“This saga was never about TikTok’s utility or popularity but its Chinese ownership and apparent links to the Chinese Communist Party.” That’s from a recent editorial in the Washington Post, and it’s an unwitting reminder that attacks on TikTok were never about fears of China or the CCP, but were instead about protectionism for sore-loser American companies getting beat at their own game by an expert competitor.
Contemplate first the Post’s quip about TikTok’s “Chinese ownership.” It’s at odds with the simple economic reality that China remains a very poor country (roughly 40 percent of the population gets by on $1,700/year) with a far from mature venture capital industry in 2026, let alone 2016 when TikTok opened its proverbial doors. In other words, TikTok was already American owned owing to know-how endemic to the U.S. when it comes to investment in tech start-ups. By extension, the deal struck by President Trump to spin off parts of TikTok was largely an American-to-American exchange.
To which critics will respond that American owned or not, the problem has long been that any kind of “Chinese ownership” puts TikTok in the position whereby it could be forced to conduct “surveillance on U.S. citizens, collecting user data for nefarious purposes and weaponizing the sophisticated algorithm to disseminate propaganda, especially in the case of conflict.” The previous passage is from the same Washington Post editorial. The assertion fails three times, and most likely more.
Let’s start with allegations about TikTok as a surveillance tool. It’s hard to countenance when it’s remembered that if China and the CCP desire “surveillance on U.S. citizens,” they hardly need TikTok. Similar data are readily available from technology and social media companies stateside given their ability to track user communications (e-mail), what they watch and don’t watch while online, what ads interest them and don’t while online, etc.
From there, it’s worth contemplating the implications of TikTok’s “apparent links to the Chinese Communist Party,” and the possibility that it would share information gleaned from users with the CCP. Doing so would have existential qualities, no? Stop and imagine the public relations and usage implications of it being revealed that TikTok is or has been a front for nefarious CCP surveillance. It would be the end of TikTok, thus raising a seemingly obvious question about why TikTok’s creators would go to such remarkable lengths to prosper in the most competitive commercial sector on earth, only to blithely give away what the CCP could already get from U.S technology companies.
All of which brings us to TikTok’s American owners. Why would they risk substantial amounts of investment capital on a business playing so blithely with its future by aiding the CCP? Put another way, TikTok couldn’t act as an information source for the CCP even if wanted to. Its American owners wouldn’t allow it.
Which brings us to the Post’s charges about the possibility that TikTok could use its “sophisticated algorithm to disseminate propaganda, especially in the case of conflict.” The latter will be answered with the stats about the very first McDonald’s opened in China (Shenzhen) in 1990, this after decades of the CCP feeding its people anti-American propaganda. Despite this, the 400 employees trained to feed Chinese people yearning for Americana was not enough, nor were the 460 seats in the first Chinese McDonald’s.
It’s just a comment that the U.S. has long possessed the ultimate propaganda: freedom and the prosperity associated with it. Which means the only risk to the U.S. isn’t TikTok and the CCP, but a pundit and political class so eager to have the U.S. act like the CCP.