SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
bytedance
As Trump Signs TikTok Order, Critics Sound Alarm Over Corruption and US Propaganda
One watchdog leader noted that the president's deal involves "one of his major crypto business partners that generates tens of millions of dollars a year for the Trump family."
Sep 25, 2025
President Donald Trump on Thursday issued an executive order claiming to "save" TikTok from a federal law that would ban the video-sharing platform in the United States, but critics are condemning the Republican's deal as yet another case of him "picking winners and losers in government policy based on who is enriching his family."
Trump initially kicked off efforts to force TikTok's Chinese parent company ByteDance to divest with an August 2020 executive order, but Democratic former President Joe Biden signed the bipartisan legislation that would ban the platform based on national security concerns last year.
Since returning to office, Trump has pledged to "save" TikTok, delaying enforcement of the law and negotiating a deal under which, according to a White House fact sheet, the US application "will be majority-owned by US investors, operated in the US by a board of directors with national security and cybersecurity credentials, and subject to strict rules to protect Americans' data and our national security."
The fact sheet also confirms that "ByteDance will hold less than 20% of the stock as required by law," and "Oracle—one of the nation's leading technology companies—will act as TikTok’s security provider and independently monitor and assure the safety of all operations in the US."
Critics have expressed alarm about both the anticipated quality of the US platform and the reported investors.
OpenSecrets noted Thursday that Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison is "a Trump supporter and major bankroller of Republican candidates and causes," and the company "has spent at least $11 million on federal-level government lobbying during each of the past four full years," a trend that is set to continue this year.
Citing unnamed sources, CNBC reported Thursday that, in addition to Oracle, the main investors will be Silver Lake and Abu Dhabi's MGX. Previous reporting has also suggested involvement from venture capitalists Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz.
Trump on the TikTok deal: "Rupert Murdoch is involved."
[image or embed]
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) September 25, 2025 at 4:35 PM
While some opponents of the Trump plan have highlighted his ties to Ellison, Andreessen, and Horowitz, Tony Carrk, executive director of the watchdog group Accountable.US, focused on his relationship with MGX in a Thursday statement.
"President Trump's use of his office to enrich himself and his friends seems to know no bounds," Carrk said. "His grand scheme to 'save' TikTok just so happens to involve the enrichment of one of his major crypto business partners that generates tens of millions of dollars a year for the Trump family."
"That's no coincidence for the only US president in history that has seen his bottom line grow by billions from the White House," he asserted. "Meanwhile, working Americans see their costs continue to increase, from groceries to healthcare to housing. It's clear the president's priority is himself, not the rest of us."
Trump's Thursday order affirms that the deal complies with last year's law and allows another 120 days to finalize the details.
The Associated Press reported that "Trump said Thursday that Chinese leader Xi Jinping has agreed to move forward with it. However, the Chinese embassy in Washington didn't immediately respond to an AP inquiry seeking confirmation that China has formally signed off on the proposed framework deal."
US political leaders have long claimed that under ByteDance's control, users may encounter content favored by the Chinese government. The Electronic Frontier Foundation said earlier this week that "if the concern had been that TikTok could be a conduit for Chinese government propaganda—a concern the Supreme Court declined to even consider—people can now be concerned that TikTok could be a conduit for US government propaganda."
Joining Trump in the Oval Office for the executive order signing on Thursday, Vice President JD Vance seemed to confirm that's the plan, telling reporters that "the US company will have control over how the algorithm pushes content to users, and that was a very important part of it."
Responding to Vance's remarks, one social media user quipped, "Ahh, so it was just an issue of *whose* propaganda."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Democrats Set Up Trump to 'Save' TikTok After His Effort to Ban It
"The Democratic Party setting up Trump to play the part of the zoomer savior after Trump got this all rolling in the first place is... the sort of self-inflicted wound that only the Democratic Party could accomplish."
Jan 19, 2025
After starting Sunday with a Truth Social post declaring "SAVE TIKTOK!" U.S. President-elect Donald Trump announced plans for an executive order delaying a nationwide ban on the global video-sharing platform—which some political observers framed as a "win" for the Republican that was made possible by Democrats in Washington, D.C.
Trump actually kicked off efforts to force TikTok's Chinese parent company ByteDance to divest with an August 2020 executive order, citing national security concerns. Three months later, he lost an election to Democratic President Joe Biden, who ultimately reversed the order. However, Biden then signed the legislation currently impeding the platform's availability in the United States.
"Congratulations, Democrats," said Nina Turner, a former Democratic congressional candidate from Ohio, as the platform began informing U.S. users that it was no longer available late Saturday. "This could've been avoided had you listened to progressives last year when this bill was being forced through Congress."
U.S. Reps. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) and Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) last March
led a bipartisan coalition that introduced a bill targeting TikTok's parent company—the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act—in the House of Representatives, where it swiftly approved in a 352-65 vote.
A version of the bill—which forces ByteDance to sell TikTok to a non-Chinese company or face a U.S. ban—ultimately passed both chambers with bipartisan support as a rider to a $95 billion military assistance package for Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel, as it waged a genocidal war against Palestinians in Gaza. Biden signed it in April.
The resulting legal battle reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which on Friday unanimously upheld the law, "giving the executive branch unprecedented power to silence speech it doesn't like, increasing the danger that sweeping invocations of 'national security' will trump our constitutional rights," in the words of ACLU National Security Project deputy director Patrick Toomey.
The court's decision meant TikTok would "go dark" on Sunday without action from Biden, who declined to give ByteDance a 90-day extension to sell or accept the ban, despite pressure from First Amendment advocates like the ACLU, the platform's 170 million American users—including content creators and small businesses facing financial impacts—and some lawmakers.
In a Friday statement, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre
pointed to Trump's Monday inauguration, saying that "given the sheer fact of timing, this administration recognizes that actions to implement the law simply must fall to the next administration."
Late Saturday, TikTok users in the United States began seeing a pop-up message that the platform was unavailable, stating: "A law banning TikTok has been enacted in the U.S. Unfortunately, that means you can't use TikTok for now. We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office. Please stay tuned!"
In response to former Obama administration staffer and podcaster Tommy Vietor calling TikTok's message an advertisement from the Chinese Communist Party, leftist political commentator Hasan Piker highlighted Trump's opportunity to restore access to the platform, saying that "the Democrats handed him the easiest w of all time if he's smart enough to seize it."
Others were also critical of the Democratic Party—which is wrapped up in debates over how to move forward from devastating electoral losses in November—with independent journalist Ken Klippenstein saying that "this reminds me of when Trump put his name on the stimulus checks but Biden didn't. Historic own goal by the Democrats here."
Jacobin podcast host Daniel Denvir similarly said on X—the platform owned by Trump ally Elon Musk, the world's richest person—that "the Democratic Party setting up Trump to play the part of the zoomer savior after Trump got this all rolling in the first place is... the sort of self-inflicted wound that only the Democratic Party could accomplish."
Lynese Wallace—who was the chief of staff for former Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), a progressive who opposed the law—said that "the TikTok ban was always bad policy and bad politics. Let's not forget it was folded into a $95 billion foreign aid package passed in the last Congress—and has since paved way for Trump to now 'save' it, despite his own support for a ban during his first term. So dumb."
Seizing the opportunity, Trump said Sunday on his Truth social media platform that "I'm asking companies not to let TikTok stay dark! I will issue an executive order on Monday to extend the period of time before the law's prohibitions take effect, so that we can make a deal to protect our national security. The order will also confirm that there will be no liability for any company that helped keep TikTok from going dark before my order."
Although Trump can't take action before he is sworn in, he continued:
Americans deserve to see our exciting Inauguration on Monday, as well as other events and conversations.
I would like the United States to have a 50% ownership position in a joint venture.
By doing this, we save TikTok, keep it in good hands and allow it to [stay] up. Without U.S. approval, there is no TikTok. With our approval, it is worth hundreds of billions of dollars—maybe trillions.
Therefore, my initial thought is a joint venture between the current owners and/or new owners whereby the U.S. gets a 50% ownership in a joint venture set up between the U.S. and whichever purchase we so choose.
Responding with a statement on X, TikTok said that "in agreement with our service providers, TikTok is in the process of restoring service. We thank President Trump for providing the necessary clarity and assurance to our service providers that they will face no penalties [for] providing TikTok to over 170 million Americans and allowing over 7 million small businesses to thrive. It's a strong stand for the First Amendment and against arbitrary censorship. We will work with President Trump on a long-term solution that keeps TikTok in the United States."
Even before Trump's post, Musk—who is expected to co-lead a presidential advisory commission—said on X that "I have been against a TikTok ban for a long time, because it goes against freedom of speech. That said, the current situation where TikTok is allowed to operate in America, but X is not allowed to operate in China is unbalanced. Something needs to change."
ByteDance's Chinese version of TikTok, called Douyin, was introduced in China in September 2016. The New York Times reported last April that "TikTok has more users on its platform, but Douyin is ByteDance's cash cow. Roughly 80% of ByteDance's $54 billion revenue in the first half of [2023] came from China."
Critics of bipartisan efforts to ban TikTok in the United States have blasted lawmakers for their priorities throughout the process.
"America: Where it's OK to ban TikTok, books, and abortions, but not OK to ban assault weapons, bombs for genocides, or student debt," said Warren Gunnels, Democratic staff director for the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee under the chairmanship of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who voted against the TikTok legislation.
Just hours ahead of a cease-fire taking effect in Gaza, Turner, who co-chaired Sanders' 2020 presidential campaign, also emphasized that "they really banned TikTok before they banned sending weapons to Israel during a genocide."
"If Congress actually gave a damn about our data privacy," she added, "they would've passed a sweeping data privacy bill, not a bill targeting TikTok."
In a Sunday email to supporters, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.)—who also voted against the law—agreed, stressing that "the answer is not just playing endless whack-a-mole with apps."
"We should have real privacy legislation in the United States," she said. "We should help people have greater agency over their personal information so that they're not being spied on all the time, whether it's a domestic company or a foreign company."
"To which, of course, Big Tech and their lobbies are going to fight against," she warned. "So they just target an
app instead of targeting the problem."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Completely Out of Touch... Both Parties': Supreme Court Looks Ready to OK TikTok Ban
"Banning TikTok in this way sets a dangerous precedent that could pave the way to future government interventions against online speech," said one advocate.
Jan 10, 2025
To the chagrin of First Amendment defenders and content creators, the Supreme Court on Friday appeared poised to uphold a law passed by Congress last year that would shut down the widely popular social media app TikTok in the U.S. unless its owner, the Chinese company ByteDance, sells it.
The de facto ban on TikTok was tucked into a $95 billion legislative package for aid to Ukraine and Israel that was passed by the Senate in April 2024. A standalone version of the legislation cleared the House with bipartisan support a month earlier. It is set to go into effect on January 19, barring a sale by ByteDance or intervention by the Supreme Court.
The law was justified on national security grounds, which were fueled by fears that national security laws in China could compel ByteDance to give the Chinese government access to data on TikTok users.
Nina Turner, a senior fellow at the Institute on Race, Power, and Political Economy, wrote Thursday: "The U.S. government stood up to TikTok before they stood up to [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu, or the health insurance lobby, orBig Pharma, or Big Oil—no. TikTok. Completely out of touch with the American people. Both parties."
During oral arguments, "justices across the ideological spectrum asked tough questions of both sides, [but] the overall tone and thrust appeared to suggest greater skepticism toward the arguments by lawyers for TikTok and its users that the First Amendment barred Congress from enacting the law," according to Friday reporting from The New York Times.
However, the Times also noted that "several justices were skeptical about a major part of the government's justification for the law: the risk that China might 'covertly' make TikTok manipulate the content shown to Americans or collect user data to achieve its geopolitical aims."
Ahead of the U.S. Supreme Court's hearing on TikTok's appeal of the ban, three bipartisan lawmakers were among the First Amendment advocates who filed amicus briefs in support of the app in late December. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) asked the court to grant TikTok an emergency injunction to block the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.
The ACLU, the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT), and the Freedom of the Press Foundation were among several civil liberties groups that also filed an amicus brief in late December, arguing that the government has not presented sufficient evidence that the app, which is used by 170 million Americans, causes "ongoing or imminent harm."
In a statement released Friday, the Free Press policy counsel Yanni Chen said that "as with repressive laws from oppressive regimes around the world, the real toll of the ban will be on everyday people... TikTok users, many of whom use the platform to organize communities and express views that legacy media often ignore."
"Banning TikTok in this way sets a dangerous precedent that could pave the way to future government interventions against online speech," she added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Biden Signs TikTok Ban—Among the 'Stupidest and Most Authoritarian' Tech Bills
One critic said that "the bill doesn't touch the homegrown spyware U.S. companies churn out" and "also strikes at the First Amendment right to receive information."
Apr 24, 2024
Digital rights defenders on Wednesday slammed the passage of a U.S. foreign aid package containing a possible nationwide TikTok ban as unconstitutional, xenophobic, and ill-advised during an election year in which President Joe Biden desperately needs as many young votes as possible.
Biden signed the $95 billion bill late Wednesday morning after senators voted 79-18 the previous evening to approve the package, which includes tens of billions of dollars in U.S. military assistance for Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel—which is waging a genocidal war against Palestinians in Gaza.
One of the bill's provisions would force ByteDance, TikTok's Chinese parent company, to sell the app to a non-Chinese company within a year or face a federal ban. Approximately 170 million Americans use TikTok, which is especially popular among members of Gen-Z and small-to-medium-sized businesses, and
contributes tens of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy annually.
"Whether it's dressed up as a ban or a forced sale, the bill targeting TikTok is one of the stupidest and most authoritarian pieces of tech legislation we've seen in years," Fight for the Future director Evan Greer said in a statement.
Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at the ACLU, called the provision "nothing more than an unconstitutional ban in disguise."
"Banning a social media platform that hundreds of millions of Americans use to express themselves would have devastating consequences for all of our First Amendment rights, and will almost certainly be struck down in court," she added.
Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University,
said:
The First Amendment means that the government can't restrict Americans' access to ideas, information, or media from abroad without a very good reason for it—and no such reason exists here. Repackaging the government's reasons for the ban in the language of "national security" does not change the analysis. There's no national security exception to the First Amendment, and creating such an exception would make the First Amendment a dead letter.
Proponents of the possible ban attempted to spin it as something else and pointed to precedents including the 2020 forced sale of the popular LGBTQ+ dating app Grindr, formerly owned by a Chinese company.
"I want to be very clear: This is not a 'TikTok ban,'" Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), who voted to approve the bill, said in a statement. "I have no interest in banning TikTok. This bill will simply make TikTok safer by separating it from the Chinese Communist Party so that the data of 170 million Americans—many of whom are children—is protected."
Senate Commerce Committee Chair Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) said before Tuesday's vote that "Congress is acting to prevent foreign adversaries from conducting espionage, surveillance, maligned operations, harming vulnerable Americans, our servicemen and women, and our U.S. government personnel."
"Banning TikTok without passing real tech regulation will just further entrench monopolies like Meta and Google, without doing anything to protect Americans from data harvesting or government propaganda."
However, Kate Ruane, who directs the Center for Democracy & Technology's Free Expression Project, asserted that "Congress shouldn't be in the business of banning platforms. They should be working to enact comprehensive privacy legislation that protects our private data no matter where we choose to engage online."
Greer said that "not only is this bill laughably unconstitutional and a blatant assault on free expression and human rights, it's also a perfect way to derail momentum toward more meaningful policies like privacy and antitrust legislation that would actually address the harms of Big Tech and surveillance capitalism."
Greer continued:
Banning TikTok without passing real tech regulation will just further entrench monopolies like Meta and Google, without doing anything to protect Americans from data harvesting or government propaganda.
We could be months away from another Trump administration, and top Democrats are busy expanding mass surveillance authority and setting the precedent that the government can ban an entire social media app based on vague 'national security' concerns that haven't been explained to the public.
Some critics questioned the wisdom of Biden signing off on a potential ban of the most popular social media app among many young users during an election year in which many younger voters are disappointed in the president's record on climate, student debt relief, the Gaza genocide, and more.
One user of X, the social platform formerly known as Twitter, said earlier this year that signing the bill would demonstrate a "comical level of political malpractice, the equivalent of seeing the rake on the ground and purposefully stepping on it."
Moments after Biden signed the bill, TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew
vowed, "We aren't going anywhere."
"The facts and the Constitution are on our side and we expect to prevail again," he said, referring to the three times when federal judges blocked efforts to ban TikTok.
TikTok CEO Shou Chew responds to the bill that could ban the app: “Make no mistake, this is a ban, a ban of TikTok and a ban on you and your voice.”
“Rest assured, we aren’t going anywhere.”
pic.twitter.com/qElI8JvY0D
— philip lewis (@Phil_Lewis_) April 24, 2024
In the most recent case, U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy ruled last December that a Montana law that would have banned the app "violates the Constitution in more ways than one" and had a "pervasive undertone of anti-Chinese sentiment."
It is unclear who would buy TikTok. Analysts estimate the platform is worth upward of $100 billion, placing it out of reach for all but the biggest U.S. tech titans and, ironically, setting up possible antitrust challenges from the very administration that ultimately forced the sale.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Blatant Censorship': Critics Blast US House Vote for TikTok Ban
"Don't ban TikTok," said Fight for the Future. "Pass a goddamn privacy law."
Mar 13, 2024
U.S. progressives on Wednesday decried what they called a xenophobic censorship bill passed by House lawmakers that would ban TikTok if its Chinese parent company doesn't sell its stake in the popular social media app, with critics arguing that Congress should instead pass a comprehensive digital privacy law.
Lawmakers passed the Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act in an overwhelmingly bipartisan 352-65 vote. The legislation "prohibits distributing, maintaining, or providing internet hosting services for a foreign adversary-controlled application" like TikTok, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Chinese tech company ByteDance.
Fifty House Democrats and 15 Republicans voted against the bill.
"I voted no on the TikTok forced sale bill," Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) said in a statement. "While I have serious data privacy concerns with TikTok, this bill was rapidly rushed to a vote by the Republicans with almost no public scrutiny—and that's a recipe for unintended consequences."
"We need well-vetted, robust protections for TikTok users," Casar added. "Today's bill simply may not work."
Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who also voted no, said on social media that "not only are there First Amendment concerns, this is bad policy."
"We should create actual standards and regulations around privacy violations across social media companies—not target platforms we don't like," she added.
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), another no vote, said that "rather than target one company in a rushed and secretive process, Congress should pass comprehensive data privacy protections and do a better job of informing the public of the threats these companies may pose to national security."
Proponents of the bill, which was rushed to a vote after a closed-door hearing, argue that because ByteDance is beholden to the Chinese government, TikTok could be compelled to disclose data on the approximately 170 million Americans who use the app.
If passed by the Senate and signed into law by President Joe Biden—who has vowed to approve the legislation—ByteDance will have six months to divest from TikTok or it will be banned from U.S. app stores and web hosts.
Responding to the vote, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin accused the U.S. government of "resorting to hegemonic moves when one could not succeed in fair competition."
Wang added that the move "disrupts the normal operation of businesses, undermines the confidence of international investors in the investment environment, sabotages the normal economic and trade order in the world, and will eventually backfire on the U.S. itself."
"The rhetoric fueling a TikTok ban is a xenophobic, moral panic about the content on TikTok."
Civil liberties and digital rights groups blasted the House vote, with the ACLU accusing lawmakers of "violating the free speech rights of millions of Americans who use the platform daily to communicate and stay informed."
Fight for the Future said that "the rhetoric fueling a TikTok ban is a xenophobic, moral panic about the content on TikTok, disregarding... users in the U.S. that use the app for news, small business, community organizing, and free expression."
"Don't ban TikTok," the group asserted on social media. "Pass a goddamn privacy law."
Other critics highlighted U.S. tech giants' rampant abuse of user privacy. RootsAction called the bill a "serious First Amendment violation and an infringement upon free speech" that "does very little to address broader concerns about privacy rights, as U.S. based social media companies extensively violate those rights."
Jenna Ruddock, an attorney at Free Press Action, said in a
statement:
TikTok isn't perfect, but banning it is the wrong solution. Like all popular platforms, including those that Meta and Google own, TikTok collects too much data on its users. But unilaterally dismantling spaces for free expression limits people's access to information and cuts off avenues for creators to build community. The legislation also fails to meaningfully protect our privacy or address the national security concerns the bill's sponsors have raised.
"Banning a single platform will not address the problem at the root of the entire tech landscape," Ruddock contended, for "at any given time, dozens of corporations are tracking us, analyzing our behavior, and profiting off of our private information."
"It's ridiculous for Congress to single out one app while failing to act on this huge problem that's prevalent across all social media," she added. "Lawmakers should instead pass a federal privacy law that would limit how all companies collect, store, analyze, and sell our personal data."
Some critics linked the legislation to U.S. support for Israel's genocide in Gaza and TikTok users' prolific advocacy for Palestine, with RootsAction noting that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee was the leading campaign contributor to bill author Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) during the 2021-22 election cycle.
The peace group CodePink quipped, "As Israel drops U.S. bombs on civilians daily, they'd rather ban an app than a genocide."
The legislation now heads to the Senate, where Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) only said that the chamber "will review" the bill.
"Make no mistake: The House's TikTok bill is a ban, and it's blatant censorship," ACLU senior policy counsel Jenna Leventoff argued. "Today, the House of Representatives voted to violate the First Amendment rights of more than half of the country. The Senate must reject this unconstitutional and reckless bill."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Calling Out 'Hypocrisy and Censorship,' Campaign Aims to Prevent US TikTok Ban
"Stop feeding moral panic and pass a real data privacy law to stop Big Tech companies—including TikTok!—from harvesting and abusing our personal data for profit," a new Fight for the Future petition urges lawmakers.
Feb 28, 2023
Data privacy and free speech advocates on Tuesday sounded the alarm about "hypocrisy and censorship" as U.S. House Republicans pushed for a bill to effectively ban TikTok, a video-sharing platform created by the Chinese company ByteDance, across the country.
House Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas) held a hearing on "combating the generational challenge of CCP aggression," referring to the Chinese Communist Party, after introducing the Deterring America's Technological Adversaries (DATA) Act last week.
Meanwhile, the U.S.-based group Fight for the Future launched a #DontBanTikTok campaign opposing the bill (H.R. 1153).
"If policymakers want to protect Americans from surveillance, they should advocate for strong data privacy laws."
"If it weren't so alarming, it would be hilarious that U.S. policymakers are trying to 'be tough on China' by acting exactly like the Chinese government," said Fight for the Future director Evan Greer. "Banning an entire app used by millions of people, especially young people, LGBTQ folks, and people of color, is classic state-backed internet censorship."
"TikTok uses the exact same surveillance capitalist business model of services like YouTube and Instagram," she stressed. "Yes, it's concerning that the Chinese government could abuse data that TikTok collects. But even if TikTok were banned, they could access much of the same data simply by purchasing it from data brokers, because there are almost no laws in place to prevent that kind of abuse."
According to Greer, "If policymakers want to protect Americans from surveillance, they should advocate for strong data privacy laws that prevent all companies (including TikTok!) from collecting so much sensitive data about us in the first place, rather than engaging in what amounts to xenophobic showboating that does exactly nothing to protect anyone."
Fight for the Future's campaign includes a petition that is open for signature and sends the same message to lawmakers: "I want my elected officials to ACTUALLY protect my sensitive data from China and other governments. Stop feeding moral panic and pass a real data privacy law to stop Big Tech companies—including TikTok!—from harvesting and abusing our personal data for profit."
In addition to sharing the petition and highlighting the inadequacy of U.S. privacy laws, the campaign site notes that the ACLU is also opposing McCaul's bill, and on Sunday sent a letter to him and Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), the panel's ranking member.
"Having only had a few days to review this legislation, we have not included a comprehensive list of all of H.R. 1153's potential problems in this letter," wrote ACLU federal policy director Christopher Anders and senior policy counsel Jenna Leventoff. "However, the immediately apparent First Amendment concerns are more than sufficient to justify a 'no' vote."
"This legislation would not just ban TikTok—an entire platform, used by millions of Americans daily—but would also erode the important free speech protections included within the Berman Amendment," they continued. "Moreover, its vague and overbroad nature implicates due process and sweeps in otherwise protected speech."
The letter explains that 35 years ago, the Berman Amendment "removed the president's authority to regulate or ban the import or export of 'informational materials, including but not limited to, publications, films, posters, phonograph records, photographs... artworks, and news wire feeds' and later electronic media."
In a statement, Leventoff declared that "Congress must not censor entire platforms and strip Americans of their constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression."
"Whether we're discussing the news of the day, livestreaming protests, or even watching cat videos," she said, "we have a right to use TikTok and other platforms to exchange our thoughts, ideas, and opinions with people around the country and around the world."
Notably, Meeks spoke out against the bill during Tuesday's hearing. Reuters reports that the ranking member "strongly opposed the legislation, saying it would 'damage our allegiances across the globe, bring more companies into China's sphere, destroy jobs here in the United States, and undercut core American values of free speech and free enterprise."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy