforce negative feelings, attitudes and behaviours - in relation to body image, food and diet - to a vulnerable youth audience.'
The English Office of the Information Commissioner has also suggested that the exposure of children to potentially harmful material is widespread on the TikTok platform. The Commissioner's Office has claimed more than one million underage children could have been exposed, with the platform collecting and using their personal data. The Commissioner's Office stated, 'That means that their data may have been used to track them and profile them, potentially delivering harmful, inappropriate content at their very next scroll.' 5. TikTok treats creators unequally
Many of those who believe TikTok should be banned from private devices are concerned at the prejudicial way in which the company is accused of treating user groups.
It has been claimed that the TikTok's algorithms are very physiognomic, that is, that they relate strongly to physical characteristics, especially features of the face, the body, or other aspects of outward physical appearance.
This has been claimed to have several consequences. It tends to mean, for example, that users whom the TikTok algorithm categorises as preferring pale-skinned presenters will tend to see feeds featuring only pale-skinned presenters. AI researcher Marc Faddoul (Associate Researcher with Professor Hany Farid, in the Berkely School of Information at the University of California) has suggested that this has consequences beyond limiting what certain groups of people are exposed to, based on the superficial criterion of physical appearance. It can also mean that users who belong to a less common physical or racial type get far fewer recommendations and thus far fewer viewers. For example, if many popular creators on TikTok are White, for example, this can prevent creators of color with smaller followings from being seen and recommended as often on the platform. Many Black TikTok creators have alleged that not only are White creators given preference, but that Black creators are actively discriminated against. Since the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, users of color have claimed that TikTok handles their accounts and content in ways that seem unfair and racially biased.
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Review has noted, that TikTok creators from marginalised groups seem to be subject to targeted censorship. One MIT researcher has noted that he tried to enter certain phrases in his bio, some of them ('Black lives matter,' 'supporting black people,' 'supporting black voices,' and 'supporting Black success') were flagged as inappropriate content. Similar phrases referring to White activist groups were accepted. For example, if the researcher entered 'supporting white supremacy' this was allowed. Phrases such as 'I am a neo nazi' and 'I am an antisemitic' were accepted, while "I am a black man" was flagged. There has also been controversy around White commenters harassing Black creators without any apparent action being taken against them and racist videos going viral without being taken down. There have also been accusations that White creators have been allowed to steal material originally produced by Black creators. Viral dance challenges, a hallmark of the app, have proved particularly fraught, with white influencers accused of taking credit for moves created by Black choreographers.
TikTok has also been accused of discriminating against poor, queer, 'ugly', overweight and disabled creators. In 2019, TikTok admitted to implementing a set of policies that had suppressed content created by users assumed to be 'vulnerable to cyberbullying.' As examples of users 'susceptible to bullying or harassment,' the policy listed people with facial disfigurement, autism, Down syndrome, and 'Disabled people or people with some facial problems such as birthmark, slight squint... etc.'
This was in response to criticisms from a range of minority groups that the platform appeared to discriminate against their material. On December 2, 2019, the German site Netzpolitik reported that TikTok asked moderators to watch 15-second videos and decide if the creator looked like the type of person others might want to bully. If so, moderators were instructed to add flags to the accounts of these 'vulnerable' users. These flags would stop their videos from being shown to audiences outside their home countries and, in some cases, would even prevent their videos from appearing in other users' feeds. A list of flagged users obtained by Netzpolitik included people with and without disabilities, whose bios included hashtags like #fatwoman and #disabled or had rainbow flags and other LGBTQ identifiers. The policy was presented as intended to protect at risk users from abuse.
However, subsequent reports have suggested that TikTok's policy may have been motivated by a desire to attract a wider user base rather than simply to protect vulnerable users. On March 16, 2020, The Intercept published an internal TikTok document, intended for TikTok moderators, which instructed them to suppress uploads from users with flaws such as 'abnormal body shape,' 'ugly facial looks,' 'dwarfism', 'obvious beer belly,' 'too many wrinkles,' 'eye disorders,' and other 'low quality' traits. The moderates were told that this filtering was necessary to attract an expanding customer base. The directions stated, 'if the character's appearance or the shooting environment is not good, the video will be much less attractive to...new users'