The House of Representatives passed legislation on Wednesday giving ByteDance six months to find a buyer for TikTok.
TikTok is a popular social media app with 170 million users in the US alone.
TikTok, a popular social media app with 170 million users in the US alone, is facing a nationwide ban in the country if its China-based owner ByteDance doesn't sell. The House of Representatives passed legislation on Wednesday giving ByteDance six months to find a buyer for TikTok. If the company cannot sell the app within that time, it will become illegal for app stores and web hosting companies to offer TikTok.
The House on Wednesday approved a bill requiring the Beijing-based company ByteDance to sell its subsidiary TikTok or face a nationwide ban.
TikTok is headquartered outside China and has strategically kept its distance from its homeland. It pulled out of Hong Kong in 2020 when Beijing imposed a national security law on the territory to curtail speech.
The bill seeks to remove applications from app stores or web hosting services in the U.S unless the application severs its ties to companies such as ByteDance that are subject to control from foreign adversaries like China.
Accuracy
The bill passed overwhelmingly on a 352-65 vote, but if it clears both chambers, President Joe Biden said he would sign it into law.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that TikTok might not be available in either country which implies that the US and China have a common interest when in fact they are at odds with each other over many issues including trade and technology transfer restrictions. Secondly, the article portrays ByteDance as being fully controlled by Beijing despite evidence to suggest otherwise such as its headquarters outside China and efforts to distance itself from Chinese roots. Thirdly, the article quotes several experts who claim that TikTok is a tool for malign influences and data security risks without providing any concrete evidence or context which could be used to support these claims.
The article portrays ByteDance as being fully controlled by Beijing despite evidence to suggest otherwise such as its headquarters outside China and efforts to distance itself from Chinese roots. This is deceptive because it oversimplifies a complex issue without providing any concrete evidence or context which could be used to support these claims.
The statement 'TikTok might not be available in either country' implies that the US and China have a common interest when in fact they are at odds with each other over many issues including trade and technology transfer restrictions. This is deceptive because it omits important context which could change how readers perceive the situation.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by stating that the House bill passed overwhelmingly on a 352-65 vote. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing TikTok as 'China's tool'. Additionally, there is a dichotomous depiction of China and its relationship with technology companies in the US.
The House bill passed overwhelmingly on a 352-65 vote.
Bias
(85%)
The author demonstrates bias by implying that TikTok is a tool of the Chinese government and its users are at risk. The article quotes multiple US lawmakers expressing their concerns about TikTok's ties to China without providing any counterarguments or evidence to refute these claims.
If some U.S. lawmakers have their way, the United States and China could end up with something in common: TikTok might not be available in either country.
It reflects lawmakers’ fears that the social media platform could expose Americans to Beijing’s malign influences and data security risks.
The House on Wednesday approved a bill requiring the Beijing-based company ByteDance to sell its subsidiary TikTok or face a nationwide ban.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The article discusses the US government's concerns about TikTok being a tool for China to gather data on American citizens. The author also mentions ByteDance, which owns TikTok and is based in China. However, it does not disclose any financial ties or personal relationships between the company and Chinese officials.
The US government has raised concerns that TikTok could be used by Beijing to gather data on American citizens.
The US House of Representatives passed a bill that could ban TikTok in the country if its Chinese owner ByteDance doesn't sell the app to an entity that satisfies the US government.
China currently blocks most US social media platforms including Google, YouTube, X, Instagram and Meta because they refuse to follow the Chinese government's rules on data collection and type of content shared.
TikTok has rejected claims that it could share data with Chinese government or manipulate content displayed on platform.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it presents a false equivalence between the US banning TikTok and China's ban on American social media platforms. While both actions are technically similar in that they involve one country restricting access to another country's apps, there are significant differences in the circumstances surrounding each case. The US government has legitimate concerns about national security risks associated with TikTok, while Beijing's restrictions on foreign social media platforms have been largely driven by its desire to control information and maintain censorship over its citizens. Secondly, the article quotes a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson as saying that China opposes a forced sale of TikTok because it would involve exporting technology and has to be approved by the Chinese government. However, this quote is misleading in several ways. Firstly, it implies that Beijing's opposition to a forced sale of TikTok is solely based on concerns about exporting technology, when in reality there are likely other factors at play as well (such as national pride and political considerations). Secondly, the article suggests that China has legal authority to block any such sale or divestiture of TikTok. However, this is not entirely accurate - while Beijing does have significant control over its domestic tech industry and can take steps to prevent foreign companies from operating in China (such as by revoking licenses), it may not be able to legally enforce a ban on TikTok if ByteDance were to sell the app outside of China. Finally, the article suggests that TikTok's algorithms are key to its success, and that Beijing is subject to Chinese laws that require it to seek approval before selling advanced technologies. However, this quote is also misleading - while it may be true that TikTok's algorithms are a significant part of its business model, there is no evidence in the article suggesting that ByteDance has been forced by Chinese law to sell any specific technology or app. In fact, the article suggests that Beijing has taken steps since 2020 to ensure it can veto any sale of TikTok by ByteDance (which may be related more to political considerations than legal ones). Overall, while there are some valid concerns about national security risks associated with TikTok's operations in the US, the article presents a distorted and misleading picture of the situation.
The article suggests that China opposes a forced sale of TikTok because it would involve exporting technology and has to be approved by the Chinese government. However, this quote is misleading - while Beijing does have significant control over its domestic tech industry and can take steps to prevent foreign companies from operating in China (such as by revoking licenses), it may not be able to legally enforce a ban on TikTok if ByteDance were to sell the app outside of China. In fact, there is no evidence in the article suggesting that Beijing has legal authority to block any such sale or divestiture of TikTok.
The article suggests that TikTok's algorithms are key to its success and that Beijing is subject to Chinese laws that require it to seek approval before selling advanced technologies. However, this quote is also misleading - while it may be true that TikTok's algorithms are a significant part of its business model, there is no evidence in the article suggesting that ByteDance has been forced by Chinese law to sell any specific technology or app.
The article suggests that China opposes a forced sale of TikTok because Beijing views TikTok's technology as highly valuable and has taken steps since 2020 to ensure it can veto any sale by ByteDance. However, this quote is also misleading - while it may be true that Beijing values TikTok's technology, there is no evidence in the article suggesting that China has legal authority to block a forced sale of TikTok or any other specific app.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an example of a false dilemma fallacy. The author presents the situation as if there are only two options: either TikTok is banned or it isn't. However, this ignores other possibilities such as finding a way to address concerns about national security risks without banning the app entirely.
The bill passed by the US House of Representatives puts the US on the opposite side of fair competition and international economic and trade rules.
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards the Chinese government's stance on TikTok. The author uses language that dehumanizes and demonizes American actions, such as calling them 'bullying' and 'gangster logic'. Additionally, the author presents only one side of the story without providing any counterarguments or alternative perspectives.
The Chinese government has taken measures to safeguard its interests regarding TikTok.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Laura He has conflicts of interest on the topics of TikTok ban and US-China trade war. She is a reporter for CNN which has reported extensively on these issues.
Beijing revised its export control rules to cover a variety of technologies it deemed sensitive, including technology that appears similar to TikTok's personalized information recommendation services.
<p>The focus is now on the US Senate, where many lawmakers said they are still evaluating the legislation.</p>
The House passed a bill that would lead to a nationwide ban of the popular video app TikTok if its China-based owner doesn't sell.
TikTok views the House legislation as an existential threat but not a novel attack, since it has fended off numerous other attempts to put it out of business.
The bill gives ByteDance six months to find a buyer for TikTok. If the company cannot sell the app in that time, it will become illegal for app stores and web-hosting companies to offer TikTok.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it presents the House bill as a measure to protect national security when there is no evidence that TikTok poses such a threat. Secondly, it portrays ByteDance's sale of TikTok as an option for the company when in reality they have been forced to sell due to US sanctions against Chinese companies. Thirdly, the article presents Google and other tech giants as potential buyers of TikTok when there is no evidence that they are interested or capable of acquiring such a large app. The author also uses sensationalist language by stating that TikTok would become illegal in the US if it remains under Chinese control, which is not entirely accurate.
The article presents the House bill as a measure to protect national security when there is no evidence that TikTok poses such a threat. For example, it states 'Many in Washington, including lawmakers from both parties and top intelligence officials, fear the Chinese government could use TikTok to spy on Americans', but provides no concrete evidence of this.
The article portrays ByteDance's sale of TikTok as an option for the company when in reality they have been forced to sell due to US sanctions against Chinese companies. For example, it states 'ByteDance admitted in 2022 that former employees had surveilled Americans on TikTok', but fails to mention that this was not done by government officials and does not necessarily mean the app is being used for espionage.
The article presents Google and other tech giants as potential buyers of TikTok when there is no evidence that they are interested or capable of acquiring such a large app. For example, it states 'TikTok is likely worth tens of billions of dollars', but fails to mention that the company has not been approached by any major US tech companies for acquisition.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several examples of an appeal to authority and inflammatory rhetoric. The author cites multiple sources without providing any context or analysis, including lawmakers from both parties and top intelligence officials who claim that TikTok poses a national security risk. Additionally, the author uses phrases such as 'many in Washington' and 'experts say' to make their argument seem more credible, but these statements are not backed up with evidence.
The article cites multiple sources without providing any context or analysis.
Bias
(85%)
The article presents a balanced view of the TikTok ban bill and its potential impact on users. It discusses both the concerns about national security risks and the counterarguments that TikTok has never received an inquiry for Americans' data from Chinese authorities. However, it also mentions ByteDance's past surveillance activities on American users, which could be seen as evidence of a national security risk.
]The app views the House legislation as an existential threat but not a novel attack.
TikTok is a popular social media app with 170 million users in the US alone.
The security threat posed by TikTok has less to do with who owns it than it does with who writes the code and algorithms that make TikTok tick.
ByteDance, TikTok's Chinese parent company, develops the algorithms for TikTok in secrecy in its software labs in Beijing, Singapore and Mountain View, Calif. These algorithms are designed to guide how TikTok watches its users and feeds them more of what they want.
Accuracy
TikTok is headquartered outside China and has strategically kept its distance from its homeland. It pulled out of Hong Kong in 2020 when Beijing imposed a national security law on the territory to curtail speech.
The bill seeks to remove applications from app stores or web hosting services in the U.S unless the application severs its ties to companies such as ByteDance that are subject to control from foreign adversaries like China.
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive in its portrayal of the security threat posed by TikTok. The author claims that the House's declaration that TikTok poses a grave risk to national security is notable because it represents agreement between Republicans and Democrats on virtually nothing. However, this statement ignores the fact that there are significant differences in opinion among politicians regarding how to address the issue of Chinese ownership of TikTok. The author also implies that selling TikTok without its underlying code would be like selling a Ferrari without its engine, but this comparison is not accurate because it assumes that ByteDance's algorithms are proprietary and cannot be replicated or replaced by other companies. In reality, there may be alternative algorithms available to replace those developed by ByteDance.
The author claims that the House overwhelmingly declared on Wednesday that TikTok poses such a grave risk to national security that it must be forced to sell its U.S. operations to a non-Chinese owner.
Fallacies
(80%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by stating that the House overwhelmingly declared on Wednesday that TikTok poses such a grave risk to national security. This statement is not supported by evidence and should be taken with a grain of salt.
The author uses language that dehumanizes TikTok and its users by referring to them as 'magic sauce' and suggesting that they are being manipulated. The author also implies that the security threat posed by TikTok is solely about who owns it, when in fact the real concern should be about who writes the code and algorithms. Additionally, there is a lack of evidence provided for any claims made in this article.
Those algorithms, which guide how TikTok watches its users and feeds them more of what they want, are the magic sauce of an app that 170 million Americans now have on their phones.
TikTok supporters protesting outside the Capitol on Wednesday
The House approved a bill that would force TikTok’s parent company to sell the app or face an effective ban
TikTok urged users to call their representatives and urge them to vote against the legislation, resulting in a barrage of phone calls to lawmakers’ offices
`Tim Burchett`, `R-Tenn.` stated that the effort ticked off a lot of people and may have fueled opposition against the app
Accuracy
TikTok urged users to call their representatives and urge them to vote against the legislation
Some lawmakers saw the lobbying campaign from TikTok as further evidence the app is being abused by the Chinese Communist Party
The bill seeks to remove applications from app stores or web hosting services in the U.S unless the application severs its ties to companies such as ByteDance that are subject to control from foreign adversaries like China.
TikTok views the House legislation as an existential threat but not a novel attack, since it has fended off numerous other attempts to put it out of business.
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author implies that TikTok's push for users to call their representatives was a tactical error when it clearly had no effect on the outcome of the vote. Secondly, they claim that some lawmakers saw TikTok's lobbying campaign as further evidence of abuse by the Chinese Communist Party without providing any concrete evidence or quotes from these lawmakers. Lastly, they use emotional and personal statements made by callers to reinforce their argument against TikTok without disclosing the source of these statements.
The author uses emotional and personal statements made by callers to reinforce their argument against TikTok without disclosing the source of these statements.
They claim that some lawmakers saw TikTok's lobbying campaign as further evidence of abuse by the Chinese Communist Party without providing any concrete evidence or quotes from these lawmakers.
The author implies that TikTok's push for users to call their representatives was a tactical error when it clearly had no effect on the outcome of the vote.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the legislation's proponents argue TikTok poses national security risks and citing concerns raised for years as its popularity has skyrocketed. However, this is not a logical fallacy because it presents both sides of the argument without taking one side over another.
The company’s push resulted in a barrage of phone calls to lawmakers offices.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains examples of political bias and religious bias. The author uses language that depicts one side as extreme or unreasonable by saying 'the push backfired' when the bill passed overwhelmingly bipartisan vote. They also use quotes from politicians to further their own narrative without providing context for why they are being quoted.
Many of the calls to lawmakers about the app were emotional and personal. Some callers threatened to die by suicide if Congress banned the app, which also reinforced efforts against TikTok.
Some lawmakers saw the lobbying campaign from TikTok as further evidence the app is being abused by the Chinese Communist Party, a claim leaders have raised for years as its popularity has skyrocketed.
The company's push resulted in a barrage of phone calls to lawmakers' offices. It did little to persuade members skeptical of TikTok's protections for American users – and could have instead fueled their opposition against the app.
