Does TikTok present a threat that is any different than other Big Tech companies? Yes, definitively so.

I’ve long pressed to rein in Big Tech & end the discrimination.

Yet the evidence shows that TikTok is unlike any other Big Tech company. 🧵

newsmax.com/newsfront/tikt… After being caught allowing personnel in Beijing access to U.S. data, TikTok promised to reform its ways & wall that data off.

But of course, TikTok did not change its ways. As the WSJ found, it kept on sharing sensitive U.S. data with China. Personnel inside China have simply ignored the “Project Texas” promises that TikTok has made to U.S. lawmakers.

For years, TikTok represented that none of the sensitive data that it collects on U.S. users is available to personnel inside China.

Then leaked internal materials revealed this to be nothing more than gaslighting.

A deeply reported story broke in 2022 that pulled back the curtain on TikTok’s data flows back into China.

Based on leaked audio from 80 internal TikTok meetings, the report revealed that “Everything is seen in China,” as one TikTok official put it.

The FCC just ordered every broadcaster to start posting a race & gender scorecard that breaks down the demographics of their workforce.

Activists lobbied for this b/c they want to see businesses pressured into hiring people based on their race & gender.

Courts have already overturned the FCC *twice* for pressuring broadcasters into making hiring decisions in violation of the Constitution.

I dissent.

docs.fcc.gov/public/attachm…


The Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires that the government keep this type of data confidential when it is collected by the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission.

But the FCC goes another way—one that violates the Constitution, as courts already found in two prior FCC cases.

Last year, after Elon Musk acquired Twitter, President Biden gave federal agencies the green light to go after him.

And they have.

Today, the FCC adds itself to the growing list of federal agencies engaging in the regulatory harassment of Elon Musk.

I dissent.



President Biden stood at a White House podium & stated that Elon Musk “is worth being looked at.”

When asked "How?", President Biden responded “There’s a lot of ways.”

There certainly are. The DOJ, FAA, FTC, NLRB, SDNY, & FWS have all taken action.

The FCC now joins them.

New analysis here shows that the average #TikTok user is more likely to be exposed to content favorable to the CCP than a user of other major social media

TikTok search results for “PLA” overwhelmingly pro CCP

“Wuhan lab” lacks relevant results on TikTok, suggesting moderation

https://twitter.com/brendancarrfcc/status/1636773917670137856

Leaked documents obtained by a reporter in 2019 showed that "TikTok... instruct[ed] its moderators to censor videos that mention Tiananmen Square, Tibetan independence, or the banned religious group Falun Gong." Those guidelines are no longer in use.

theguardian.com/technology/201…

Today, the FCC takes an unprecedented step to safeguard our networks and strengthen America’s national security.

Our unanimous decision represents the first time in FCC history that we have voted to prohibit the authorization of new equipment based on national security concerns. I called for the FCC to take this action in 2021 as a necessary means of closing the “Huawei loophole”—a problem where insecure gear could continue to be approved for use in the U.S. by the FCC despite the threat posed to our national security.

TikTok is not just another video app.
That’s the sheep’s clothing.

It harvests swaths of sensitive data that new reports show are being accessed in Beijing.

I’ve called on @Apple & @Google to remove TikTok from their app stores for its pattern of surreptitious data practices. TikTok doesn’t just see its users dance videos.

It collects search and browsing histories, keystroke patterns, biometric identifiers, draft messages and metadata, plus it has collected the text, images, and videos that are stored on a device's clipboard.

Apple’s CEO Tim Cook gave a speech last week in D.C. where he spoke in eloquent terms about Apple’s commitment to running the App Store in a way that promotes human rights.

But his words in Washington founder upon the harsh reality of Apple's conduct in China.

My letter to 🍎 For years, global corporations like Apple have talked about their values in speeches while cutting deals with brutal regimes for access to lucrative markets.

They advance all sorts of arguments to justify their decisions to stand shoulder to shoulder with authoritarians.

In 1996, the Supreme Court wrote that “ensuring public access to a multiplicity of information sources” is a “governmental purpose of the highest order” and, given the bottleneck control cable systems then held, required cable to carry speech they otherwise would have rejected.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1507777261654605828

Big Tech is in a far more dominant position when it comes to controlling the free flow of information today than cable was in 1996.

This is particularly so given the centrality of Big Tech’s role in defining what can be said in the modern day / digital town square.

The debate over Section 230 often produces more heat than light.

One reason: Big Tech’s lobbyists routinely conflate statutory protections with First Amendment rights. 🧵 For instance, they argue that action on the Section 230 Petition would force websites to carry speech in violation of their First Amendment rights.

Not at all. NTIA’s Petition expressly says that websites would retain their 1st Amendment right to remove content “for any reason.”

On Big Tech, conservatives should stand for more than nothing.

Here’s a plan for promoting greater transparency, accountability, and user empowerment.

newsweek.com/conservative-p… For many Democrats, the path forward is clear. They want to break up Big Tech. They want a moratorium on mergers. And they want social media companies to censor even more online speech.

Google makes one of the strongest arguments yet for Section 230 reform.

https://twitter.com/google_comms/status/1272997427356680195

2. Big Tech has long argued that it needs Section 230’s unique set of liability protections because websites simply couldn’t operate if they were held liable for comments or user-generated posts.

Lots of conspiracy theories have been swirling around about 5G, cell sites, Wi-Fi, & other RF devices causing adverse health effects.

For some people, the truth & facts simply don’t matter. They will believe this false conspiracy no matter what.

For everyone else, here’s a 🧵: 2. Those pushing this hoax often claim that “there are no scientific studies showing that RF emissions are safe!”

False.

There are dozens upon dozens of scientific, epidemiological, and other studies and analyses that show this.

Meet your new speech police!

Facebook now has an Oversight Board empowered to take down posts.

Gotta be non-partisan people, right? Nope!

1 is Pam Karlan: testified to impeach @POTUS, “baron” Trump line, Obama DOJ, & NYT calls “full-throated, unapologetic liberal torchbearer.” 2. Facebook’s decision undermines its claim that posts won’t be censored for partisan political reasons.

Karlan testified that “President Trump must be held to account.”

She wrote *in 2016* that she felt “a responsibility to challenge [Trump] in the court of public opinion.”

Communist China says America cannot hold it financially responsible for the massive losses caused by COVID-19 for two main reasons:

It locked down Wuhan; and it provided information and time in Jan & Feb for the world to act.

Neither argument withstands even casual scrutiny. 2. Let’s start with Communist China’s vaunted “Wuhan lockdown.”

Put simply, they botched it.

And the regime’s failure in this respect is one of the most significant and direct causes of the global spread of Covid.

Here’s how...

Great!

First, I would like to speak with Dr. AI Fen.

She worked at Wuhan Central Hospital and tried to sound the alarm on the virus.

Could you un-disappear her so we could speak?

nypost.com/2020/04/01/whi…

https://twitter.com/SpokespersonCHN/status/1248245825517400064

2. Next, I’d like to speak with Chen Qiushi and Fang Bin - two video bloggers that tried to bring the world a glimpse of Wuhan unfiltered by your Communist regime.

Could you un-disappear them so we could speak?

nytimes.com/2020/02/14/bus…

🚨🚨
This is a sweeping and dangerous attempt by the left to weaponize the FCC against conservative broadcasters and politicians.

And it is a clear signal of the agenda the left will pursue if they regain control of the FCC --> censoring speech that does not fit their orthodoxy.

https://twitter.com/MZHemingway/status/1245757734068379650

2. "broadcast hoax" - that's what this left wing group calls the airing of the President's Coronovirus Task Force Briefings.

They call on the FCC to "rein in" broadcasters that DO air the briefing by investigating them.

I stand with the First Amendment and strongly oppose this.

Communist Party official cites their own state-run media “reporting” to spread China’s false claim that COVID-19 originated in a U.S. research lab.

The Chinese regime has zero credibility. Remember that when they promise you Huawei’s 5G gear will not be used for malign purposes.

https://twitter.com/AmbLINSongtian/status/1239453193689587712

2. There is a clear link between China’s brutal crackdown on free speech and the spread of Coronavirus.

6 weeks ago, China removed the video sharing apps that people used for reporting purposes b/c they “threatened the Party's dominance of information."

chinamediaproject.org/2020/02/06/int…

Political satire is one of the oldest and most important forms of free speech.

It challenges those in power while using humor to draw more people in to the discussion.

Equating this type of political speech with doctored deepfakes or illegal content is a serious mistake. 2) From Internet memes to late-night comedians, from cartoons to the plays and poems as old as organized government itself - Political Satire circumvents traditional gatekeepers & helps hold those in power accountable.

Not surprising that it’s long been targeted for censorship.

This is nothing more than a brazen attempt by government officials to silence political speech they don’t like.

Bending to their pressure campaign would erode the free speech principles enshrined in the First Amendment. 2) It is quite something for @RepRoKhanna to lead this charge after using his platform to repeatedly fan the false flames of fear on net neutrality.

Reminder, Internet speeds are up, prices are down, and America now has the best 5G platform in the world.

California's #AB5 is one of the worst job killers in the state's history - and that is saying something

While cheered by union leaders, gig economy workers pay the price

So job one for CA's legislature should be to repeal it & restore the freedom to work
sacbee.com/opinion/califo… 2. How far does California's #AB5 go to deny workers the freedom to innovate and earn a living in the modern economy?

The State now decides how many stories a freelance journalist can write.

That provision alone has already cost hundreds of Californian's their jobs.