ByteDance, Chinese owner of TikTok, given longer deadline to sell app
Global digital rights advocates concerned about potential ripple effect if other countries follow suit and shut down services like YouTube
House of Representatives intends to advance legislation to force sale or ban of TikTok in the United States
In recent years, the United States has positioned itself as the champion of an open internet, advocating for a largely unregulated web with unrestricted digital data flow across borders. However, this reputation may be at risk due to legislative efforts targeting TikTok, a social media platform with 170 million U.S. users.
The House of Representatives has indicated its intention to advance legislation that would either force the sale of TikTok by its Chinese owner, ByteDance, or impose a ban on the app in the United States. This measure is an extension of last month's bipartisan-backed standalone bill and includes a longer deadline for ByteDance to sell TikTok.
Global digital rights advocates are concerned about the potential ripple effect of such actions, with fears that other countries may follow suit and use similar moves to shut down services like YouTube. The Chinese government has criticized the United States for having
TikTok is preparing to remove Erich Andersen, the US-based general counsel for TikTok and its Chinese parent company ByteDance Ltd.
Andersen has led years-long talks with the American government to show that TikTok was doing enough to prevent China from accessing US users’ data or influencing what they see on their feeds.
Accuracy
TikTok has denied assertions that it could be used as a tool of the Chinese government and has said it has not shared U.S. user data with Chinese authorities.
The U.S. government has not publicly provided evidence that shows TikTok shared U.S. user data with the Chinese government or tampered with the company’s popular algorithm, which influences what Americans see.
The House passed legislation that would ban TikTok in the United States if the popular social media platform’s China-based owner doesn’t sell its stake within a year.
TikTok has lobbied against the legislation, pushing its users to call Congress and voice opposition.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(30%)
The article contains selective reporting as it only reports details that support the author's position of the possible TikTok ban in the US. The author does not provide any counterarguments or mention any potential negative consequences of the ban for TikTok users or businesses. Additionally, there is emotional manipulation through phrases like 'millions of users', 'amazing platform', and 'positive impacts on their lives' which are used to evoke an emotional response from readers.
The decision by House Republicans to include TikTok as part of a larger foreign aid package, a priority for President Joe Biden with broad congressional support for Ukraine and Israel, fast-tracked the ban after an earlier version had stalled in the Senate.
The company has also encouraged its users to contact Congress, and some lawmakers have received profanity-laced calls.
Since mid-March, TikTok has spent $5 million on TV ads opposing the legislation.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several informal fallacies and an appeal to authority. The author uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing the potential impact of the bill on TikTok users and businesses, implying that it would 'devastate' them. This is an example of exaggeration or overstatement, which is a type of informal fallacy. Additionally, the author quotes a lawyer from the American Civil Liberties Union stating that 'Congress cannot take away the rights of over 170 million Americans who use TikTok to express themselves.' This statement can be considered an appeal to authority as it implies that the ACLU's opinion on this matter is definitive and infallible. However, it is important to note that while the ACLU may have a strong stance on this issue, their opinion does not necessarily make it true or correct.
It's a sign of the Beltway being out of touch with where voters are.
This is going to have real repercussions.
Bias
(95%)
The article expresses a clear bias against TikTok and its Chinese owner ByteDance Ltd. The author mentions the national security concerns about the app's owner multiple times and quotes lawmakers voicing these concerns. The author also mentions that TikTok has lobbied against the legislation, which is presented in a negative light, and includes quotes from TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew that are intended to anger readers. The article also implies that the pushback from TikTok and its users is ferocious and unwarranted. Additionally, the author mentions legal challenges to the legislation but does not mention any potential legal challenges to national security concerns.
But the ferocity of the pushback angered lawmakers on Capitol Hill, where there is broad concern about Chinese threats to the U.S. and where few members use the platform themselves.
It is unfortunate that the House of Representatives is using the cover of important foreign and humanitarian assistance to once again jam through a ban bill that would trample the free speech rights of 170 million Americans
Members of both parties, along with intelligence officials, have worried that Chinese authorities could force ByteDance to hand over American user data or direct the company to suppress or boost TikTok content favorable to its interests.
The decision by House Republicans to include TikTok as part of a larger foreign aid package...fast-tracked the ban after an earlier version had stalled in the Senate.
The ferocity of the pushback angered lawmakers on Capitol Hill...
We will not stop fighting and advocating for you...We will continue to do all we can, including exercising our legal rights, to protect this amazing platform that we have built with you.
The United States has fashioned itself as the champion of an open internet, arguing for a largely unregulated web and digital data flow without borders.
'Global digital rights advocates are concerned about the potential ripple effect of the US banning TikTok,' with fears that other countries may follow suit and use such moves to shut down services like YouTube.'
'The Chinese government has criticized the United States for having 'one way of saying and doing things about the United States, and another way of saying and doing things about other countries' in reference to the TikTok legislation.'
By targeting TikTok, a social media platform with 170 million U.S. users, the United States may undermine its efforts to promote an open and free internet governed by international organizations rather than individual countries.
Accuracy
The Chinese government has criticized the United States for having ‘one way of saying and doing things about the United States, and another way of saying and doing things about other countries’ in reference to the TikTok legislation.
TikTok is preparing to remove Erich Andersen, the US-based general counsel for TikTok and its Chinese parent company ByteDance Ltd.
The decision by House Republicans to include TikTok as part of a larger foreign aid package fast-tracked the ban after an earlier version had stalled in the Senate.
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority and a potential dichotomous depiction. It quotes the Chinese government's statement on the TikTok legislation, which could be seen as an attempt to discredit the US's stance on internet freedom by presenting a contrasting view. Additionally, it presents a potential consequence of the TikTok ban (other countries following suit) without providing evidence or analysis, which could be seen as a slippery slope fallacy.
The Chinese government, which controls its country’s internet, said America had ‘one way of saying and doing things about the United States, and another way of saying and doing things about other countries,' citing the TikTok legislation.
By targeting TikTok — a social media platform with 170 million U.S. users, many of them sharing dance moves, opining on politics and selling wares — the United States may undermine its decades-long efforts to promote an open and free internet governed by international organizations, not individual countries, digital rights advocates said.
