The Legislation Itself
The American federal government has raised concerns about TikTok and its Chinese parent company ByteDance since its rise in popularity in the U.S. that began in 2018 and reached a climax in 2021. In August of 2020, then-President Donald Trump was adamant on banning the app from American app stores — though the ban never went through.
In conversation with reporters from The Washington Post, Trump said, “As far as TikTok is concerned, we’re banning them from the United States.”
On March 13 of this year, by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, a 12-page standalone bill passed in the House of Representatives that would have required TikTok to be sold from its Chinese corporation to an American company within six months or face a nation-wide ban. In April, House Republicans made the decision to attach a modified TikTok-centric bill to a larger $95 billion foreign aid package that would benefit both Ukraine and Israel. After this modification, which also extended ByteDance’s selling deadline to up to a year, the measure, labeled the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, passed through the House by a vote of 360-58.
Many people see a sale of TikTok as necessary to the protection of Americans’ privacy and wellbeing, while others are of the belief that this is but another attempt by the federal government to completely sever China-U.S. relations, or perhaps a ploy to stop the spread of pro-Palestinian content on TikTok.
Rep. Jeff Jackson (D-N.C. 14th District), who uses TikTok often to communicate with his constituents and had amassed over two million followers and 36 million likes on the app, voted in favor of the Act and explained in a since-deleted TikTok video, “TikTok may be sold to another company, but it will continue to operate” and in a statement after the vote that he’s “said repeatedly that ByteDance, the Chinese company that owns TikTok, needs to sell their shares” and “the best-case scenario is that TikTok … is no longer owned – and potentially controlled – by an adversarial government.”
Rep. Jackson received considerable criticism from TikTok users for this view, much of it expressed in the forms of stitched content on the platform, comments, and unfollowing of his platform.
By contrast, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY 14th District) stated she would vote against “the TikTok forced sale bill” in a post on X, formerly Twitter: “This bill was incredibly rushed, from committee to vote in 4 days, with little explanation. There are serious antitrust and privacy questions here, and any national security concerns should be laid out to the public prior to a vote.”
In less than a week after its passage in the House of Representatives, the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act passed in the Senate by a 79-18 vote, and on April 24, President Joe Biden signed it into law.
As of May 8, ByteDance has sued the U.S. government, citing violations of the U.S. Constitution, including the First Amendment, in an effort to stop the enforcement of the Act.
After the President’s signage of the bill on April 24, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Illinois 8th District), defended the legislation, which he co-authored, saying, “TikTok, one of the country’s major media platforms, is owned by a company that is deeply connected to and ultimately responsible to the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] … We are drawing a hard line against foreign adversaries using social media platforms to control our data and then, through the power of opaque and proprietary algorithms, turning that data against us and shaping what reaches millions of Americans.”
Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have so far supported the sale of TikTok, as was made evident in the House and Senate voting sessions, though some have refuted the claim that China-owned media is the sole threat to Americans’ data privacy.
Sen. Edward Markey (D-Massachusetts) opined on the Senate floor, “TikTok poses a serious risk to the privacy and mental health of our young people. But that problem isn’t unique to TikTok and certainly doesn’t justify a TikTok ban. American companies are doing the same thing too.”
Emily Swift, TikTok user and owner of a Connecticut-based film lab, told Axios in response to the bill, “This is my livelihood at stake.” She emphasized that the majority of the lab’s clientele base has been achieved via exposure on TikTok.
It’s been an interesting journey for the legalization of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act for sure — and there’ll be more to unpack as the saga continues.
Perspectives on TikTok and its Ban in the WCC Community
In search of opinions about the possibility of a TikTok sale or ban and about TikTok in general, this reporter connected with professors and students on the Whatcom Community College campus.
One anonymous professor revealed they think “the situation is problematic in many ways,” going on to explain that they “don’t want to see the U.S. government getting involved in banning companies from operating, but at the same time, the policies and relationship of China’s businesses with its government is undoubtedly an issue, especially when it’s a platform like TikTok where the potential for data gathering is so vast.”
Though not a user of TikTok themselves, they reason that yet another social media platform to spend their time on would drain their energy and time too much, especially in the midst of all the other obligations they have.
They conclude their remarks on the promises of the bill, stating, “I would support a sale but would not support a ban. I think that’s a bad precedent to set.”
WCC student Zane Thompson says he does not use TikTok, primarily because he prefers long-form video content more commonly available on YouTube. He uses other social media platforms to “keep in touch with and keep up to date on the activities of people I know” and to “browse communities of my interests.”
On the topic of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, Thompson said, “I’m mostly indifferent to the concept of TikTok being sold to a U.S. company. I think it might be a good decision if there’s a desire for more regulations for TikTok here in the States.”
Thompson wouldn’t be opposed to a wholly U.S.-owned TikTok but clarifies, “I don’t think I’d support a decision to ban TikTok nationwide. The app has become so intrinsically involved with media consumption in the state, and I think more trouble would be caused that would be worth to ban the app nationwide.”
Student Matthew Waschke said that rather than using TikTok, they watch YouTube Shorts, reasoning that they are “more ingrained in that ecosystem.” When asked what they think politicians’ reasoning behind the call for a sale of a TikTok to a U.S. company is, they said, “People in the government system (Congress, I believe) are rather worried about invasive spying upon the American people through TikTok. I don’t particularly like this reason, as American companies take data and sell it from other countries all the time.”
Waschke elaborated on their previous statement saying, “Look at Facebook and Twitter (X), in the EULAs they talk about selling our data, and these apps are world worldwide phenomenon. Are we going to truly extinguish world trends just because they aren’t American? It feels like a double standard … With that being said, I would support a sale to a U.S. company if TikTok decides it’s within their best interest.”
“A TikTok ban would do nothing,” asserts Waschke. “People would use VPNS to go around it, and overall just be a way to suppress casual voices who do not have the expertise or knowhow to access it around a ban. The rest of the world will still have TikTok, and we’ll just be missing out on a core new age form of entertainment and communication.”
Lydia Schoenbachler, WCC student and on-campus employee, said that she only uses TikTok in small increments, to check up on her FYP, For You Page. Previously, she “used to doomscroll for hours.”
Yet, when asked if she would support a nationwide TikTok ban, Schoenbachler was confident in her “no,” saying, “I really fear for the day media becomes censored to this extent.”
Running Start student Jacob Hernandez said the only social media he uses consistently is YouTube and that doesn’t use TikTok. Hernandez said, “[TikTok] would suck the life out of me and take all of my time.”
On the topic of a nationwide TikTok ban, Hernandez stated, “I don’t think I would be [in favor of it], but then again I don’t know why we might ban TikTok in the first place. It might be for a really serious reason that I don’t know.”
Hernandez took a neutral stance on the potential sale of TikTok but added he “wouldn’t be against it.”
One anonymous student said they don’t use TikTok and think they would “be really addicted to that app … I try to limit stuff that I know will distract me.”
This anonymous student admitted they aren’t aware of the specifics of the bill calling for the sale of TikTok, but said they “heard that China was stealing our data, or that there was a data leak … It never bothered me however.” It doesn’t matter to them who owns TikTok, as long as the proper compensation is given to the appropriate party.
They conclude their remarks stating, “I would not support a nationwide ban because that is not freedom. People should be knowledgeable about the risks, but not be banned.”
When looking at this sample of WCC community members, it seems most, if not all, are wary of wasting time on TikTok. The consensus is that though they don’t use TikTok, they wouldn’t support nationwide ban on the app on the basis that it would restrict freedoms and cut the U.S. off from global news and trends.
