But the Biden Administration has been keen to use TikTok to spread its message (what others might call "propaganda"). Transportation Sec'y Pete Buttegieg was the first cabinet official to appear on TikTok, in April 2021: news.yahoo.com/buttigieg-on-n… 6/
And the Biden Administration invited TikTok influencers to the White House in April 2022 to spread its message on Ukraine, washingtonpost.com/technology/202… 7/
So much so, that a recent @WSJ story points out the Administration's predicament--they rely on TikTok to spread their message, now with 2024 coming up (and the Republicans largely unilaterally disarming)... wsj.com/articles/biden… 9/
Thus, the win-win solution: Threaten a ban, but hope that TikTok moves out of Chinese ownership. The same hope that Trump had. 10/
One critical difference: Trump wanted an American owner; Biden presumably will tolerate a foreign owner outside China and officially sanctioned states. 11/
Reenter Softbank, which had interest in 2020, but stepped aside when it became clear that Trump wanted a good ole' American company? theinformation.com/articles/softb… 12/
But what comes after this divestiture. Won't folks start calling for other divestitures? 13/
First, of course, WeChat. WeChat was almost collateral damage in 2020. It raises serious propaganda and surveillance issues. 14/
But even Temu and Shein -- after all, hog butchers owned by China are a national security threat. Why not clothiers? After all, they might be able to make fun of us by our shopping habits. Or might get our credit card info. wsj.com/articles/smith… 15/
But then, add Telegram--which has Russian origins, and whose operations remain largely obscure. wired.com/story/the-krem… 16/
But why stop there? Why not this sacred platform? Why not Twitter? After all, Musk is subject to foreign pressure. brookings.edu/research/the-n… 17/
And won't this ignite possible app ownership changes across the world? Countries are already trying to localize data. Here's my 2015 paper, Data Nationalism, charting this trend. scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/elj/vol64/iss3… 18
Local ownership is much better than just moving the data to local servers, right? And we know that the NSA isn't exactly trusted globally for not grabbing your data (if you're a foreigner). Prism story (though underlying facts contested): theguardian.com/world/2013/jun… 19/
I've got to go--but there should be better means to protect our national security. 20/end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I joined the protestors who lined the hall outside. I held a sign (that somebody had written, not me--I wish I could take credit) that read "Anti-Semitism doesn't only hurt Jewish people." 2/
Having protested, I also wanted to hear what the speaker, Dr. Muhammad, would say. I took my sign in with me, and sat in the balcony. 3/
No one: Anupam, what do you think of the Trump decision?
Anupam: A 🧵 on the Facebook Oversight Board decision, what I call “Trump I.” It includes a prediction of what Facebook will do—so you can tell me I’m wrong at the end of the year! 1/
This was a sophisticated decision, written for the Trump case, but with future global leaders in mind. And it's, crucially, not the Oversight Board's last word on the issue. The Board didn't punt exactly--like many appeals courts, it sent it back for further consideration. 2/
Given both the facts of the Trump case, and the precedent for world leaders, it is pretty clear that the Oversight Board had to approve Facebook’s immediate decision to suspend Trump, lest the Board abet Facebook being used to foment violence by leaders in the future. 3/
I've now read Judge Nichols' opinion explaining the basis for his preliminary injunction last night against the TikTok Executive Order. Some comments. 1/
First, Judge Nichols has seen the government's secret evidence against TikTok--but he concludes this: "the specific evidence of the threat posed by Plaintiffs, as well as whether the prohibitions are the only effective way to address that threat, remains less substantial" 2/
Second, Judge Nichols' IEEPA interpretation is powerfully argued and persuasive. This case suggests that any IEEPA-based ban of TikTok will be permanently enjoined, if appellate courts agree (assuming appeal actually taken). 3/
The Wednesday order by Judge Carl Nichols should have been read as a warning by the Government--he asked for either a brief defending the ban, or a postponement to November. He literally asked whether they wanted to concede to one of TikTok's requests. 2/
This Judge temporarily enjoined the TikTok ban despite receiving secret national security information offered by the Trump Administration to defend that ban. 3/
Just listened to preliminary injunction hearing in TikTok ban case. I am unable to predict how Judge Carl Nichols will rule before midnight tonight. 1/
One key question for Judge Nichols will be 50 U.S. Code § 1702(b), which precludes the regulation, directly or indirectly, personal communication or the importation of information. Both have significant First Amendment implications, of course. 2/
My preference would be to resolve this preliminary injunction directly on First Amendment grounds, which seems to be severely adversely affect in the case of an enormously popular social media app. 3/
A few notes on the TikTok preliminary injunction to be heard today in the D.C. District Court by Judge Carl Nichols. 1/
TikTok originally filed a case in federal district court in L.A. a week or so ago, and, frankly weirdly, withdrew it, only to refile this week in D.C. Nice reporting by @wsj. 2/ wsj.com/articles/tikto…
TikTok (a California corporation) and ByteDance (a Cayman Islands company) are both plaintiffs here. They argue that the TikTok bans violate the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment due process, are ultra vires, or represent an unconstitutional delegation by Congress. 3/