Banning
TikTok
in
the
US
is
back
on
the
table
after
the
House
voted
Wednesday
to
pass
a
measure
that
would
do
just
that unless
the
app
separates
from
Chinese
parent
company
ByteDance.
The
bill
passed
with
352
votes,
needing
a
two-thirds
majority
to
advance.
Sixty-five
members
voted
against
it,
with
one
voting
present.
The
bill
still
needs
to
clear
the
Senate,
which
is
no
small
task.
But
President
Joe
Biden
said
on
Friday
he
would
sign
it
into
law
if
it
passes.
The
House
vote
revives
some
US
policymakers’
hopes
for
a
forced
divestment
of
TikTok,
due
to
fears
that
Chinese
law
could
compel
its
parent
company
to
hand
over
information
on
US
users,
presenting
a
national
security
risk.
The
House
Energy
and
Commerce
Committee
last
week
voted
50–0
to
advance
the
bill,
after
attending
an
intelligence
briefing
about
the
risks
of
foreign
adversary-controlled
apps.
TikTok
says
it
doesn’t
store
US
user
information
in
China
and
has
been
working
on
a
plan
to
further
protect
such
data,
but
that’s
done
little
to
quell
lawmakers’
fears.
Former
President
Trump
is
now
arguing
against
a
ban
The
Protecting
Americans
from
Foreign
Adversary
Controlled
Applications
Act would
penalize
app
stores
and
web
hosting
services
if
they
host
TikTok,
provided
it’s
still
owned
by
a
Chinese
company.
The
legislation
names
ByteDance,
but
could
also
apply
to
other
social
media
apps
owned
by
companies
based
in
a
handful
of
foreign
adversary
countries.
Standing
in
opposition
to
the
legislation
is
a
group
that
includes
TikTok
users
themselves,
who
flooded
congressional
offices
with
phone
calls
ahead
of
a
committee
vote
thanks
to
a
prompt
in
the
app;
free
speech
organizations
like
the
American
Civil
Liberties
Union;
and
former
President
Donald
Trump,
who
posted
on
Truth
Social
that
getting
rid
of
TikTok
would
just
stand
to
benefit
Meta.
The
ACLU
argues
the
bill
would
effectively
suppress
speech,
even
if
it
doesn’t
explicitly
regulate
content.
It
pointed
to
a
federal
court’s
ruling
in
Montana
blocking
the
state’s
attempted
ban
of
TikTok
to
back
up
its
claims
that
the
new
House
bill
is
unconstitutional.
Ahead
of
the
vote,
lawmakers
argued
passionately
on
the
House
floor
both
for
and
against
the
legislation.
Several
supporters
emphasized
that
the
bill
is
not
an
all-out
ban,
but
instead
an
incentive
to
force
divestment
so
TikTok
can
separate
its
ties
to
China.
“This
is
not
an
attempt
to
ban
TikTok.
It’s
an
attempt
to
make
TikTok
better.
Tic-tac-toe.
A
winner.
A
winner,”
as
former
House
Speaker
Nancy
Pelosi
(D-CA)
put
it.
“It
takes
no
position
at
all
on
the
content
of
speech,
only
foreign
adversary
control.”
Rep.
Mike
Gallagher
(R-WI),
who
chairs
the
Select
Committee
on
the
Chinese
Communist
Party
and
introduced
the
legislation,
emphasized
that
the
bill
could
not
be
used
against
American
social
media
companies
or
individual
social
media
users.
He
added
that
“it
takes
no
position
at
all
on
the
content
of
speech,
only
foreign
adversary
control.”
But
opponents
of
the
bill
on
both
sides
of
the
aisle
echoed
each
others’
concerns.
Opponents
fear
the
bill
will
be
an
ineffective
solution
to
real
national
security
concerns,
while
coming
with
unacceptable
limits
on
free
speech
and
expansion
of
governmental
power.
“It’s
dangerous
to
give
the
president
that
kind
of
power,
to
give
him
the
power
to
decide
what
Americans
can
see
on
their
phones
and
on
their
computers,”
said
Rep.
Thomas
Massie
(R-KY).
“I
cannot
sign
a
blank
check
to
some
future
president
who
would
easily
and
dangerously
weaponize
this
legislation
to
profit
in
silence,”
said
Rep.
Sydney
Kamlager-Dove
(D-CA).
TikTok
users
who
make
their
living
on
the
app
have
complained
that
losing
access
to
the
app
would
plummet
their
incomes.
“Creatives,
artists,
content
creators,
and
businesses
in
my
district
will
get
caught
in
the
crossfire
of
this
bill
and
deserve
better
than
federal
overreach
as
a
substitute
for
a
thoughtful
and
incisive
solution
to
this
complicated
national
security
challenge,”
Kamlager-Dove
added.
Earlier
efforts
to
ban
TikTok
fizzled
out
Efforts
to
ban
TikTok
heated
up
in
March
last
year,
when
CEO
Shou
Zi
Chew
testified
in
the
House
for
the
first
time,
then
slowed
to
an
apparent
standstill
until
recently.
In
2023,
a
bipartisan
group
of
senators
introduced
the
RESTRICT
Act,
which
put
the
power
to
ban
apps
that
present
national
security
risks
in
the
hands
of
the
secretary
of
commerce.
Although
Chew
faced
bipartisan
grilling,
some
Democrats
in
particular
expressed
reservations
about
an
all-out
ban.
And
despite
the
early
push
from
a
group
of
powerful
lawmakers,
the
RESTRICT
Act
ultimately
fizzled
out
amid
a
strong
lobbying
campaign
by
TikTok
and
Republican
concerns
about
granting
too
much
executive
branch
power
over
the
private
sector.
Now
is
a
particularly
tricky
time
to
try
to
pass
a
TikTok
ban,
as
candidates
including
Biden
are
using
the
app
to
get
their
messages
out
to
young
voters
ahead
of
the
2024
US
elections.
But
both
the
Biden
and
Trump
administrations
have
considered
their
own
efforts
to
ban
or
force
a
sale
of
TikTok,
despite
Trump’s
more
recent
remarks
opposing
such
policies.
Beginning
in
2020,
Trump
issued
executive
orders
that
would
effectively
ban
or
force
a
sale
of
TikTok
and
other
Chinese-owned
apps.
Those
efforts
faced
legal
roadblocks,
and
once
Biden
took
office
he
revoked
and
replaced
the
orders
with
a
new
one,
creating
a
framework
to
determine
national
security
risks
of
such
apps.
(Originally posted by Lauren Feiner)
Comments