By Qamar Bashir
The seemingly invincible global leader, champion of democracy and media freedom, and a beacon of technological innovation, the USA finds itself facing an unexpected threat not from rival armed forces or cutting-edge inventions, but from an unlikely source: TikTok. This seemingly harmless app, devoid of political, religious, or violent content, has captured the hearts of users across all age groups.
With its short, light-hearted videos, TikTok has become a source of joy, excitement, and healthy competition for millions worldwide.
The recent vote in the US House of Representatives targeting the Chinese social media platform TikTok on March 13 is not only disconcerting but also disheartening and, quite frankly, concerning. It's particularly perplexing coming from a country that prides itself on being the torchbearer of democracy and constantly lectures the world on the importance of press and media freedom. This sudden shift in stance, where a purely apolitical and harmless social media application like TikTok is deemed a threat to national security, political integrity, and cultural values, stands in stark contrast to the unabated support for US-based social media giants like Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, and Instagram.
On the contrary, the United States has expressed deep concern over recent reports
of internet slowdown in Pakistan, highlighting the indispensable role of a free and
open internet in fostering economic growth, facilitating education, and enabling
effective communication.
It has urged Pakistan to intensify efforts in investing in infrastructure to meet the
escalating demands of the digital age and unequivocally condemned any
cyberattacks aimed at disrupting internet access.
Furthermore, the US has called upon governments worldwide to refrain from
actions that impede internet freedom, emphasizing its pivotal role in safeguarding
democracy. It has underscored the adverse impact of such disruptions on business
and education, emphasizing the urgent need for swift action to restore normalcy.
While the USA has been advocating for freedom and openness in media and
technology worldwide, it has taken a contradictory stance at home by moving to
ban TikTok across the entire country.
This decision comes amidst claims that the harmless and relatively insignificant
application poses a threat to US national security, undermining its values and even
its military prowess. The move, led by both elected Republicans and Democrats,
reflects a significant departure from the country's image as a bastion of free
enterprise. The legislative body's decision to pressure ByteDance, TikTok's parent
company, into selling the app within 180 days or face removal from Apple and
Google's app stores has raised concerns and garnered attention internationally.
By banning a social media website, the US is limiting individuals' ability to
exercise their freedom of speech and expression on that platform. This action
suppresses diverse viewpoints, stifles open discourse, and restricts access to
information, all of which are fundamental to a healthy democracy.
This vote comes into direct confrontation with the first amendment passed by the
US on December 15, 1791, as part of the Bill of Rights. During the American
Revolution (1775-1783), the revolutionaries were motivated by principles of
liberty, democracy, and individual rights. After the establishment of the United
States as a sovereign nation, there was a growing concern among the Founding
Fathers about the potential for abuse of governmental power and infringement
upon individual liberties.
Accordingly, the First Amendment was drafted to address these concerns and to
enshrine fundamental freedoms essential to a democratic society. It protects the
freedom of speech, including the right to express opinions, ideas, and beliefs
without censorship or government interference. This provision is fundamental to a
democratic society, allowing for open discourse and the exchange of diverse
viewpoints.
The First Amendment safeguards freedom of the press, ensuring that the media can
operate independently and report on matters of public interest without fear of
government reprisal. A free press plays a crucial role in holding the government
accountable and informing the public.
While the bill passed by the congress but pending approval by the US Senate, the
US social media activists, civil society organizations, pressure groups, and
political parties are advocating in favor of tiktok and are engaging in coordinated
efforts to oppose the ban.
Firstly, social media activists are leveraging their online platforms to raise
awareness about the potential negative implications of the ban. They are
mobilizing their followers to participate in online campaigns, petitions, and digital
protests aimed at voicing their opposition to the proposed legislation.
These activists are utilizing the very social media platforms targeted by the ban to
amplify their message, highlighting the importance of freedom of expression and
the role of social media in facilitating public discourse and activism.
Secondly, civil society organizations and pressure groups are employing various
advocacy tactics to lobby lawmakers and influence public opinion. They organize
rallies, forums, and public events to educate the public about the implications of
the ban on democratic values and individual rights. These groups are engaging in
direct lobbying efforts, meeting with legislators, submitting written testimonies,
and conducting media outreach to convey their concerns and advocate for
alternative policy solutions.
Lastly, political leaders who are engaged to capitalize the movement against
banning Tiktok are making legislative maneuvers and coalition-building to oppose
the ban within the halls of Congress and the Senate. They are challenging the
proposed legislation through parliamentary procedures, such as filibustering,
amendments, and procedural delays.
Additionally, political leaders are using their platforms to publicly denounce the
ban, framing it as a threat to constitutional freedoms and democratic principles and
are mobilizing their constituents and leveraging their institutional power to sway
public opinion and pressure lawmakers to reconsider or reject the proposed ban.
Under pressure for many months, ByteDance has already made some gestures,
such as a billion-dollar investment to have American user data stored by a third
party in the US. But the suspicions of Beijing-led opinion manipulation during this
election year, also raised during the vote, need to be substantiated. Yet the House
hastily passed the bill, without any tangible evidence being presented to the elected
representatives.
The vote on the bill has created some unexpected alliances, bringing together left-
wing Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, libertarian Republican
Senator Rand Paul, and former President Donald Trump. Ocasio-Cortez and Paul,
motivated by substantive arguments, joined forces against the bill, while Trump,
who had previously criticized TikTok, changed his stance, arguing that targeting
the app could benefit other social media platforms he views as hostile to him.
China swiftly responded to what it perceived as aggressive interventionism,
expressing disappointment with the decision and accusing the US of going against
principles of fair competition and international trade rules. While China refrained
from directly criticizing internet censorship, it made clear its stance on the matter.
The popularity of the Chinese platform has undoubtedly raised concerns among
legislators, especially regarding content control and its potential impact on young
users. ByteDance, the parent company of TikTok, has attempted to address some
of these concerns by investing in storing American user data domestically.
However, suspicions of Beijing-led manipulation, particularly during an election
year, persist without concrete evidence, leading to swift passage of the bill in the
House.
Despite passing the House, the bill still faces a hurdle in the Senate, where
representatives have signaled their intent to defend principles like freedom of
expression enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Thus, the
outcome remains uncertain, with the Senate yet to weigh in on the matter.
