It seemed to me they were both dancing around a different debate: China is a bad guy vs. Our Gummint is a bad guy. Identifying a "bad guy" misses the point. Is our gummint also hungry for power? Yes, of course it is. Has our gummint proven TikTok to be a threat? No. But again, I think that misses the point. This isn't about punishing Tik…
It seemed to me they were both dancing around a different debate: China is a bad guy vs. Our Gummint is a bad guy. Identifying a "bad guy" misses the point. Is our gummint also hungry for power? Yes, of course it is. Has our gummint proven TikTok to be a threat? No. But again, I think that misses the point. This isn't about punishing TikTok for doing wrong.The TikTok Ban debate should instead hinge on how and when to allow a non-US entity, benevolent or otherwise, to own/control something with far reaching influence. Isn't this debate really about the incredible reach of TikTok? If TikTok has access to 170 million eyeballs, this is clearly a much wider audience than just 13 & 14 year olds. (The question of whether TikTok is a "publisher" is also a sideshow.) I would not want to rely on any foreign gov for our rail system or our food supply (as some smaller countries do.) Certain aspects of how the US functions should be kept "in house" in my view. Mr. Kirn argues for the stalwart immunity of US audiences to influence campaigns of false ideas. There is probably no way to know this: But what role might TikTok have played in the Columbia Univ (et al) events unfolding right now? I am far from convinced that influence campaigns have no power over us. I wonder what Yuri Bezmenov would say? I could be wrong. But I don't see the US gov't in this case stifling free speech. I see this as trying to make sure free speech is not as widely available to non-US voices. My bigger concern is that our elected decision-makers don't seem able to clearly articulate what is at the heart of the matter they are making decisions about. Can we minimize fear-mongering and focus on logic-based arguments with clear reasoning?
It seemed to me they were both dancing around a different debate: China is a bad guy vs. Our Gummint is a bad guy. Identifying a "bad guy" misses the point. Is our gummint also hungry for power? Yes, of course it is. Has our gummint proven TikTok to be a threat? No. But again, I think that misses the point. This isn't about punishing TikTok for doing wrong.The TikTok Ban debate should instead hinge on how and when to allow a non-US entity, benevolent or otherwise, to own/control something with far reaching influence. Isn't this debate really about the incredible reach of TikTok? If TikTok has access to 170 million eyeballs, this is clearly a much wider audience than just 13 & 14 year olds. (The question of whether TikTok is a "publisher" is also a sideshow.) I would not want to rely on any foreign gov for our rail system or our food supply (as some smaller countries do.) Certain aspects of how the US functions should be kept "in house" in my view. Mr. Kirn argues for the stalwart immunity of US audiences to influence campaigns of false ideas. There is probably no way to know this: But what role might TikTok have played in the Columbia Univ (et al) events unfolding right now? I am far from convinced that influence campaigns have no power over us. I wonder what Yuri Bezmenov would say? I could be wrong. But I don't see the US gov't in this case stifling free speech. I see this as trying to make sure free speech is not as widely available to non-US voices. My bigger concern is that our elected decision-makers don't seem able to clearly articulate what is at the heart of the matter they are making decisions about. Can we minimize fear-mongering and focus on logic-based arguments with clear reasoning?