The US has steadily tightened its grip on TikTok, the massively common video-sharing app owned by Chinese language agency ByteDance, since early 2020. The clampdown started that January, throughout President Donald Trump’s first time period, when the Pentagon deemed the app a safety threat and barred its use by navy personnel. Underneath Biden’s administration, tensions rose additional in April 2024 with the signing of the Defending People from Overseas Adversary Managed Functions Act, requiring TikTok to divest its American operations by January 19, 2025 or exit the market altogether.
Though TikTok shortly mounted a constitutional problem, the courts upheld the measure on nationwide safety grounds. The matter now lies earlier than the Supreme Court docket, the place President-elect Trump has filed an amicus transient urging a keep of the ban, insisting that his incoming administration ought to have time to pursue another decision.
In distinction to america’ fiery debates over regulating TikTok, Taiwan’s coverage discourse has remained conspicuously subdued. Very similar to Japan, regardless of worries that TikTok may sway public opinion and gas disinformation campaigns, Taiwan has so far confined its response to a 2019 ban on the app on authorities gadgets – a narrowly focused effort to handle cybersecurity considerations fairly than a sweeping prohibition.
As cross-strait relations proceed to bitter, Taiwan’s reluctance to impose tighter controls seems timid, if not sanctimonious. The core drawback is that policymakers concern curbing free speech and igniting a political backlash. This concern grows extra urgent within the face of escalating info manipulation, now magnified by AI, and for Taiwan particularly, the strategic ambitions of its geopolitical adversary, China.
To echo Tim Wu from Columbia Legislation Faculty, a liberal authorized framework that views free speech merely as a defend in opposition to authorities censorship is prone to turning into out of date. The issue lies in understanding free speech too myopically – focusing solely on stopping authorities intrusions – whereas overlooking how its safety may also impose a constructive responsibility on governments to foster an atmosphere conducive to sturdy public discourse.
Nonetheless, it might even be useful to not body the TikTok controversy merely as a matter of state censorship in home settings alone, with out taking severely the extraterritorial clout of social media platforms run by intolerant powers. The deeper concern at stake thus factors to a much more elemental conflict of governance programs, with liberal openness contending in opposition to the looming affect of authoritarian encroachment.
Extraterritorial Algorithmic Moderation
As Rutgers College’s Community Contagion Analysis Institute exhibits, for example, there appears a stark disparity within the quantity of posts on delicate China-related subjects, reminiscent of Tibet, Hong Kong protests, and the Uyghur concern, between TikTok and Instagram. Regardless of receiving almost twice as many likes, anti-China content material on TikTok exhibited a views-to-likes ratio 87 p.c decrease than pro-China content material.
Such algorithmic moderation was additional uncovered by the Guardian in 2019. It detailed that TikTok’s overview mechanisms cooperate with the Chinese language authorities’s insurance policies to suppress content material that’s detrimental to China’s picture. TikTok, for instance, censors mentions of the Tiananmen Incident and Tibetan independence, tailoring its publicity algorithms to curtail the dissemination of those subjects.
To make the matter worse, China itself has developed the world’s largest stringent censorship equipment, together with the Nice Firewall and its outright bans on overseas platforms reminiscent of Fb, X (previously Twitter), YouTube, and Instagram. Any try to entry worldwide networks – domestically termed as “leaping the wall” – should route by means of official gateway channels offered by the nationwide public telecommunications community, as mandated by PRC legislation. Neither organizations nor people are permitted to ascertain or use different channels for worldwide connectivity (though many use non-public VPNs, these are technically unlawful and topic to crackdowns).
The asymmetry is apparent. Whereas Chinese language platforms like TikTok function freely in democratic nations, these managed by Western entities are excluded from China’s managed our on-line world. This disparity not solely creates an uneven taking part in subject but in addition exemplifies how authoritarian regimes would possibly leverage international openness to advance their affect whereas insulating their very own populations from exterior narratives.
China’s Regulatory Leverage Technique
This disequilibrium can, after all, be attributed to the longstanding appeasement of China’s digital affect in open societies. However the TikTok case additionally reveals an inherent vulnerability throughout the liberal worldwide order: the very freedoms and openness championed by democratic nations might be exploited by authoritarian actors.
Such a extremely seen paradox is hardly restricted to China’s strategy to the data ecosystem worldwide. Described as “institutional arbitrage” by Weitseng Chen of Nationwide College of Singapore’s College of Legislation, it seems to be a longtime tactic by means of which China capitalizes on the complexity and variations in cross-border regulatory regimes to realize financial or political advantages.
Chen’s examine on worldwide capital markets, for example, illustrates how Chinese language corporations leverage this technique. Regardless of home shortcomings in company governance and monetary programs, they’ve risen to main international prominence by profiting from regulatory instruments reminiscent of Rule 144A and Regulation S underneath U.S. securities legal guidelines – provisions that enable overseas corporations to supply securities with out totally complying with customary U.S. laws.
Regulating TikTok thus exposes a systemic drawback with international governance, whereby China’s regulatory leverage turns into ubiquitous, however on a good bigger scale. And proscribing TikTok will not be merely about curbing an app’s options; it’s a transfer in opposition to the “regime of reality,” to borrow Foucault’s phrases, that the platform perpetuates underneath Chinese language possession. In essence, it includes an moral selection for parrhesia, the follow of candid, principled truth-telling crucial to the functioning of democratic governance, over propaganda.
This isn’t to counsel that the encroachment of authoritarian affect is confined to TikTok alone. Disinformation campaigns aimed toward undermining Taiwan’s democratic processes and establishments seem throughout numerous platforms, no matter their possession. However, tighter regulation of TikTok poses no impediment to policymakers decided to sort out info manipulation wherever it emerges.
For a democracy like Taiwan, what might be most troubling is that TikTok’s Chinese language possession renders its abroad operations probably topic to China’s home insurance policies and legal guidelines – a circumstance that would facilitate censorship, information entry, or political affect in keeping with Beijing’s agenda. This distinction lends credence to treating TikTok underneath a special regulatory strategy than different platforms.
Whereas the results of the U.S. effort to compel ByteDance to divest from TikTok stays unsure, the alternatives made right now will set the phrases by which democratic allies reminiscent of Taiwan deal with the persistent concern of geopolitical rivals leveraging regulatory gaps between democratic and authoritarian regimes to increase their affect within the international digital ecosystem.