DV Journal

For an alternate viewpoint, see “Counterpoint: Defending TikTok Defends the First Amendment”

President-elect Trump is correct in stalling the decision to ban TikTok from appearing before the Supreme Court. This delay reinforces the position of diplomacy or peace through strategy. Previously scheduled to appear before the Supreme Court on January 19, the day before the presidential inauguration, Trump is trying to push a pause.

The American public can perceive this as a strategic maneuver — not a change of position on the national ban of TikTok. A short delay ensures the Trump administration, without overlapping with the Biden administration, presents the case for such a monumental decision that will establish precedence between America and China for decades.

TikTok is a weapon of social destruction created by ByteDance, a Beijing-based company. The Chinese Communist Party owns the data of millions of users globally. This archived data is a digital footprint that can be exploited and used to create deepfakes, a realistic mirror image of its users. Deepfakes in the hands of America’s adversaries create national security concerns.

TikTok’s user data archives the lives of minors, private citizens and world leaders. Trump acknowledged that his position on TikTok had changed during his 2024 presidential campaign. The social media application helped Trump connect with voters. The new president and his administration must remember the campaign season is over, and now is the time to create and pass innovative, effective legislation. In addition, voters who were reached by Trump’s campaign on the TikTok application are American citizens whose safety is at risk in the hands of the CCP.

House Speaker Mike Johnson has been adamant about his support of a nationwide ban on TikTok and the threat the application poses to America’s national security. There has been an increasing bipartisan consensus for a national ban on TikTok. Now re-elected as speaker of the House, Johnson must hold fast to his position.

States should follow Montana’s example. It will be the first state to ban TikTok if Congress fails to pass legislation or Trump significantly delays the TikTok ban from appearing before the Supreme Court.

Trump is faced with establishing diplomacy with the CCP not only to ban TikTok but also concerning nuclear security and weapons of mass destruction. The two are related.

TikTok, a weapon of social destruction, has ramifications for weapons of mass destruction. America’s nuclear command and control uses presidential communication along a chain of command, including uniformed leaders, select positions within the president’s Cabinet, and national security advisers within the executive branch. Incoming and outgoing messages must be confirmed as reliable and authentic. The CCP could use TikTok’s data to create deepfake messages that appear genuine but confuse reliability to or in the representation of America’s leaders.

The ban on TikTok can be part of arms control and other high-level negotiations between the West and the East. In 2026, New START, a nuclear arms reduction treaty between the United States and Russia, is set to expire, and there will be no formal arms control agreement between the two powers — and now China. All three are near peers in terms of nuclear weapons and deployment capabilities.

A potential TikTok ban faces a trifecta of judgment across America’s executive, legislative and judicial branches. The checks and balances within and between each branch are constitutionally designed to ensure the nation’s and its citizens’ well-being. The data of America, in the hands of its adversaries, presents the possibility of catastrophic consequences.

The platform of peace through strategy allows Trump and the 119th Congress to cooperatively build diplomatic and intentional legislative, economic and national security policies that reflect a grand plan. The ends, ways and means should advance U.S. and partner interests globally and never at the expense of innocent Americans who trust social media applications. Innovation and the free market can allow for a new social media application that does not violate the user’s trust and risks harming the nation.

Banning TikTok is a decisive step in the right direction. Soon after Trump’s inauguration and essential administration positions are Senate confirmed, the TikTok ban should appear before the Supreme Court. If the CCP retaliates against the TikTok ban, Trump can effectively lead an appropriate national response, whether militarily, peace through strength, or diplomatically, peace through strategy.

For an alternate viewpoint, see “Point: TikTok –A Chinese Weapon of Social Destruction”

Donald Trump is no stranger to making bold statements. Many see his asking the Supreme Court to pause the looming TikTok ban to allow his administration to pursue a political resolution as another example of his fearlessness.

As someone who has long championed free speech and individual liberties, I applaud Trump’s recognition of the bigger picture. Yet, while this temporary stay is a step in the right direction, the Supreme Court must further strike down the law that brought us here.

TikTok’s uncertain fate illustrates a more significant battle over free speech in the digital age. With more than 150 million U.S. users, TikTok is not just a platform for viral dances and quirky trends; it’s a digital public square where ideas, stories and culture intersect. It is a destination that political leaders use themselves!

The law, which will force TikTok’s Chinese parent company, ByteDance, to divest its U.S. operations under the threat of a nationwide ban, is an assault on the First Amendment. It seeks to solve alleged national security concerns by silencing a platform that has become integral to American life. This overreach should alarm anyone who values freedom of expression.

The Biden administration’s argument that this law does not constitute a ban is disingenuous. ByteDance is facing an impossible choice to either sell under coercion or face the elimination of TikTok from app stores. Either outcome represents a scary and troubling precedent for government intervention. The mere threat of such a ban compromises the integrity of the marketplace of ideas.

Concerns over data privacy and potential foreign surveillance are valid. But let’s not pretend that banning TikTok would eliminate these risks. Data breaches and cyber vulnerabilities are common in the digital age, and they’re not confined to Chinese companies. Facebook, Google, and even the U.S. government have faced their share of security failures.

Coercive divestment is hardly a free-market solution. It is heavy-handed government intervention. If policymakers are serious about protecting Americans from foreign data exploitation, they should address systemic vulnerabilities rather than targeting a single platform.

This issue raises a crucial question about where we draw the line on government overreach. Giving the government power to regulate or eliminate platforms based on speculative threats sets a dangerous precedent. Today, it’s TikTok. Tomorrow, it could be any app or website contrary to those who hold political power.

By targeting TikTok, the government undermines the principle that free expression should thrive despite political or security challenges. For millions of users, it represents a voice and, for some, a good source of transparent income.

Trump’s call for a political resolution is a step in the right direction. However, the ultimate solution lies not in temporary stays or divestitures but in a complete rebuke of this law. The Supreme Court must uphold the First Amendment and ensure that TikTok’s users — and the broader digital ecosystem — are not subjected to arbitrary government interference.

The debate over TikTok also highlights the generational and cultural divides shaping our politics. Younger Americans have embraced TikTok as a space for self-expression and connection, while some older leaders view it with suspicion, dismissing its value as trivial. This disconnect underscores the importance of protecting platforms that empower emerging voices, especially when contributing ideas and perspectives that can be valuable to our society.

TikTok embodies the innovation and creativity that has always defined American progress. Its success story is of entrepreneurial spirit and technological ingenuity, values that transcend borders. To ban TikTok is to betray those ideals.

The Supreme Court has a unique opportunity to affirm its commitment to free speech by striking down this misguided law that brought us to this point. Doing so will send a clear message that America remains a beacon of liberty, even as we leave the digital information age and enter the era of intelligent networking. It’s time to rise above fears and focus on solutions that strengthen our principles.

As a staunch advocate for free speech, I urge the court to protect the digital rights of all Americans. The fight for TikTok is about the future of free speech. Let’s ensure our digital town squares remain open, vibrant, and free from unwarranted government interference. Anything less would be a disservice to the very freedoms we hold dear.

The First Amendment is not a suggestion, it is a cornerstone of our American republic.

On December 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a law — by a vote of 3-0 — that could lead to a ban on TikTok as soon as January 19. 

The law, Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, signed by President Biden in April, was the culmination of a years-long effort in Washington over the short-form, video-sharing app, which the government sees as a national security threat because of its connections to China. 

“The First Amendment exists to protect free speech in the United States,” said the court’s opinion, which was written by Judge Douglas Ginsburg. “Here the Government acted solely to protect that freedom from a foreign adversary nation and to limit that adversary’s ability to gather data on people in the United States.”

TikTok has petitioned the Supreme Court to prevent the Biden administration from enforcing the ban provision in the act.

In a May 2024 Pew Research Center survey of 3,600 American adults, 43 percent of Americans view China as an enemy of the United States, the highest level since 2021 when Pew first began to ask this question. Moreover, 81 percent of U.S. adults have an unfavorable view of China, a view that has held relatively steady for the last five years. 

With such strong negative American public opinion about China, it is not surprising that there was such strong bipartisan support for the enactment of the act. While Donald Trump, in his first administration, made attempts to restrict TikTok, he has recently campaigned to oppose such a ban if the company loses its appeal to the Supreme Court. 

Judge Ginsburg noted that, while the court’s decision had “serious implications” for TikTok users, “that burden is attributable to (China’s) hybrid commercial threat to U.S. national security, not to the U.S. government, which engaged with TikTok through a multiyear process to find an alternative solution.” 

The opinion noted that the Chinese government could use TikTok to assemble structured data sets on Americans, such as through Chinese-hacking operations against the Office of Personnel Management, or to track the locations of U.S. federal employees and contractors, or build dossiers for extortion purposes. 

As of 2020, the U.S. military banned its members and civilian employees from using TikTok on government devices, as subsequently did the Transportation Security Administration and other federal agencies.

Chinese laws — specifically, the National Intelligence Law of 2017, Data Security Law of 2020, and Cryptology Law of 2020, require Chinese businesses, investors, academic institutions and citizens to support and facilitate China’s government access to the collection, transmission and storage of data requested by Chinese government officials — laws that violate the letter or intent of U.S. and international law and accepted policies. 

Moreover, Chinese companies may be required to store data within China’s borders and to permit access by the government of data under the pretense of national security. U.S.-based internet companies are all blocked from operating in China by the government’s “Great Firewall” censorship regime.

How could TikTok be conceivably used to undermine the democratic election process — and “freedom of speech” — in the United States? A recent example illustrates how Romania has canceled its democratic election results because the front-runner, Calin Georgescu, a pro-Russian, NATO-skeptical candidate who had been polling 5 percent voter support before the election, won the first round of voting. However, Romanian authorities uncovered that Russia — a Chinese ally — used 25,000 TikTok accounts to operate a coordinated online campaign to influence Romanians to vote for Georgescu, in this case, with an initial successful outcome. 

When the United States and the Soviet Union were “Cold War” adversaries, would the U.S. government have tolerated a Soviet communications-related company operating freely in our economy? If not then, why now?

Former Great Valley School District School Board President Bruce Chambers sent this to the current GVSB:

INCOMPETENCE:  The Tik Tok attack at the Middle School revealed the incompetence of the GVSD Administration and the School Board:

• The attack came to light at the Middle School in Feb/March 2024 and that is when Principal Edward Souders advised parents of Middle School children of the problem.  He provided little information to the parents.  The general public and taxpayers were not told about this very significant problem and the School Board has been silent.
• In July 2024, four months later, the public found out about the attack, not from the administration or the school board, but from a very detailed New York Times article which spread quickly through our community.
• Once the New York Times article came out and there was an uproar. Superintendent Daniel Goffredo  Ed.D. suddenly woke up and addressed the issue by posting a letter on the GVSD website and holding a press conference, four months after the attack was revealed.
• Besides the grossly unfair attack on teachers, our community has now been tarnished by the incident and we appear to the world as incompetent and helpless with no leadership.  To put it bluntly, GVSD appears to be totally incompetent.  There is no excuse for this.  We deserve better for the $25,000 we spend per student.

HYPOCRISY:  The Tik Tok attack at the Middle School also revealed the gross hypocrisy of the GVSD Administration and the School Board.

• The untimely and inadequate letters from Souders and Goffredo appealed to the parents as being “partners” with the School District in the education of their kids.  Souders and Goffredo used the following phrases which sound just wonderful:
  • They looked to the parents as “partners in your child’s education”
  • They “sincerely appreciate your ongoing cooperation and partnership”
  • They want to be “addressing it together” with the parents.
  • They state “our greatest asset is for collaboration between home and school”
  • They “have always valued your partnership and will continue to do so as we move ahead”

• Their desire for a “partnership” with parents sounds great during a crisis.  However, their own policies and actions reveal that they don’t view parents as partners and really don’t value them at all.  The following is the reality:
  • Middle School counselors have met with students in secret if they display gender expansive behavior.  The counselors don’t tell the parents about the meeting and then they direct the teachers to address these students by the student’s preferred name and pronoun.  The teachers are also told they can’t tell the parents about it.  Does hiding information and deceit sound like there is a partnership with the parents?
  • GVSD Board Policy 103.3 states that:
    • District employees will not disclose information to the parents that may reveal a student’s transgender status or gender expansive behavior.
    • When contacting the parents of a transgender or gender expansive student, District employees will only use the student’s legal name and refrain from using pronouns.  (This is done to hide information from the parents)
    • Does hiding information and deceit sound like there is a partnership with the parents?
  • When the transgender policies were questioned by the public at a School Board meeting, they were accused by the School Board of describing transgender students as being violent.  However, that was never stated by the public, and when that statement by the School Board was challenged by a taxpayer, the board vice president laughed at the speaker.
    • Does belittling taxpayers and dismissing their concerns with laughter sound like the Board desires partnership?
  • The hypocrisy of the district and the board is absolutely breathtaking.

The District and School Board hide information from the parents, deceive them, and show no respect.  So why is anyone surprised that the middle school kids show no respect for teachers, deceive them and the public, and hide behind TiKTok?  They are just following the example set by the administration and school board.

This has been a terrible experience for the teachers, but the incompetence and hypocrisy of the administration and the school board should not be overlooked.  The school board needs to do it’s job of holding the administration and themselves accountable for this tragedy and for the way they handled it.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

(This article first appeared in Broad + Liberty.)

“There is nothing more dangerous than not holding children accountable,” said Neil Young, a middle school teacher who was the victim of a fake TikTok account created by his students.

Students at Great Valley Middle School in Chester County created twenty-two fictitious TikTok accounts of their teachers, according to a statement issued by the Great Valley School District on June 13, 2024. While the incidents occurred back in February this year, they were only recently reported upon by the New York Times. The counterfeited accounts contained disparaging posts, ranging from racist to homophobic to pornographic, according to the Great Valley Teachers’ Union president’s comments made at the March 18, 2024 meeting.

Social media impersonation isn’t discussed as often as its cousin, doxxing, in which someone releases a person’s personal information like a home address or phone number in order to subject the person to harassment, but the teachers who were victims of these actions say it was every bit as damaging or worse.

Neil Young, a veteran social studies teacher at Great Valley Middle School, who is married with four children, was one of the victims of the students’ destructive behavior. Students created a fake account with his name that insinuated that he was gay and involved with another teacher at the school. The students combined pictures to make it appear that the two were in bed together.

“This is not funny,” was Young’s first thought when he found out about the post. He could not understand why students would do this to him or to the other teachers who were targeted. “These are great teachers.”

According to Young, the district’s administrative office (not the administration at the school) initially said that they would take care of the problem, but he was unsatisfied with their response.

Young was impressed when teachers stood up and demanded accountability for what happened to them, especially when “they felt like they weren’t getting the resolution they wanted from the district and law enforcement.”

A teacher and coach for twenty-two years, Young understands that middle school students are impulsive and make mistakes; yet he has witnessed a change in their demeanor over the years. “We have empowered children which is a good thing, but the pendulum has swung too far.”

Students are “careless in the way they use technology and have no understanding of the reach they have via social media. When they make mistakes, they are not apologetic and they employ a mantra of ‘I have rights.’”

When asked what he attributes the changes in students to, Young said, “empowered kids have tied our hands when it comes to discipline.” He said that the district does not enforce a consistent discipline policy, resulting in disastrous consequences for both students and teachers.

“Discipline is tied directly to achievement.” Young said that the lack of discipline is ultimately harming the students and interfering with learning and academic outcomes.

He believes that the district’s overreliance on legal counsel led to a mischaracterization of this situation as a First Amendment issue for the students.

In their statement issued five months after the incidents, the district said, “the challenge presented that these accounts were created outside of the school and may have represented students’ right to free speech.”

Young disagrees with the district’s characterization of the egregious behavior. He said that students used their district-issued iPads to take some of the pictures used in the TikTok posts in the school building during school hours.

Additionally, he does not believe that the district adequately investigated the situation. Rather, “teachers did a lot of the investigative work on their own” to discover the fake accounts.

Young also faults law enforcement for their lack of appropriate responsiveness to the issue. According to him, teachers contacted both local police precincts and the Chester County DA’s office, and the concerns were “blown off.”

Another large part of the problem according to the teacher is the overreliance on technology. He believes that teachers have been replaced with technology and are little more than a “glorified chalkboard” in the classroom. While the district states that technology is central to learning, Young sees it as one tool. Students receive minimal instruction on the appropriate uses of technology, and he believes it is far too little.

When asked how he would have handled the situation, Young gave a detailed plan:

“The district should have conducted a thorough investigation of all the students involved, including confiscating the district-issued technology devices and reaching out to parents to include them in the process.” He said that the district should have immediately explained to parents their child’s role in the incident and asked for their help by looking at their private TikTok accounts. “These students needed severe, significant consequences — maybe a one week suspension.” Young said that the district should have brought in law enforcement to the school to meet with students and explain the seriousness of the issue. Finally, before returning to the classroom, there should have been a meeting between the teacher and student where the student apologized for their behavior and accepted responsibility for the harm caused to the teacher.

This seems like a reasonable course of action that would not conflict with any First Amendment rights and is consistent with the tenets of restorative justice where victim awareness is paramount to the process.

According to Young, the district did a minimal investigation that did not include asking parents to look at their student’s devices, required the students to complete a responsible technology lesson, and a few received a one-day suspension.

The veteran teacher believes that the district wanted to “keep parents in the dark” and “sweep the incident under the rug.” His statement was validated by at least two parents who expressed concern at the March school board meeting that they had not been notified about the “attack on our teachers and their families.” One parent told the board that these students needed “real consequences” and the district needed to “grow a spine and don’t put our heads in the sand.”

These sentiments are also shared by former school board member, Bruce Chambers, who served from 2009 to 2012 and ultimately resigned due to the” high level of dysfunction on the board” and a personal situation. Chambers said that the district claims it wants “parents as partners,” but their current policies indicate the contrary.

He cited the district policy 103.3. “Appropriate school employees will privately ask known transgender or gender expansive students how they would like to be addressed in class, in correspondence to the student’s home, and at conferences with the student’s parent/guardian.”

Chambers said that if the district wanted “parents as partners,” they would not withhold pertinent information intentionally from parents. The former board member said, “the district’s reaction to the situation is lame.”

Following the New York Times article, the district posted an open letter to the community with this closing:

“Your partnership is critical. As a school district, our greatest asset is our collaboration between home and school. As we plan for the next school year, I implore you also to use the summer to have conversations with your children about the responsible use of technology, especially social media. What seemingly feels like a joke has deep and long-lasting impacts, not just for the targeted person but for the students themselves. Our best defense is a collaborative one. I have always valued your partnership and will continue to do so as we move ahead.”

This statement leaves us with more questions than answers. The district would not answer specific questions posed via email and instead sent the generic statement.

If collaboration is the best defense, why didn’t the district immediately involve parents in the investigation and ask for their help? I am certain that many parents would have searched their child’s phone to see if there was any evidence pertinent to the investigation.

According to Young and the New York Times article, the principal initially sent an email to only the 8th grade parents alerting them to the situation approximately a week after it occurred. A second email was sent a few weeks later to all middle school families stating that some of the accounts were still active and contained “offensive content.” Prior to the national news story, the administration never sent a communication to all parents about the situation.

If the New York Times had not run the story, would the district ever have notified all families?

Unarguably, our children are growing up in a challenging online world, and school districts are struggling to keep up with the daily changes; yet, they have a moral, ethical, and legal responsibility to protect both students and teachers from egregious acts, in addition to being transparent about what is happening.

Neil Young has yet to receive an apology for what was done to him and his family. That might be a good starting point.

(Author’s note: Neil Young is currently on sabbatical from the Great Valley School District and is running for U.S. Congress in the 6th District.)

As the Pennsylvania General Assembly considers a blanket ban on TikTok for government-owned devices, many of the Democratic legislators who support the bill are still sharing Zach King magic tricks and giggling baby videos on the popular platform.

Eleven Pennsylvania Senate Democrats maintain a presence on the app owned by ByteDance, a Chinese-based company with ties to the Chinese Communist Party.

Some Democrats, including Montgomery’s Sen. Katie Muth, have accounts without any content. Others cross-post videos from Instagram or Facebook to TikTok.

Then there’s Delaware Valley Democratic Sens. Carolyn Comitta and John Kane.

Both Chester Democrats maintain a heavy presence on TikTok. Comitta has both campaign and Senate TikTok accounts. Both have posted videos from inside their Capitol offices. There’s even a goofy video of Kane walking away from policy positions that he opposes while a comedy sketch criticizing a so-called toxic person plays in the background.

A Kane spokesperson told DVJournal the senator turned to TikTok to connect with younger voters.

“This effort has been enjoyable, exciting, and empowering for many young people who now feel acknowledged by their government and informed about current events,” said Drew Henderson. He promised Kane didn’t use a government-owned device for TikTok. “With numerous colleges and universities in Sen. Kane’s district, we have found TikTok valuable to connect with young constituents, meeting them where they are digitally.”

Despite using the app for messaging, the entire Democrat Senate Caucus voted for Senate Bill 379, the TikTok ban bill. TikTok users are banned from accessing the app from a state-owned wireless network.

The House version of SB 379 went further. It expanded the TikTok ban to include devices and wireless networks owned by local governments and school districts.

“I believe the House amendments make SB 379 stronger by expanding the bill’s scope to include other foreign adversaries hostile to the United States, such as Russia,” Sen. Tracy Pennycuick (R-Montgomery) told DVJournal. She was one of the primary co-sponsors of the original bill. “Apps, like TikTok, present serious security risks, especially when installed on state-owned devices that have direct access to sensitive information. I am optimistic that this bill will pass in the House.”

The bill sits in the House Appropriations Committee.

It received initial support last week in a bipartisan 139-62 vote. Among supporters were 11 Democrats with active TikTok accounts. That includes Appropriations Chair Rep. Jordan Harris of Philadelphia and Delaware County Rep. Jenn O’Mara.

You could say the state legislature was behind with the times on TikTok. Multiple state agencies banned the app years ago.

State Treasurer Stacy Garrity booted TikTok from her department’s devices in late 2022 following an internal review.

“Our ban has been fully effective,” she told DVJournal. “No employees are able to download TikTok onto Treasury devices, and no devices on the Treasury network can access TikTok.”

Other departments with a TikTok ban are state courts, the attorney general’s office, and the auditor general’s office.

And, despite Gov. Josh Shapiro having two active TikTok accounts where he boasts about his “three moods,” state agencies can’t create TikTok accounts or buy ad space on the app.

Shapiro’s office did not respond to a request for comment on SB 379.

Should the bill become law, it would cause ripples throughout the Delaware Valley region. Bucks County uses TikTok to communicate with the public. Delaware County officials said last year that TikTok was still allowed on government-owned phones. Chester County has a ban on TikTok from government phones due to cybersecurity concerns. Montgomery County officials didn’t comment on the county’s TikTok policy.

Pennsylvania’s two Democrat U.S. Sens. Bob Casey and John Fetterman are both active on the platform as is President Joe Biden. Other federal employees can’t use TikTok on their work phones.

A bill that calls for ByteDance to sell TikTok or face a ban in America passed the U.S. House this month.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

For a different point of view see: “Counterpoint: Banning TikTok Is a Blow to Free Speech”

The Chinese Communist Party in Beijing is nervous — and it ought to be. The U.S. Congress has targeted a significant tool the CCP uses to spread disinformation among Americans, and the rulers in Beijing are not happy about it. The House has voted to require TikTok to be divested from Chinese ownership, not banned, as its critics charge. This effort will protect free speech, not limit it, as the same, often well-paid, critics claim.

Of course, the tool is TikTok, a popular app that millions of Americans use to promote their companies and reach new audiences. “It’s harmless,” you might say. Only it isn’t. The app is owned by the Chinese company ByteDance, which is under CCP control. Beijing has an iron grasp over the platform’s algorithm and all user data. Your data. And it is a major U.S. national security risk.

Remember, this is the Chinese government that executed a comprehensive theft of 24 million American government and military officials’ records held by the Office of Personnel Management. It cannot be trusted with access to an even greater number of Americans’ personal data and cannot be trusted to keep from attempting to influence U.S. elections.

It’s a government that, according to respected international human rights organizations, is “waging a targeted campaign against Uyghur women, men and children” and conducting human rights abuses that include “coercive population control methods, forced labor, arbitrary detention in internment camps, torture, physical and sexual abuse, mass surveillance, family separation, and repression of cultural and religious expression.”

Of even greater concern is the disinformation and manipulation campaign that the CCP is already running on the TikTok platform, which could potentially accelerate into a contingency or conflict between the United States and China. A group of Rutgers University researchers have clearly demonstrated that the app promotes CCP interests, and they assess that there is “a strong possibility that content on TikTok is either amplified or suppressed based on its alignment with the interests of the Chinese Government.”

By comparing the volume of TikTok posts with those of Instagram, you can see how access to views on issues such as the invasion of Ukraine and October 7 and its aftermath is manipulated in a way that is helpful to Chinese national security interests. This algorithmic manipulation is even clearer and over-the-top when applied to sensitive political topics in China, such as the Tiananmen Square massacre, the Uighur genocide, and Hong Kong.

Knowing this, lawmakers in Congress passed a bipartisan bill to divest TikTok from its Chinese parent company, ByteDance. The legislation now heads to the Senate for action.

Critics of the legislation claim lawmakers want to “ban” TikTok. But it is not a ban. The House legislation calls for divesting TikTok from its Chinese parent company. The bill is a balanced and feasible solution that safeguards innovation, strengthens U.S. national security, protects the Bytedance/TikTok investors, and helps keep private information from being collected by the CCP.

In a nutshell, this divestment ensures that American users can enjoy TikTok for creative expression and to grow and market their businesses — but under new ownership that respects U.S. laws and values.

This is not about stifling speech. It is about keeping China from suppressing free speech. Remember, the Chinese Communist Party has established counterintelligence laws that give it unfettered access to data held by Chinese companies and openly practices its preference for state sovereignty over personal privacy. The CCP does not adhere to core American principles like free speech and assembly.

Divesting TikTok from ByteDance ensures the platform can continue operating in the United States, free from Beijing’s influence and without impeding individual Americans’ right to express themselves.

It’s also good for the U.S. economy. TikTok investors, including American financial services and private equity firms, stand to reap billions should TikTok be acquired by a non-Chinese company. These funds could be reinvested in new technology start-ups or other business ventures. Moreover, divestment, rather than an outright ban, ensures greater competition. Users can expect greater innovation, safer services, and a richer and more diverse social media experience — all while blunting Beijing’s ability to leverage TikTok to undercut fair elections and free speech.

Beijing is not taking this lying down. As Craig Singleton, an expert on Chinese lobbying, has observed, ByteDance has an immense lobbying machine in Washington — and the company is not lobbying for your values. It has a bottomless budget, and it is spreading that cash around to stop the House bill before it gets traction in the Senate.

Congress is right to end Beijing’s efforts to sow political discord in the United States and harvest Americans’ personal data. The House was right to pass the TikTok/ByteDance divestment legislation, as was President Biden in his pledge to sign any such bill that comes to his desk. Now, it’s up to the Senate to protect America from China’s malign influence.

For another point of view see: Point: “Congress Is Right to Call for the Strategic Divestment of TikTok”

The recent move by the House of Representatives to advance legislation forcing ByteDance to divest its ownership of TikTok represents a potentially alarming infringement on our fundamental rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Despite national security concerns, coercing the divestment of TikTok sets a dangerous precedent that undermines the principles of free expression upon which our republic is built.

While it is undeniable that there are legitimate concerns regarding the security implications of foreign-owned platforms accessing some data of millions of Americans, curtailing access to TikTok based on these concerns constitutes an overreach of governmental authority. The current ban on TikTok on federal devices is a reasonable precaution, but the government restricting access to the platform for the public goes too far (and it is a decision for parents for those under the age of 18.)

Former president Donald Trump’s reversal of his previous advocacy for banning TikTok is simply motivated by fears of Meta (Facebook and Instagram) becoming even more powerful. He has a political point — but not a constitutional one. His recent flip-flop on this issue underscores the political nature of such decisions. However, the motivations behind the legislation should not overshadow the potential erosion of individual liberties and the consequences they entail.

Proponents of the legislation argue that it does not amount to a ban, citing Rep. Mike Gallagher’s assertion that the TikTok user experience can continue and improve if ByteDance no longer owns the company. Yet, the looming threat of a complete ban if ByteDance fails to comply underscores the coercive nature of the proposed measures. They really have no choice based on the threatened consequence.

Moreover, the absence of concrete evidence demonstrating the Chinese Communist Party’s use of TikTok for surveillance or propaganda raises questions about the necessity of such drastic actions. While it is conceivable that Beijing could exploit TikTok for nefarious purposes, it is essential to weigh these potential risks against the broader principles of free speech and individual autonomy.

Put simply, banning TikTok violates of the free speech rights of millions of Americans, especially young people just learning to find their voices and form opinions. This may be why President Biden has indicated support for the banning consequence in the legislation while simultaneously having an account for his campaign on the platform. Hypocritical and political can be synonyms.

While TikTok may not be a beacon of free speech in its home country (or even allowed there), the United States has long prided itself on its commitment to protecting the rights of its citizens to express themselves freely, even when it conflicts with governmental interests.

The use of lawsuits as a means of holding social media companies accountable for violating laws is a more appropriate course of action. However, the protection afforded to these companies under Section 230 shields them from many legal challenges, limiting the effectiveness of this approach. If social media companies were subject to the same legal scrutiny as other entities, they might be more inclined to prioritize the interests of their users over their own corporate agendas.

Let’s open TikTok (and other platforms) to this level of legal scrutiny and see how quickly they clean up their act.  Also, we should consider why so many Americans flock to TikTok.  Maybe Americans like TikTok because it has been freer and easier than U.S. Big Tech failing attempts. Maybe Big Tech, with all their money, should just build better free speech applications and get out of the speech police business and, especially, politics.

Furthermore, the potential for government overreach in restricting access to social media platforms sets a dangerous precedent. Granting authorities the power to ban or control speech based on vague notions of national security could pave the way for future censorship and suppression of dissenting voices. It is imperative that we uphold the principles of free speech and individual liberty, even in the face of legitimate security concerns. It seems like well-paid, Big Tech lobbyists have convinced many in the House of Representatives that control of social media needs to reside with the same old incumbent players.

Ultimately, the debate surrounding TikTok’s ownership and access underscores the complex interplay between national security concerns, individual freedoms, and corporate responsibility. While it is essential to address legitimate security threats posed by foreign-owned platforms, any measures taken must be carefully balanced against the broader principles of free speech and due process. It makes no sense to “ban” when transparency continues to be such a major problem throughout U.S. politics.

While the concerns raised by proponents of legislation targeting TikTok are not without merit, the proposed solutions risk undermining the very freedoms they purport to protect. Rather than resorting to bans and coercive measures, policymakers should seek more nuanced approaches that safeguard national security and individual liberties. Failure to do so risks setting a dangerous precedent that threatens the fabric of our democracy.

The latest TikTok dustup made me realize that the newest iteration of an alphabet generation–I think it’s now up to Z, although given the acronym for sexual minorities and how that expanded beyond LGBT, we could be out of Aramaic characters–are not serious people. They are ignorant of history, preoccupied with irrelevant things like pronouns and however many “spirits” they have, and are just incredibly annoying.

Before I really get into it, a caveat: I am four decades removed from those halcyon years when you don’t need to pay for your rent, your food, your tuition, or the consequences of your actions. I myself was a rather tame young woman who could run for political office without worrying that some scandal of her past would frustrate those efforts. The worst thing I ever did was kick a horse after bucking and throwing me onto the very hard soil of northern Montgomery County. Believe me, Bluebell deserved it.

So perhaps I am not objective when I say that the vast majority of these kids are pampered and pretentious little darlings who play at human rights activism in the same way they used to play with their Barbie dolls: It’s a diversion, more than anything else. And when they are actually presented with a true human rights crisis, they can’t understand why anyone would disagree with their take on the topic.

Which brings me back to TikTok. The intrepid independent journalist Yashar Ali shed light on a bizarre phenomenon that started in the past few days, only weeks after a group of bloodthirsty Palestinian terrorists massacred 1,200 innocent Jews in cold blood. We’ve already seen how some of these Gen Z darlings have screamed out their antisemitism through the streets of large cities, showing solidarity with Hamas when they weren’t ripping down the posters of missing, kidnapped Israeli babies.

We’ve read the letters that they have signed onto, pledging support for the erasure of Israel and the annihilation of its inhabitants “from the river to the sea.” We have even seen them suggest that Israel is lying about how many people were killed and that this was just some psyops to allow it to commit a “genocide” against the Palestinians in Gaza.

But what Yashar Ali uncovered is even worse than these repellent displays of inhumanity. There is now a trend on TikTok of American youth urging their comrades to read Osama Bin Laden’s “Letter to America” because they find it both elucidating and wise. We are talking about the same Bin Laden who orchestrated the massacre of 3,000 Americans on 9/11. It is true that most of these kids were either infants or weren’t even born when the Twin Towers came down almost a quarter century ago.

But that is absolutely irrelevant. I was born exactly 20 years, minus three days after Pearl Harbor, and I understand everything that happened, every aspect of the attack by Japan, every reason why we were pulled into World War II, and even why it was necessary to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I know all of this because I studied history, a history that is apparently no longer taught in some schools.

These children, who find value in Bin Laden’s words, would be laughable if this weren’t such a horrific commentary on the quality of those who will lead us into the future. They absorb the hateful rhetoric of an Islamist who despised the United States because it somehow validates their hatred of Israel, their innate antisemitism, and their disgust with their native land.

And instead of understanding that Bin Laden would have strangled the breath out of anyone who actually used “pronouns” and raised that increasingly mottled rainbow flag, they think he has lessons to teach and accomplishments to emulate.

To say that I am disgusted with these children is an understatement. I passed “bemusement” a long time ago, well before 1,200 Jews were assassinated simply because of who they were. I mocked the trans activists who whimpered and whined about the cruelty of a world that didn’t understand their viscous form of “gender fluidity.” I laughed.

But I’m not laughing now. I am repelled and disgusted, and I truly hope that him/his and she/her figure out what the hell is going on before they find themselves on the wrong side of a genocide.

Time may be TikToking away for TikTok and the Americans who use it.

On Friday, six more U.S. Senators signed on as sponsors of the Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology (RESTRICT) Act, bipartisan legislation giving President Joe Biden new powers to ban the Chinese-owned app. Now 18 senators are on board, and the Biden administration has endorsed the effort.

Not on the list of sponsors: Sens. Bob Casey and John Fetterman. They are, however, on a recently-compiled list of a handful of members of Congress with TikTok accounts.

Both accounts were still active as of Sunday night. Neither senator responded to repeated requests for comment about their decision to remain on the controversial — and Communist-owned — video app.

The issue of TikTok giving China’s government access to data on U.S. citizens isn’t new. President Donald Trump tried to ban the app in 2020 but was blocked by the courts. Late last year, Biden signed an order banning the app from nearly all federal government devices.

The social media platform that is very popular with teenagers is owned by the Chinese company ByteDance. ByteDance had admitted that some employees had filched Americans’ information, The New York Times reported. But the parent company claimed those workers were fired.

Biden is demanding ByteDance sell TikTok. And the Biden Justice Department is investigating whether the Chinese-made app is spying on some of the journalists who cover the tech industry.

More and more Pennsylvania government entities are banning the app, including Chester County and Bucks County, which just filed a lawsuit against it for harming children’s mental health. In state government, Treasurer Stacy Garrity banned it on state devices her department controls. However, Gov. Josh Shapiro has a campaign account. At the same time, however, Shapiro was investigating TikTok as attorney general for its impact on youth.

A January 2023 review by States News Service confirmed 32 of the 535 members of Congress had TikTok accounts, including Casey, Fetterman, and local Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-Chester/Berks)

Contacted by DVJournal, a Houlahan spokesperson confirmed, “Her account still exists, but it is not active, and it is not on any House-issued devices.”

TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew is scheduled to testify before Congress on Thursday. According to reports, he plans to argue that the app, which has about 150 million regular users in the U.S. — or about 45 percent of the population — is too deeply enmeshed in the nation’s social media to be banned.

A TikTok spokesperson recently sent DVJournal this statement: “The ban of TikTok on federal devices was passed in December without any deliberation, and unfortunately, that approach has served as a blueprint for other world governments. These bans are little more than political theater. We hope that when it comes to addressing national security concerns about TikTok beyond government devices, Congress will explore solutions that won’t have the effect of censoring the voices of millions of Americans.

“The swiftest and most thorough way to address any national security concerns about TikTok is for CFIUS to adopt the proposed agreement that we worked with them on for nearly two years. These plans have been developed under the oversight of our country’s top national security agencies, and we are well underway in implementing them to further secure our platform in the United States.”

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal