"There's no one brand of extremism that stops at the borders of any country. There are just different ideologies that are shared, in many cases globally." #360OS
What are the markers on the path from radicalization to violence in both the international & domestic terrorism spheres?
An indicator for @georgetownICAP's Mary McCord is that once general ideological propaganda changes into logistical planning, the threat escalates. #360OS
"Research shows that a lot of extreme content on social media actually involves a fairly small number, but frequent users who are responsible for this content so it can often seem much more widespread than it really is and have a large impact." #360OS
“Toxic ideas can accelerate bounce off of each other and accelerate even further and faster…How we deal with that virality and that acceleration is probably one of our biggest challenges.” #360OS
"When a leading neo-Nazi tells you #deplatforming has impacted his ability to plan violent events as we saw in Charlottesville, that's meaningful, that's impactful." #360OS
On Friday, the US Supreme Court will hear arguments over the fate of TikTok.
For more context and to make sense of all the competing arguments, get insights from Atlantic Council experts: atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atla…
The Supreme Court’s decision will shape global tech competition
The United States Supreme Court is set to start 2025 with a blockbuster case on a tight timeline with significant domestic tech and geopolitical ramifications.
The law in question in the case of TikTok v. Garland—the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act—was passed by Congress in April 2024 with widespread bipartisan support: a 352–65 vote in the House and 79–18 in the Senate. US President Joe Biden signed the bill into law, giving him the authority to force TikTok’s divestiture from its Chinese parent company or be banned from the United States. The Department of Justice set a deadline of January 19—forcing this dramatic showdown. The Supreme Court will proceed in hearing the case on January 10 despite Trump’s request to delay until after his inauguration and the fact that the high court typically defers to its two co-equal branches of government on matters of national security.
The Atlantic Council previously published an in-depth technical analysis of whether the threats of legal control, data access, algorithmic tampering, or broad influence efforts by the Chinese government are unique or singularly focused on TikTok. The threat of legal control proved to be real and ongoing. The other potential risks remain considerable with loopholes not specific to TikTok, such as the sheer amount of Americans’ data for sale on the open market or the litany of US-owned platforms the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has used to perpetrate influence efforts. Chinese ownership of TikTok is undoubtedly a core strength in its global approach to “discourse power.” The key questions remain whether a Chinese company’s ownership of such a popular social media platform poses unique national security risks to the United States, whether banning such a popular app violates the rights of the company or the app’s US users, and how China may react or force ByteDance to react. Beyond TikTok v. Garland, any outcome will shape global tech competition from the global reach of digital platforms to broader tech governance. If new evidence is surfaced, it will shape both.
— @GrahamBrookie is the vice president of technology programs and founding director of the @DFRLab at the Atlantic Council.
To China, algorithms are a national interest
The TikTok saga highlights Beijing’s strategy of using private companies to exert influence globally, while restricting foreign companies’ operations within China.
Beijing views algorithms as critical tools to exert national power, with Chinese leader Xi Jinping emphasizing the importance of artificial intelligence in military and economic power competition. As TikTok has gained market clout, the Chinese government has taken a more assertive stance on its technologies, especially content recommendation algorithms. Since 2020, China has implemented measures to protect its technological assets, including adding algorithms to the restricted list of technologies from export in August 2020, and passing the “Export Control Law” in October 2020, which governs the sale of these technologies to foreign buyers. China now strongly opposes any forced sale of TikTok, asserting its legal authority to veto such transactions.
Beijing has railed against the United States’ enforcement actions against TikTok, using abusive and inflammatory rhetoric to paint those actions as a violation of international norms. Chinese officials have called these actions “an act of bullying” (Xinhua editorial), “an abuse of national power” (Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokeswoman Mao Ning), and “hypocritical and double standards” (Xinhua editorial). They have warned of potential consequences for the global economic order.
That is interesting rhetoric given that Beijing would not allow a US or other foreign company to operate similarly in China. China maintains a restrictive environment for foreign media and technology companies, blocking most foreign social media platforms, search engines, and news outlets. When probed about this disparity, a Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson claimed that “China’s policy on overseas social media is completely incomparable to the US’ attitude towards TikTok . . . as long as foreign media companies comply with the requirements of Chinese laws and regulations, all foreign media platforms and news agencies are welcomed.” In reality, these laws give the CCP firm control over data flows and information within its borders.
Beijing’s robust defense of TikTok and its underlying technology underscores China’s growing confidence in its tech sector and its willingness to challenge what it perceives as unfair treatment in the global marketplace.
— Shelly Hahn is the deputy director of the Atlantic Council’s @ACGlobalChina Hub.
What can we expect from a Trump 2.0 foreign policy? In defense and security policy, we can anticipate a return of a “peace through strength” approach. This will mean big investments in US defense capabilities to strengthen deterrence and use force decisively if deterrence fails. Trump will rightly ask allies to contribute more to ensure US alliances in Europe and Asia have the capabilities they need.
In economic policy, we can expect a focus on fair and reciprocal trade, prioritizing addressing China’s unfair trading practices, and an unleashing of the United States’ domestic energy potential. Values will center around an “America first, but not alone” orientation that will ensure that US global engagement benefits the peace, prosperity, and freedom of the American people and, in so doing, the broader free world.
— @MatthewKroenig is vice president and senior director of the Atlantic Council’s @ACScowcroft Center for Strategy and Security.
Global trade
What will the Trump administration do about global trade? This is the thirty-trillion-dollar question. It was what every finance minister and central bank governor at the recent International Monetary Fund-World Bank Annual Meetings wanted to chat about privately. Here’s what we know.
The important question about Trump and trade is: Will he do what he says he will do on tariffs? That answer is more likely yes than no, but it will not happen overnight. Trump’s trade views were shaped in the 1980s during Japan’s rapid economic growth. He views trade in binary terms, with bilateral imbalances the key determinant of whether a policy is succeeding or not. The first step in his trade policy will be, somewhat surprisingly, to try and revise the Phase 1 trade deal with China that he brokered at the end of his first term. The deal was largely judged a failure since China didn’t live up to any of its commitments, but the excuse given is that the pandemic prevented what would have been a successful first step. That’s more likely initially than a 60 percent tariff on Chinese imports.
Once he tries to revive (or, as Trump trade people say, “finally enforce”) the China trade deal, Trump will turn his attention to the European Union. Here there will be a deep divide, and Trump will seek reciprocal tariffs on a range of products—many of which he will be able to impose unilaterally. His blanket tariff promise of 10 percent seems unlikely in the near term, but instead a scattershot of specific tariffs will be a signal to countries—both allies and adversaries—that this is just the beginning. The likely response will be a tit-for-tat escalation that will be inflationary in the United States and for the global economy. While the Trump economic team disputes this, citing the fact that Trump’s first term didn’t produce inflationary results, the size and scale of what is being proposed now is vastly different.
— @joshualipsky is the senior director of the Atlantic Council’s @ACGeoEcon Center and a former adviser to the International Monetary Fund.
@AmbDanFried “In psychological terms, bringing the war home to Russia has allowed Ukraine to strike a powerful blow against enemy morale,” writes Peter Dickinson (@Biz_Ukraine_Mag). atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainea…
🧵 Since retaking Afghanistan, the Taliban has issued decrees to systematically oppress women and girls.
In this audio thread compiled by @SHalaimzai, @Metra_Mehran, and @mari_thero, #AfghanWomen narrate their ordeal under gender apartheid in Afghanistan:bit.ly/3Tt3JZ2
“Women are ordered to stay indoors because Taliban soldiers are not trained to respect women.” #AfghanWomen #GenderApartheid 🎧⬇️
“We believed that the international community was with us, that they wouldn’t give away our hard work, our rights. I feel embarrassed for thinking that now.” #AfghanWomen #GenderApartheid 🎧⬇️
The decision puts other states offering support to Israel on notice, writes @SLPJustice’s @Celeste_Kmiotek.
“Should the ICJ determine that Israel is committing genocide, the states that have aided Israel could also face cases before the ICJ.” atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atla…
@SLPJustice @Celeste_Kmiotek “Today’s decision is an important blow to the argument advanced by Israel’s critics that death and destruction in Gaza are sufficient to establish a violation of the Genocide Convention,” says @ACMideast’s @TomWarrickAC. atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atla…