David Remnick: I think I first started hearing about a ban on TikTok in the summer of 2020. Donald Trump was flexing his muscles against China, and he signed an executive order that August. I confess, I imagine some disgruntled teenagers out there, but I didn't give it a great deal of thought. A few months later, a judge appointed by Trump no less, blocked the order as arbitrary and capricious, but now the TikTok ban is back, and this time it may well stick. Congress just passed it with bipartisan support and President Biden signed it into law. It stipulates that TikTok will be removed from app stores unless its owner ByteDance, sells it. ByteDance in turn has now filed a lawsuit against the government.

Around 170 million Americans are on TikTok, about half the population. Whole economies depend on TikTok. Millions of people get their news from TikTok. The question is, why Ban TikTok? I'll put that question to two experts. Jacob Helberg, a tech executive and a proponent of the band will join me in our next episode, but today, I'll speak with a skeptic, Katie Drummond, the global editorial director of Wired Magazine.

You run a magazine that's very sophisticated about tech. We have tech pieces every once in a while, but your relationship to TikTok is something I want to know about first. How much do you use it and what do you think about it as a product?

Katie Drummond: I did not use TikTok for a very long time, even when it was really rising in prominence and popularity in the United States, I actively avoided it. I didn't see, I think, the journalistic value, and that all changed actually when Russia invaded Ukraine in February of 2022. We had journalists on the ground in Russia. We had journalists on the ground in Ukraine at VICE, where I ran the newsroom at the time.

Those journalists started sending us video dispatches that they had taken with their phones of what life was like on the ground in Moscow and in Kyiv as this conflict was unfolding in real-time. We started publishing these video dispatches from our journalists on TikTok and they were viewed by more than 250 million people. That, for me, was the moment when I realized how powerful this app was as a tool for journalists and as a way for news organizations to disseminate on the ground, real-time information to an audience that frankly might otherwise not read about this conflict in the newspaper, might not even read about this conflict on a website.

Which leads me to today, where I would say most evenings I will get home from work, have dinner, spend some time with my daughter, and then I will spend maybe an hour, really just scrolling.

David Remnick: An hour?

Katie Drummond: An hour.

David Remnick: Where once you were reading Proust.

Katie Drummond: Where once I was-- yes, reading very sophisticated often, long philosophy books. No, I don't what I was-- [crosstalk]

David Remnick: No, but seriously, what can TikTok accomplish journalistically? What are its virtues and what are its limits in your view?

Katie Drummond: It can, I think, provide an audience that might otherwise not engage with conventional news journalism, accurate information from major news providers in a format that feels accessible and comfortable and familiar for them. It can also, I think, bring audiences to places that they otherwise would never visit and would never experience.

It is the everything app. Everything is on there. Where it falls short is in the depth and the nuance. These are often 60- to 92-second videos. Can they capture the nuance of a story written to include the points of view of multiple experts, of multiple sources? No, no, it cannot.

David Remnick: Katie, can't you say that about all the competing apps? Can't you say that about all other social media, Facebook, Instagram, those are everything as well?

Katie Drummond: This is an internet problem. This is not necessarily limited to a TikTok problem. I think one of the reasons that TikTok stands out in that regard is because the algorithm that powers TikTok, and this is obviously a subject of much debate and much consternation, we don't really know anything about it. We don't know how it works, we don't know what information it surfaces when, and why. Whereas with a platform like Facebook, at this point, they have been very clear that they are not surfacing news content. They just aren't doing it. With TikTok, it's very difficult to discern what is being surfaced and why.

David Remnick: What do you think about the US government's effort to force ByteDance, which of course, owns TikTok, to have to sell it?

Katie Drummond: I think that based on the information that we have available to us now, I think it is a vast overreach that is rooted in hypotheticals and that is rooted in hypocrisy, and that is rooted in, I think, a fundamental refusal to look across the broad spectrum of social media platforms and treat all of them from a regulatory point of view with the same level of care and precision.

David Remnick: What you're hearing from various critics is that TikTok is essentially an instrument used by the Chinese government, by the Chinese Communist Party, to get into the brain matter of particularly Western and American followers of TikTok. It is an extremely powerful propaganda instrument that is exploited by the Chinese.

Katie Drummond: There's a big difference between saying something and actually demonstrating it to be true. This ban, let's call it what it is, the force to divestiture, it was based from everything we know on closed-door classified briefings that were provided to lawmakers. That's what catalyzed this very rapid decision to move this bill through the levels of government as quickly as it moved. We don't know anything about what those closed-door briefings contained.

David Remnick: Well, why not? You've got people on both sides of the aisle agreeing with this idea of getting a divestment underway. What are they hearing in those briefings? What do we know journalistically?

Katie Drummond: That's the problem. In my view, and people can disagree with this, but if you are going to take away an app used by 170 million people, that is a livelihood maker for millions of people, for small businesses, for individuals. I believe that lawmakers and the government who ostensibly work for us, the American people, owe us more information, more concrete information about why that divestiture is being moved forward.

David Remnick: TikTok critics say that they're concerned principally about two things. China taking user data to spy on us and manipulating the algorithm to influence what people see on the app. Is there no concern about that on your end, or do you just think it's not been anywhere near proven?

Katie Drummond: There is absolutely fair cause to be concerned, setting the China piece apart for a second. When you think about Meta, when you think about X, formerly known as Twitter, when you think about Google, Amazon, and every other US-owned tech company and platform, and the fact that they have been collecting vast amounts of personal data from millions of Americans for years, Facebook as one example, essentially has operated as a nation-state with regards to how it treats the free press and the news media, with regards to its role in miss and disinformation in sowing chaos and dissent around US elections in election interference.

It's very hard for me to square how government regulators have treated those companies, the collection of that data, and the behavior of platforms like Facebook when we then look at TikTok, are they collecting personal data? Of course, they are. They're a tech company. That's what they all do. What I would really like to see is a more concerted across-the-board effort from lawmakers to actually regulate how all of that data is collected, how all of that data is used.

Again, when we come over to the China point, is it fair to be concerned in a hypothetical way? Of course, it is. We know that ByteDance, which is TikTok's parent company, which is based in China, that the Chinese government could compel them at any moment in time to share user data from TikTok with the Chinese government. We know that to be true, and that's actually why TikTok created and launched what's called Project Texas, which is where they committed to taking all American user data and actually housing it in data centers in the United States. They made that commitment a few years ago after the Trump administration actually tried to do this. They tried to force a divestiture of TikTok in 2020.

Host: You'll only find lawmakers on Capitol Hill and the term project Texas, it was tossed around a ton by both TikTok CEO Shou Chew and also lawmakers during the hearing. Take a listen to what we heard.

Shou Chew: American data stored on American soil by an American company overseen by American personnel, we call this initiative project Texas.

Rep. Frank Pallone: I still believe that the Beijing communist government will still control and have the ability to influence what you do. This idea, this project Texas, is simply not acceptable.

Katie Drummond: Of course, it is fair to be concerned about how user data is collected, how it is used, but I would say that that concern exists across the board with any technology platform. It's not limited to TikTok.

David Remnick: It seems to me you're saying two things at once. Number one, there needs to be much more transparency on the part of the government if it is going to make a concerted effort against ByteDance and by extension in their view the communist party of China. Number two, that regulation ought to be deeper and an equal opportunity matter.

Katie Drummond: And I think too, the Chinese government does stuff like this all the time. You can't access American-owned and operated technology platforms in China without a VPN. That is the behavior of an authoritarian regime. It is troubling to me to see that same behavior in a country that ostensibly champions a free and open internet.

David Remnick: Those in favor of forcing the sale of TikTok say that this is in the interests of national security. Couldn't this be seen as a rare instance of our government addressing something before it becomes a serious issue and not waiting until it's too late? Is there some dark motivation for both Democrats and Republicans to be supporting a action against TikTok that you're suggesting here?

Katie Drummond: No, I'm not suggesting anything other than, I think a general lack of understanding about how these platforms work and how they operate, a cognitive dissonance between what it means to be American-owned and owned by a foreign entity. I think there is this idea of China as the enemy that needs to be moderated or controlled or tamped down. I also have to say, I think that there is a lot of lobbying money at work in DC.

I think often when people think about lobbying dollars and lobbying, they think about it in a very political and DC context, and they may not realize that companies like Meta and Google, and Amazon are spending millions of dollars to lobby lawmakers, and who wins if TikTok goes away.

David Remnick: Right. Whose interest is that in?

Katie Drummond: That is in the best interests of all of the major US tech platforms. Instagram Reels was designed to compete with TikTok.

David Remnick: Is all this a bunch of theater, or are there real cybersecurity concerns at the root of this? Or are you saying that mainstream media really just doesn't know enough to make a determination on it?

Katie Drummond: I think that at this moment in time, as we are having this conversation, media and the American public don't have enough information to tell. We are being told essentially, "We got this information in closed-door briefings, trust us."

David Remnick: Does xenophobia play a role in this argument, in this debate?

Katie Drummond: It's very difficult to imagine that it doesn't. I think I was really struck by a congressional hearing in January of this year. TikTok CEO Shou Chew was questioned along with other technology platform CEO's. Senator Tom Cotton actually repeatedly asked him whether he was a member of the Chinese Communist Party.

Senator Tom Cotton: Of what nation are you a citizen?

Shou Chew: Singapore, senator.

Senator Tom Cotton: Are you a citizen of any other nation?

Shou Chew: No, senator.

Senator Tom Cotton: Have you ever applied for Chinese citizenship?

Shou Chew: Senator, I served my nation in Singapore. No, I did not.

Senator Tom Cotton: Do you have a Singaporean passport?

Shou Chew: Yes, and I served my military for two and a half years in Singapore.

Senator Tom Cotton: Do you have any other passports from any other nation?

Shou Chew: No, senator.

Katie Drummond: The CEO of TikTok is Singaporean, he is not Chinese.

David Remnick: Yes, that's different, isn't it?

Katie Drummond: There is a big difference, but he looks Asian. You have to imagine that I guess that's enough for some politicians to make a connection between someone's perceived race, the company that they lead, and the fact that surely they are spending time with the Communist Party of China.

David Remnick: In 2019, the US government pressured the Chinese company that had owned Grindr, the dating app to sell the company. They cited at that time national security concerns and talked about the way that the app collects and handles personal data. There is some precedence for forcing the sale of a company like this. Are they similar to Grindr cases and the TikTok case?

Katie Drummond: Well, the Grindr case was much more specific to me. That is a LGBTQ dating app, and you are talking about the specific personal information of individuals who identify as LGBTQ and the potential for that identifying information to then be used by foreign entities with regards to that specific subset of individuals. That's a very specific case. I'm not saying that that was not precedent-setting in some regard, that of course this can be done, but what I am saying is that with an app as big and widely used to disseminate information to create livelihoods for American people, that we are existing in essentially a vacuum of information with regards to what the actual threat is.

David Remnick: If the platform remained intact, TikTok, but was sold to an American company, would that be so terrible?

Katie Drummond: Well, it depends on what parts of the app come along for the ride. I think it's established at this point that for a tech company like Meta or Google to step in is very, very unlikely. They would be scrutinized with regards to antitrust, left, right, and center. Any deal there is very, very unlikely. Then ByteDance, they, as of now own, TikTok. They also own the algorithm that powers TikTok, and that really makes TikTok so effective.

Now, it's very unlikely that ByteDance, the parent company would actually part with that algorithm or would license that algorithm. I think TikTok has spent many, many years developing that algorithm. You would be looking at sort of a neutered version of what users today experience. I also think that's hypothetical about who might buy or who might be interested in buying TikTok without the algorithm. It's hard for me to imagine that being a potentially interesting acquisition for anybody.

David Remnick: The algorithm is the thing.

Katie Drummond: The algorithm is the thing.

David Remnick: Knowing that half the country uses it, and a huge proportion of the people who use it and use it a lot, even more than you, Katie, more than an hour a night, are young and are going to be voting, if not already. What are the political ramifications of this move against TikTok?

Katie Drummond: Well, the political ramifications of this move against TikTok are certainly not in Joe Biden's favor. I think something like a third of people between the ages of 18 and 35 say they get news on TikTok. It is a very important informational resource for that demographic. It's also a place where politicians have been increasingly present and prominent. I think it's, again, interesting to point out that Joe Biden's campaign launched on TikTok, I think the day of the Super Bowl, and the evening that he actually signed this bill to force this divestiture, his campaign posted on TikTok again.

They have told news outlets including Wired, that they will continue to use TikTok as a campaign tool right up until the election because it is so effective at reaching young people. The comments under that TikTok post were brutal from users of the app who came across this video and essentially said, "Hey, man, what are you doing? Why are you banning this?" It is--

David Remnick: When you say isn't it interesting, I think what you're saying is, isn't it hypocritical?

Katie Drummond: It's incredibly hypocritical. I'm being very polite and disappointing, frankly. If you think that TikTok should not be available to people living in the United States, if you think it is a credible risk to national security, a credible risk to our information ecosystem, don't use it to be elected to office again. Stop using it. Practice what you preach.

David Remnick: Finally, Katie, if TikTok went goodbye tomorrow, what would you miss the most?

Katie Drummond: I can always find a new hobby. I can spend a little more time watching TV. I can maybe pick up a book a little bit more often. I think that TikTok is such an incredible platform for storytelling and for the dissemination of news. I really, genuinely believe that. I have seen it with my own two eyes. I'm sure Meta would be very disappointed to hear that I don't think Instagram Reels reaches an audience of that same magnitude and has that same impact, but that is how I feel.

David Remnick: Katie Drummond, thanks so much.

Katie Drummond: Thank you.

David Remnick: Katie Drummond, she's the global editorial director of Wired, which is published like the New Yorker by Condé Nast.

[music]

Copyright © 2024 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.