• December 7, 2021

The Progressive Case for a TikTok Sale

When the United States demanded in early August that TikTok be sold to American owners by this weekend, the backlash was vocal, loud, and widespread. Some felt the US had broken its commitment to internet freedoms, and become more like China or Saudi Arabia. Others saw it as President Trump’s personal revenge against an app whose users had wrecked his Tulsa rally and whose owners had refused to kiss his ring. Now that the Trump Administration has banned the app—and WeChat, too—from app stores in the United States, these concerns will only seem more pressing.

Trump’s apparent motives are wrong-headed, but so is the tech-libertarian reaction. The president, left to his own devices, does seem to want to transform major apps into tools designed to project his message and enhance his power. But to insist, therefore, that TikTok and other Chinese apps must be left alone by the US government goes too far. The US and other countries have the right to take justified action, especially when it comes to an app from a country that has violated so many basic norms of the internet. Getting the balance right will be a key challenge for future Administrations and democratic governments around the world.

The debate over what to do about TikTok goes back, in many ways, to John Perry Barlow’s famous declaration of cyberspace sovereignty written in 1996, in Davos, Switzerland, when Barlow was a WIRED columnist. Its premise was that nation states (“weary giants of flesh and steel”) had no legitimate authority to pass laws that might dictate what is done “where we gather;” that is, in “cyberspace.” His view was extreme even at the time, but it spawned a close cousin, “tech neoliberalism,” that suggested that, generally speaking, the government had no business applying regular laws to the nascent internet industry, because the internet was special.

explanation
extra resources
find
find more
find more info
find more information
find out here
find out here now
find out more
find out this here
for beginners
from this source
full article
full report
funny postget more
get more info
get more information
get redirected here
get the facts
go
go here
go now
go right here
go to the website
go to these guys
go to this site
go to this web-site
go to this website
go to website
go!!
going here
good
great post to read
great site
had me going
have a peek at these guys
have a peek at this site
have a peek at this web-site
have a peek at this website
have a peek here
he has a good point
he said
helpful hints
helpful resources
helpful site
her comment is here
her explanation
her latest blog
her response
here
here are the findings
here.
his comment is here
his explanation
his response
home
home page
homepage
hop over to here
hop over to these guys
hop over to this site
hop over to this web-site
hop over to this website
how much is yours worth?
how you can help
i loved this
i thought about this
i was reading this
image source
in the know
index
informative post
inquiry
internet
investigate this sitekiller deal
knowing it
learn here
learn more
learn more here
learn the facts here now

A hands-off approach was easier to defend in the 1990s, when the web was folksy and discrete, today’s giant tech firms were mere infants, and the proposed laws were crude. But the idea of leaving cyberspace alone has persisted, even as the idea that it is independent of nations and political communities has become absurd, and the consequences of tech neoliberalism have grown so stark as to engender popular resistance. A laissez-faire approach to data privacy has allowed the growth of business models based on attention capture, surveillance, and behavioral modification. Lax antitrust enforcement has allowed massive concentration of power in the tech sector. A general indifference to what happens on the internet has destabilized political and electoral systems, even allowing for foreign interference in democratic elections. In an era when the major platforms have nearly as much (if not more) influence and control over one’s life as any government, to say that they should get a free pass forever cannot be right.

If tech neoliberalism has run its course, what are the alternatives? The first, long championed by China, is net nationalism, which makes the State the predominant authority over all things internet, and at bottom sees the network as nothing more than an instrument of state power. The network should, in this view, serve as a means of disseminating state propaganda, monitoring the population for dissent, and expanding economic growth. If it happens to amuse some people along the way, that’s a bonus.

Trump has shown a certain affinity for this approach. He has demanded that the major platforms swear fealty to the White House and run the disinformation and propaganda campaigns belonging to him and his allies. When the platforms haven’t done what he wants, he has, in violation of the First Amendment, threatened serious legal consequences. At the same time, Trump has also shown himself generally indifferent to the threat to elections that might come from foreign network interference. These lead to the conclusion that Trump would prefer a U.S. internet that is an instrument of his electoral advantage and economic self-interest, narrowly construed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *