Could TikTok's dance be coming to an end on the world's stage? We're peeling back the layers of this hot-potato issue to give you an unprecedented look at the labyrinth of concerns surrounding the app's potential ban. Today's show will leave you equipped to navigate the murky waters of national security, corporate influence, and the battle for the soul of free speech. Senator Ted Cruz's alarm bells over Chinese surveillance are clanging, but Nancy Pelosi's counter-chime suggests refining, not rejecting the platform. With the scales of economic interdependence and the control of information at stake, we're questioning whether the real issue is less about data and more about democracy.
Strap in as we dissect the controversial ties that bind money to politics, casting a spotlight on the relationship between financial contributions and political sway. The Jeff Yass-Rand Paul connection stirs the pot, and we're stirring it further by examining Facebook's vested interest in the TikTok drama. Our exchange will navigate the treacherous intersection of First Amendment rights and national security, without shying away from asking the tough questions about how deep corporate pockets might be influencing the fate of your favorite apps.
In the final act, we're broadcasting the potential repercussions of this digital tug-of-war on the political landscape, especially for the youth whose voices are amplified through TikTok. We're tipping our hat to the insights of Thomas Massie and Michael Tracy, whose perspectives add critical nuance to the conversation. Could a TikTok ban spell a political upheaval? The stakes are high, the players are ready, and we're bringing you front-row seats to the unfolding drama.
Could TikTok's dance be coming to an end on the world's stage? We're peeling back the layers of this hot-potato issue to give you an unprecedented look at the labyrinth of concerns surrounding the app's potential ban. Today's show will leave you equipped to navigate the murky waters of national security, corporate influence, and the battle for the soul of free speech. Senator Ted Cruz's alarm bells over Chinese surveillance are clanging, but Nancy Pelosi's counter-chime suggests refining, not rejecting the platform. With the scales of economic interdependence and the control of information at stake, we're questioning whether the real issue is less about data and more about democracy.
Strap in as we dissect the controversial ties that bind money to politics, casting a spotlight on the relationship between financial contributions and political sway. The Jeff Yass-Rand Paul connection stirs the pot, and we're stirring it further by examining Facebook's vested interest in the TikTok drama. Our exchange will navigate the treacherous intersection of First Amendment rights and national security, without shying away from asking the tough questions about how deep corporate pockets might be influencing the fate of your favorite apps.
In the final act, we're broadcasting the potential repercussions of this digital tug-of-war on the political landscape, especially for the youth whose voices are amplified through TikTok. We're tipping our hat to the insights of Thomas Massie and Michael Tracy, whose perspectives add critical nuance to the conversation. Could a TikTok ban spell a political upheaval? The stakes are high, the players are ready, and we're bringing you front-row seats to the unfolding drama.
Welcome to the Jerome McClain show. I'm your host, jerome McClain. Today is 315 of 2024 and this is episode 399. Very busy week for the Jerome McClain show this week and I am pumped up in ready. So there's promised. On the last episode we did, I said that we were going to be talking about this app, that the house has Pack gotten together and decided it is a threat to national security, so on and so forth, and they are going to be trying to ban the app. So the house voted to ban tick tock. We're gonna go to a lot of some of the arguments that are being made here and we're gonna start off with the senator from the State of Texas, senator tech Cruz, here.
Speaker 2:Would you be a yes on the bills that currently stands senator? Well, it depends. It depends what the bill specifically says. I will say this I'm glad the house is acting. I am deeply concerned about tick tock. I've been very vocal about my concerns and tick tock. We had the CEO of tick tock testified before the judiciary committee just a few weeks ago and I vigorously question him really on two fronts. I'm concerned about tick tock. Number one I'm concerned about Chinese surveillance and espionage. Tick tock is controlled by the Chinese Communist government. It is has a hundred and seventy million users in the United States and it gives the Chinese government the ability to monitor. Number one what they're saying. Number two their physical location using GPS. Number three Potentially what they're searching for and what they're doing with their phone is. A second set of concerns is the propaganda that the Chinese government pushes on tick tock and pushes in particular kids, and I think it is deeply, deeply harmful.
Speaker 1:So I think Ted Cruz and I'm gonna get into this a bit just gave the game away about what the actual threat of tick tock is, and it wasn't what he said at the beginning, it was what he said at the end. The concern is what Ted Cruz and a lot of conservatives and even people on the Democratic side as I go to the next clip from Nancy Pelosi Say that the propaganda that is being given to the youth, as they say, on tick tock. So Put a button in that and get back to it. I'm gonna get to Nancy Pelosi and then I'm gonna tone, really hone in on that question of propaganda, tick tock and the demographics of who. We're seeing the alleged propaganda on tick tock and where it's actually coming from, and we're also gonna get into who's actually behind the money, the push to ban tick tock. You may be surprised.
Speaker 3:First of all, this is not a ban on tick tock. I'm a grandmother of teenagers. I understand the entertainment value, the educational value, communication value, the business value for some business on this. This is not an attempt to ban tick tock. It's an attempt to make tick tock better tick tock.
Speaker 1:Toe. Yeah, that was pretty weird. I'm glad Nancy Pelosi stepped down from power and I Don't know what the tick tock toe things about weird behavior, it's. So now you have to think about it like this there's a comedian by the name of Lewis Black who famously said Democrats will stand up with a really bad idea and then Republicans will make it worse. And I said that differently than what he said. It as a matter of fact, as a record, I'll add it that clip in at the end of the show so you can hear it in his flavor.
Speaker 1:But this is not just about who controls the ownership of tick tock. If it was, we would be running into a massive problem, and I've actually heard some analysis from some very intelligent People and they say this is about tick tock using, or the Chinese Communist Party using, tick tock for the dumbing down of America. So they would make the argument that even the version of tick tock that is Used in America is not even allowed in China. So that they all say that. And I would respond to that that that is factually correct. They would say you know they, the use of tick tock allows the. The using of tick tock allows the Chinese Communist Party to track you, and I would say that would be true as well. Now here's the problem, with us jumping to the conclusion that that and of itself May be a problem. So let's say, tomorrow you ban tick tock, and, and it was under the and and it was under the Reasoning of I'm gonna ban the tick tock because tick tock tracks People and they allow that tracking to be sent to the Chinese Communist Party and then know where you are, where you go, see what you're doing and what you believe. This is the problem. You wouldn't be able to stop China from getting that information by buying the information from a third-party Company, the United States that legally sells that information to people who want that info. So you haven't stopped anything. If it comes to the, the belief system that China In and of itself is a threat, you have a another problem.
Speaker 1:What about in manufacturing? Because a lot of the manufacturing sector sold out the American worker, and a long time ago, to China. What are you gonna do about that? What are you gonna do about the fact that when you go to your local Walmart and flip over a large portion, I would even say over half, of the items they say made in China. What are you gonna do about that? What are you gonna do about all the the chips and everything that we need for technology that are not made in America? They are made in China. We no matter what you thought about what happened in co vid when we were trying to get ventilators and things like that we couldn't because the material and the factories and everything that we would that needed to make them were in China.
Speaker 1:So the China owning America thing that chicken has already come home to roost the tick-tock thing is about something different, and the something different is the propaganda. There's something different, and by propaganda I mean that what the United States would like to happen, especially when you deal with Congress, is they would like to be able to do the old model of being able to set a narrative, go to their big media organizations when they can repeat the narrative, and then they will funnel that to us and then we will then repeat it to each other. And what tick-tock does is is it gives the power to people on the ground to engage in Freelance journalism in a way that it shuts down a lot of us propaganda. Point being this showed up majorly, majorly in this catastrophe that happened after October 7th, after the Hamas attack on Israel. So after the Hamas attack on Israel, which a lot of people were filming and videoing, horrific attack, horrific attack, and Israel responds in their pursuit of Hamas by leveling Gaza, you know, etc. There's something that has been happening and it has been happening on TikTok, and that is the people have been recording what has been happening.
Speaker 1:And guess who does not like that? Guess who doesn't like it. Well, I say this it would be people like the intelligent conservative I played yesterday by the name of Ben Shapiro, because he has been championing this war. It would be people like Ted Cruz, who said he went on breaking points, had an intense exchange around, but he said there is nothing that Israel could do wrong that he would criticize. Ted Cruz said that that's why they don't like TikTok, because it's giving other people an alternative view of the propaganda that they want to come out about what is happening in these conflicts overseas.
Speaker 1:So, of course, china is the backer of Russia. So when the US government wants to put out a certain narrative because we are the backer of Israel, you can kind of see where this is going to go. There's going to be a different perspective about all of it. China is the backer of Russia. Russia invades Ukraine. The US is going to have its viewpoint. We're going to hear about how gladomir Zawinski was, you know the Pope and everything else, and the TikTok gives the other side, the other countries, power to influence the American mind and by the American mind that they're so threatened by is it is the American demographic that is going to shape the future, and so they are not as easily propagandized. That is the actual problem, because they have alternative sources of information that they are getting their views from. This is also a reported report from Ryan Grim and from the Intercept and things of that nature.
Speaker 1:When you look at some of the backing of who is funding this Look at lucky, it's meta and Instagram. So Facebook and Instagram, which are TikToks competitors, are behind a lot of the funding and to try to get rid of TikTok and who would benefit from that? Facebook and Instagram Guess what? The Jewish lobby. That is very powerful.
Speaker 1:Apac also behind a lot of it, and so you start to think, wait a minute, what is going on here? And then you also have to wrestle with the fact but why would you want to give the government this much power? There's a lot of questions and this TikTok thing, and we do know that anything that's used for good can be used for bad. The question is when you have the bipartisan nature of the Democrats and the Republicans in Congress, when they couldn't even agree on an immigration bill that one of the most conservative people in the United States Congress worked on, worked hard on, when they couldn't even get that done. You know this is a strange bedfeller. This is a strange thing that they accomplish in a week and time, you know, just one week. So you ask why, and so I'm going to go to an intense exchange by Senator Rand Paul and Brian Kilmeade of Fox News.
Speaker 6:It's an allegation. You are making allegations against a company owned by Americans and you have to prove it who?
Speaker 4:was that company.
Speaker 7:Who was that company? Six, six, six by chance, by chance is owned by China. By chance is owned by China no it's not See.
Speaker 6:That's a lie and you're defaming the country, You're defaming the company.
Speaker 4:Fox News' Brian Kilmeade and Republican Senator Rand Paul sparred over whether the Senate should pass legislation to ban TikTok the same legislation that, of course, the House passed rapidly yesterday in an effort to basically crush what they believe is a national security threat and a propaganda machine pushed on young people in America by the Chinese Communist Party. Now all House Republicans and 37 Democrats in the House of Representatives voted to ban the social media app. So hearing Republicans speak out against the idea of banning it is actually kind of rare. And so Rand Paul is against the ban over concerns that it would violate constitutional rights to freedom of expression.
Speaker 6:Let's hear more of what he had to say 60% of it is owned by international investors, 20% is owned by the software developers, who are Chinese, and 20% is owned by the employees, 7,000 of them are Americans who will control the algorithm, but it's not owned by the government.
Speaker 4:Who owns the algorithm?
Speaker 6:TikTok owns their own algorithm and it's actually not in China. Bite dance.
Speaker 8:Who owns the Chinese government? No, they don't.
Speaker 6:See, you've just told a lie, Brian. You can't say on TV something that's a lie about a company.
Speaker 9:That is an out and out lie and it's provable. What is?
Speaker 6:that, and they're not owned by the Chinese government. Tiktok is owned privately and the algorithm's not in China.
Speaker 4:So look, it's interesting because Kilmeade pushing the argument that the content on TikTok is the problem right, and that the algorithm emphasizing certain content over other content him saying that that's a problem Because it indoctrinates youth here and American. All of that stuff is a really bad argument if you want the ban to withstand the muster of our courts and our constitution, right. So, as the Washington Post reports, Americans choose to use TikTok to express themselves, Paul said Tuesday. I don't think Congress should be trying to take away the first amendment rights of 170 million Americans, and so I'm curious what you think about that argument.
Speaker 8:Yeah, a lot of mainstream media don't give you honest news. We do. You know why? Because of you, paid membership on YouTube makes all the difference. Hit the join button below and you become the hero that sustains us.
Speaker 8:So, first of all, rand Paul is completely right, but, as you're about to find out, for all the wrong reasons. So I said that this was going to start happening soon, a couple of years ago, and it has now begun. So first, corporate donors started buying all of our politicians, and I wrote a book called Justice Coming. In Chapter Four, I explained how they took over the Democratic Party as well as the Republican Party, and so they all serve corporations. Now.
Speaker 8:Now, having said that, because all the elections are privately financed in America, so if private interests give you money, you serve private interests, right. So what I said was soon the corporations will start to fight each other, so it will turn into an auction. So different corporations will buy different politicians and, as you're about to see, rand Paul is actually bought by one of the owners of TikTok, but all the other media hates TikTok because it's competition. So Rand Paul happens to be telling the truth here, but not out of the goodness of his heart and wait till you see the actual force behind all of these attacks against TikTok. It ain't Republicans or Democrats or politicians, or even a country. You'll see, okay, and it tells you everything you need to know about American politics and media.
Speaker 4:So, to be fair to Rand Paul, he's not the only lawmaker who is concerned about the constitutional issues with a TikTok ban. In fact, the Washington Post also notes that the bill's supporters also have some concerns. They've questioned whether it will face the same fate as former President Donald Trump's executive order, which attempted to ban TikTok, because that was blocked by the courts based on constitutional grounds. So this was in 2020, in federal court's rule, the government had not adequately proved that the app presented a national security threat and really, if you want the law to withstand the court system, you should not focus on the content of TikTok, because that's what will probably get that law blocked. You should focus on the possibility of a national security threat, which I noticed some of the politicians focusing on others, I guess didn't really get the memo, and the issue with that is they haven't proven that the algorithm is a national security threat.
Speaker 4:So I wanna just give you a few excerpts from the piece explaining what I mean. So federal officials have provided no public examples of the Chinese government harvesting Americans data or altering TikTok's algorithms in the five years since they launched a national security investigation into the app. In fact, fbi Director Christopher Wray, highlighting the risks, has said. Any tweaks to the app's algorithm would be something we wouldn't readily detect, which makes it more of a pernicious threat, said another US official. The concern is very real and based on known behavior by the CCP or Chinese Communist Party.
Speaker 8:Okay, I can't stand this, so let me take this one at a time. First of all, the Chinese Communist Party does not own bike dance or TikTok. Two Chinese nationals do. If you say hey, they might be transferring it, and hence the national security issue. Okay, great, because I don't want the Chinese having all my information. I have TikTok too, right? So then show me a way that you block it. By the way, we already have that. It actually goes through Oracle. Oracle can block it, and there's not a single Chinese national, as far as I understand, on the board of bike dance, so they would all have to magically agree let's transfer the information to China, including the international investors, including American investors, and so that's how a board works, right? So this idea that it's being siphoned by the Chinese government, has not ever been proven.
Speaker 8:It's just so. Now go to the second thing that the FBI director said. Well, they can change their algorithm at any moment. Well, so can Facebook and YouTube and Google and Amazon. And well, that doesn't serve a foreign government. Well, who doesn't serve?
Speaker 4:It serves that particular corporation's interests.
Speaker 8:So manipulating the American people on behalf of Amazon and Facebook is fantastic, but manipulating them on behalf of China, theoretically, even though we've never proven it, is awful. I think that both are a concern. And so, when you look at the constitutional issue, anna's absolutely right when you say this company is making people have an opinion I don't like, hence I would like to ban them. You cannot find a more core First Amendment violation ever. That is the government banning speech it doesn't like. So it is absurd. Everyone who voted for this, including all the dumb ass Democrats that voted with the Republicans on this, are saying yeah, we don't care about the First Amendment, we don't care about the Constitution, or we don't even know it. We're so stupid we can't even understand the easiest things about the US Constitution. And so, guys, this is all engineered to make you get off TikTok, because TikTok is very progressive and they don't like that, and it's competition to other media and they definitely don't like that. So they're trying to bury it under the guise of protecting you.
Speaker 4:Look, my problem with this is I actually don't have a super strong opinion on whether it makes sense to ban it or not, and part of the reason why is I don't feel like I can trust the purveyors of information here, like the people who are coming out with the claims of it's a national security threat or no. It's not a national security threat. It's owned by private investors, and the reason why I say it is because there's money corrupting both sides of that argument, and it's super significant money. I'm talking about tens of millions of dollars in the case of Rand Paul, by the way.
Speaker 8:Yeah, so we're gonna get to the donors in one second. But I just wanna explain, guys, the burden is on the people saying that you should ban an entire company. So show me any evidence that they have gotten our information to the Chinese government. And now we're having a conversation, but you have no evidence at all. It is definitely a private company. There is actual objective reality. There are people who own it. They are giant investors. They're international investors. Yes, some of them are Chinese nationals, but the Chinese government definitely, definitely does not own bite dance or TikTok. That is not in dispute. If you hear anyone saying the Chinese government owns it, they're lying to you on purpose or they're totally ignorant. They just go on air without ever checking anything.
Speaker 4:No, china doesn't own bite dance, but I think that you also have to be honest about how bite dance is based in Beijing, china's government is an authoritarian government Of course, but where are their servers based?
Speaker 8:So the servers are based in America, so that makes a giant difference. But again, if you showed me evidence, well, the servers are going from the US to China and the Chinese government couldn't have access to it. Okay, interesting, I'm totally ready for that evidence. But if you say I have no evidence at all, but they're my competitor and I don't like them, so I'd like to pretend they're doing it, no, no, and I'd like to take away the outlet for massive free speech and massive diversity of opinion of young people all across the country and across the world, because I don't like their opinion. No, I am 100% against the ban on TikTok. I think it's dumb, I think it's corrupt and totally pointless.
Speaker 4:So let's get into the money. So we had shared with you all earlier in the week that Donald Trump had done a complete 180 on the notion of banning TikTok. Remember, in 2020, he tried to ban it through an executive order and then suddenly he's like no, no, no, we shouldn't ban it, it would empower Facebook and he's not in favor of that. Well, we found out that Trump's been courting a billionaire political donor by the name of Jeffrey Yass or Jeff Yass, and Jeff Yass owns a 15% stake in TikTok, so he wants a return on his investment. He does not want it to be banned here in the United States. So, since he is a donor to Donald Trump, donald Trump has completely changed gears on TikTok. So that's one example of money in politics.
Speaker 4:Let's get to whether or not Jeff Yass has any influence on Rand Paul, who's also against a ban on TikTok. We looked into this and it turns out that, well, apparently, yass is a Rand Paul donor by a lot. Fec records indicate Yass's favorite politician on the national scene is Paul, meaning Senator Rand Paul. Yass has given at least $23 million to Paul's political committee since mid-2015, when Paul was running for president. I don't even remember him running for president but he did.
Speaker 4:But there's more. So there's a super PAC known as Kentucky Freedom and it supports Republican Rand Paul's. It supported Rand Paul's reelection back in the 2022 midterms. Well, in March of 2021, yass bankrolled Kentucky Freedom with a stunning contribution of $5 million. Yass is one of only three people who have ever given any money to Kentucky Freedom. The other donors bring the total receipts for Kentucky Freedom to nearly $6.2 million. So out of that $6.2 million, jeff Yass contributed $5 million. So by far the biggest donor to this super PAC supporting Senator Paul was Jeff Yass. But it wasn't all that Yass gave to Rand Paul. Yass has been responsible for contributions of an additional $5.2 million to a different Paul super PAC called Protect Freedom. That's 10.2 million in Yass donations to Paul's political committees in less than two years.
Speaker 8:And of course, that PAC shouldn't be called Protect Freedom. It should be called Protect my Corporate Interest.
Speaker 8:And that's exactly what Rand Paul has done under the guise of being a libertarian. Again, he happens to be right here, but only because he took a bribe while pretending to be against government and corruption and big government, big business. You're populist libertarians, are you? Yes, where's your money? I'm begging you, give me more, give me more, I'll do anything. You say Okay. So that's how politics works. So this is Trump and Rand Paul saying Yass, queen and following orders, as they are told. Now get a load of this. Why I was trying to break in when Anna was talking about Yass. Breaking news Donald Trump is saying that he might pick Yass as his treasurer.
Speaker 8:Now remember guys all of these Republicans, including Donald Trump, proposed a ban on TikTok. When Trump was president, he proposed a ban on TikTok. Jeff Yass comes in and goes hey, you little servants, who the hell did you think you are? I'm in charge, not you. Now shut up and reverse your position. And Trump did. And now a giant portion of the Republican Party has shifted their position because of the bribes given by Jeff Yass, and we're worried about Chinese interference in our elections and we're worried that the Chinese are influencing America. It's the donors that rule us.
Speaker 4:Yeah, but corporate rule is okay. Yeah, all right, it's as American as apple pie these days.
Speaker 8:Yass is our queen, yass is the one that they serve, okay, and so keep it real. Now let's get to one other factor that's affecting this, and that's Facebook.
Speaker 4:Right On the other side of the debate, the group that really, really wants a TikTok ban is Facebook, and Facebook has bankrolled or funded or worked along with a group known as Targeted Victory to push out messaging and plant stories in the press egging on a TikTok ban, and so this was a piece published in the Washington Post back in 2022. Let me give you a few excerpts. Facebook paid GOP firm to malign TikTok. Of course, I told you Okay, let me give you some excerpts though. Placing op-eds and letters to the editor in major regional news outlets, promoting dubious stories about alleged TikTok trends that actually originated on Facebook and pushing to draw political reporters and local politicians into helping take down its biggest competitors that was the agenda. That was the objective for Targeted Victory.
Speaker 4:In fact, employees with Targeted Victory worked to undermine TikTok through a nationwide media and lobbying campaign, portraying the fast growing app as a danger to American children and society. So some of this messaging might have just originated from this group. That was paid for by Facebook. And let me continue with the rest of that. According to internal emails shared by the Washington Post and then one more excerpt that's relevant One of the directors of the firm said that Targeted Victory needs to get the message out that, while meta is the current punching bag, tiktok is the real threat, especially as a foreign owned app that is number one in sharing data that young teams are using.
Speaker 8:So, guys, who can you trust and who?
Speaker 4:can't you trust. I don't know?
Speaker 8:Well, there's one group you can trust us. Why? Because we tell you things ahead of time and then you get to see we're full of crap or for right. We told you that the politicians are all being bought off by corporate interest and you see it spectacularly here. I told you that what a lot of times the attacks against social media are actually from other media organizations because they view them as competitors.
Speaker 8:In fact, facebook is now doing it to TikTok. But where did they get it from? Cnn and other mainstream media get it to Facebook. They started running stories about Facebook and YouTube. Oh, it's so dangerous. You and advertisers shouldn't spend a dime there, boy. They are affecting the children Now. The children are very hurt by them, for all the money should go to television advertising. Now Facebook is doing the same exact thing. Now, remember, tiktok is hurting the children. Remember everybody, everybody go over to Facebook and what do they do? They all hire lobbyists to buy off all of our politicians, and then they have the politicians lie on their behalf. But the hilarious thing now is that, since it's turned into an auction, we have different corporate interests buying off different politicians and having a battle with themselves, and so now that's why we have the ironic situation where Rand Paul is accidentally telling the truth about TikTok because he was bought off by one of the owners of TikTok. Welcome to America, where everything is about corruption.
Speaker 5:There was major legislation uh, passed the House of Representatives yesterday. Let's go and put this up there on the screen how each House member voted on the bill that could ban TikTok. Overall, it was a pretty overwhelming majority that went ahead and passed. You had 352 votes that supported. You had 65 votes that opposed. In terms of the breakdown, 155 Democrats voted yes, gop 197, 50 Democrats voted no, 15 Republicans voted no. There were 14 overall who did not vote and only one person who voted in present. That one person is Yasmin, a crooked. I wonder what her objection or not objection to the bill was. But anyway, so that's the overall breakdown In terms of the people who voted no and who are Republicans.
Speaker 5:I think this is pretty noteworthy. A lot of them were Freedom Caucus, more libertarian types. We have Andy Biggs, dan Bishop, warren Davidson, matt Gaetz, marjorie Taylor Greene, clay Higgins and uh, let's see Nancy Mace, thomas Massey, tom McClink-Tock, alex Mooney, barry Moore, scott Perry, david Schweiker and Greg Stubbe. So, disproportionately, uh, kind of the dissident right, more Maga, libertarian Freedom Caucus. Exactly A pretty bipartisan, I would say, in terms of the support. Now, there's been a lot of discussion on what the hell is in this bill or not. We're gonna break that down, but I thought it would be useful for everyone to present the cases for and against by kind of the two major legislative champions on either side. First is gonna be Congressman Mike Gallagher, who co-sponsored and authored the legislation. Here's what he had to say in his case for the bill.
Speaker 9:TikTok is a threat to our national security because it is owned by ByteDance, which does the bidding of the Chinese Communist Party. We know this because ByteDance leadership says so and because Chinese law requires it. This bill therefore forces TikTok to break up with the Chinese Communist Party. It does not apply to American companies. It only applies to companies subject to the control of foreign adversaries defined by Congress. It says nothing about election interference and cannot be turned against any American social media platform. It does not impact websites in general. The only impacted sites are those associated with foreign adversary apps, such as tiktokcom. It can never be used to penalize individuals the text explicitly prohibits that and it cannot cannot be used to censor speech. It takes no position at all on the content of speech, only foreign adversary control, foreign adversary control of what is becoming the dominant news platform for Americans under 30.
Speaker 5:Hang on to that foreign adversary. That's going to be a line of contention. Let's hear from Congressman Thomas Massie, who lead up the case against the bill. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 7:They've described the TikTok application as a trojan horse. But there are some of us who feel that, either intentionally or unintentionally, this legislation to ban TikTok is actually a trojan horse. Some of us are concerned that there are First Amendment implications here. Americans have the right to view information. We don't need to be protected by the government from information. Some of us just don't want the president picking which apps we can put on our phones or which websites that we can visit. We don't think that's appropriate. We also think it's dangerous to give the president that kind of power, to give him the power to decide what Americans can see on their phones and their computers. To give him that sort of discretion we also think is dangerous. Now people say that this TikTok ban will only apply to TikTok or maybe another company.
Speaker 1:So I wanted to do an interruption there. So I wanted to do an interruption right there, just because, on this point, I think that Massie has the correct tone and tenor here and, even though he's gonna go on to say a bit more, I wanted to affirm that he is making the correct constitutional points, as well as knowing the truth that none of this stuff stays in a vacuum. None of this stays in a vacuum. The amount of power that you can see to this administration because you don't like, because you do like them, will be the same power you will concede to an administration that you don't like. And think about that in the context of what Americans are so concerned about now the distrust of the admin state. So don't think about administration like executive and the Congress. Think about administration as the admin state, always hovering over you, telling you what you can do, what you can't do. You know, I have seen how this type of thing, even in my own simple little footprint I have on social media. I will log into Facebook, which I don't use the page that I use for my family and get some violation, and I'm, you know, not even sure what the violation was, for it's not explained and and it's like that is what I think that is trying to avoid this overarching reach is exactly how it would. It looks like and I would challenge people to do what Senator Rand Paul said. You know, if you don't like this stuff, just don't participate in it. If you think that Tiktok is a threat to national security and you are in that vein then what you do and you think it's harmful for the kids and all these types of things in that nature what you do is you go to your kids phone and you take the app off of their phone. You are not allowed to then tell other people what they are allowed to have on their phone. You are not allowed to tell other people what information they can consume. You have to sweep around your own door and if your neighbor asks you to come sweep theirs, that is totally up to you. You are not allowed to clean your house and then break in your neighbor's house and start cleaning theirs as well, and this is exactly how this stuff works.
Speaker 1:And I think Massey when he says it is not the government's job to protect us, quote unquote from information. We should be able to decide what information we consume and what information we cannot consume, and it goes way back to a principle that I talked about years ago, when I talked about the sensorious nature of how this works and how it all forces us to be hypocrites, because it tries to protect us from speech, etc, etc. And then you have to appoint somebody that you know, for a matter of fact, you do not believe is capable to protect you from what information you shouldn't see. The only person that should be protecting you from information is you and your critical thinking and your reasoning capacities. You do not need a government institution to tell you this is misinformation, this is difference, disinformation, this is propaganda. You have to be able to consume the information on your own and make your own determinations, and this is why this is so important.
Speaker 1:Yes, it is very true that Russia has propaganda. It is very true that Iran has propaganda. It is very true that Saudi Arabia has propaganda. It is also very true that China has propaganda, that the United States has propaganda, that Britain has propaganda, that Israel has propaganda, that Palestine has propaganda, that Pakistan has propaganda, that India has propaganda, brazil, etc. Etc. Etc. Because the whole point of propaganda is to shape the narrative. So if we're going to stop TikTok because we're worried about alleged propaganda, then we have to go right to the media in the United States of America and we have to stop ABC and CNBC and NBC and MSNBC and ABC and Fox News, because, guess what, that is also propaganda.
Speaker 7:We'll go back to Massey maybe another company that pops up, just like TikTok, but the bill is written so broadly that the president could have used that discretion and include other companies that aren't just social media companies okay, so that's where it is right.
Speaker 5:I talked a lot here, so give us your reaction what do you think?
Speaker 3:I mean, I've got a couple different reactions, one, I think, you can't even respond to. Which is that? Okay? I can understand why no country would want a different country controlling its news environment, like you wouldn't want Russia owning NBC news, or whatever take Russia out of it.
Speaker 5:Let's just say any, China, Japan.
Speaker 3:Japan even in neutral Brazil alright, love Brazil like from the perspective of US national security interests I can see the argument.
Speaker 3:I don't care, like I'm not a part of US national security interests, and I think most people who use TikTok also don't care. And I think particularly with what the US has done with its hegemony around the world since World War II. It has not earned the kind of moral credit among a lot of Americans to say you know what? So you say you need these extraordinary powers to crack down on my social media apps so that you can continue to do what you've been doing for the last 50 to 70 years around the world.
Speaker 5:No thanks, but, chairman, she have a shot so here's what I would say in response, ryan is that take national security out of it? I believe very strongly in US markets and in our principle of sovereignty and reciprocal trade. So, for example, president Biden yesterday came out against the acquisition of US deal by Nipon Steel. Well, japan is one of our great allies.
Speaker 5:I mean, unlike the Europeans, they actually produce things and you know are important to the global economy and they you know also what are willing to defend themselves if they ever give them the ability. So there's a lot going on for Japan. I love Japan. I don't see any foreseeable problem in the future from a national security perspective. That said, we can't allow a Japanese company to own US deal. Us deal we recognize 100% as critical infrastructure and I wonder where you draw the line. So, for example, huawei. Huawei, which was banned by the Trump administration from critical access to telecom. So in that scenario, like main seems to make sense to me. We have critical infrastructure, the wiring's, literally, of US communications. Well, there doesn't seem to be all that much of a substantive difference between the two and really, when it comes down to again, even taking national security out of it, baseline fairness level, american companies can't do business in China. Even if you want to do business in China, you have to have a Chinese subsidiary that owns 51%. Our tech companies are completely banned over there. You may not like the tech companies I don't but they're at least under our jurisdiction. They're US citizens, they're subject to US law. Tiktok is and my dance are not subject to any of that. I will give the counter case and I would like for you to expand on some of this.
Speaker 5:Michael Tracy, I think, has done the best job of overlaying some of the biggest concerns within the bill. Let's go put this up there on the screen, he says. Here are some of the extensive points I have raised about this bill itself. The bill goes well beyond banning TikTok, targeting any quote website, desktop application, mobile application or augmented or immersive technology application claimed to be a quote foreign adversary. Controlled. That includes China, russia, north Korea and Iran, he says. I agree with congressman Warren Davidson, who pointed out in his floor speech that the wide range of definition of application could be attempt, future attempts to prohibit other widely used apps like telegram. The bill authorizes the future expulsion actions to be taken unilaterally by the president, provided that he determines that an application is providing to a significant threat national security. The US, he says. Talk specifically about the president possibly making unilateral determination. I quibble, actually, with Michael's definition here and he says I don't support handing radical new speech of bridging powers to either Biden or to Donald Trump. Go ahead.
Speaker 3:Ryan. So the broader point that Michael is making is one you need to take, you know, into serious consideration, which is be careful what power you give to the United States government, as you should, I agree, whenever, whenever congress you know says like look, I promise this is, this is all we care about, just this, just this one little thing is what you're saying is is reasonable, like every country should, you know, be able to have sovereignty over its critical infrastructure. If you don't, you don't really have democracy because you're in a country you don't want to see it wouldn't have a country, because yeah you know, as a democratic public, you elect representatives who then are going to execute the expression as a will of that public.
Speaker 3:But if they can't actually do that, if they don't have the levers because some other country has the levers, yeah, then you don't have a, then you don't have a country anymore. So fine, I get now setting aside whether I support the US being a country and given everything around the world, okay, yeah, okay, fine, that makes sense from a kind of basic level. But, as Michael is saying, what else does this allow the government to do and do we trust the government to stay within the lines? So, for instance, is telegram next Telegram founded by a Russian who now has I think he fled Russian 2014. I think he now has dual French and Emirati citizenship. So the Emiratis are currently our friends, or the French right, so neither would qualify under the bill.
Speaker 3:But he is Russian, it's got a Russian name. Well, he is about to.
Speaker 5:IPO his company, and so that means it would be publicly traded, which means it actually wouldn't be subject to this.
Speaker 3:But that's kind of what it gets.
Speaker 5:So if Tic Tacos public, then it's, then it's well okay. Well, okay, that's up to bite dance. You know bite dance? Hey, if you're, you are welcome to actually publicly trade here on the New York Stock Exchange and bring your company into full Compliance with US law. Guess what? They will never do that because they're controlled again and owned by the Chinese, and I don't even care about that. You, you, you run your country the way you want. I'm not saying we should democratize China or whatever. I don't care what the Chinese want to do in their own country. My point is only that, if you look at this from basic, basic level, and even with the bill I completely understand look, I came out of, for example, restrict act. Do you remember that one? The restrict act, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 5:The Tic-Tac ban. It would have given broad authority of the US government to basically designate the president solely to Unilaterally declare any application as a threat to US national security. Absolutely no way. However, I have read this bill. It's only 12 pages long and I've asked my team. We're gonna put a link to the bill in the description. I want everybody to go and read it for them.
Speaker 3:Well, pages tiny because they only use that's right third of the page.
Speaker 5:It's really not big like it's not like triple space, only you know what, maybe a thousand words.
Speaker 5:My monologues are longer than the stand bill. It's not hard to understand. Friend of mine, brendan Carr, he's an FCC commissioner. He put together kind of a rebuttal to some of these arguments. Let's put this up there. I'm gonna read from some of them. He says, quote if you are an individual user, this bill confer zero authority. I think that's very important because you're not going after tick-tock users specifically.
Speaker 5:Second, this bill applies only to applications controlled by one of four foreign adversary governments previously codified into law by Congress China, iran, north Korea or Russia. The bill is clear that it is not enough to simply wave Operations there or to do business there. It must be controlled by one of those four governments. I want to really spend a long time on this because this is where I think Michael gets it completely wrong. One of four foreign adversary governments, adds, again Codified into law by Congress. The bill does not say so. For example, if president Biden wanted to, let's make up a country, zimbabwe. If president Biden wanted to just say Zimbabwe is now a threat to national security, it would require Congress to actually codify into law that Zimbabwe is now a foreign adversary, foreign adversary control government. Now Do I trust Congress 100%?
Speaker 4:No.
Speaker 5:I don't trust Congress. Do I trust the president, trump Biden? Are them? Absolutely not. My point, though, is that it is not Unilateral in the way that the restrict act was, and it would require, at least theoretically, democratic agreement to confer foreign adversary status. This is where I've seen a lot of people who are like well, rumble and Twitter are next.
Speaker 5:It's like hey guys, no, they're not. First of all, rumble is a publicly traded company. You can go and look who owns their shares or not. I actually looked it up right before we went. Guess what. It's not 20% controlled, which is the threshold for foreign ownership. That's number one. Number two Saudi Arabia, for example, owns I forget some small stake in Eons Twitter. Well, first, saudi Arabia is on Atlas. Second, even if they were, it's not up to 20%. And my other take here would be well, any, any company that I think is even remotely important.
Speaker 5:I don't really think the 20% ownership should be had by a foreign government period. I'm kind of radical on that, but you can argue with me if you would like. I'm just coming back to the fact that, look, I understand the concerns about overreach and I understand people are like oh, patriot Act 2.0, patriot Act was what? 350 pages? This is not the Patriot Act. It's not. It's not even remotely the same. There are a lot of things in here which have a lot more owners control.
Speaker 5:He also, brendan, points out it is only after a public process and Congress has been reported to and then Codify this new thing.
Speaker 5:Could even this specific national security threat then come in and then, finally, every single one of these hoops must be Cleared and met.
Speaker 5:More so, what everybody is ignoring and if you will see too, if you were happy to read in the bill is that any company that is subject to any of this legislation Enforcement then has a 180 day period to actually Challenge this, and he have their day in court by dance tiktok and others Fully would be able to bring a challenge in the US district court of appeals in the district of Columbia, and then, if they want to, they could pick it up to the Supreme Court and they can rule on the Constitutionality of this legislation. But having read it and all that, I don't think it violates the Constitution from a basic trade reciprocal perspective. And you know, given the fact that you have access to the US court system, you have a pretty owner's process. And when's the last time China Congress agreed on anything other than Ukraine, on what is the foreign adversary or whatever there's? Look, I would just, I would just use to at least admit this.
Speaker 3:It's not the Patriot Act. Oh, it's definitely.
Speaker 5:You can oppose this and say, and at least admit it is not patriotic.
Speaker 3:No, it's definitely not the Patriot Act 2.0.
Speaker 3:I think one thing that annoys me about how this is unfolded is doesn't really undermine your point, but but I think it's an important context is that US Allowed this to happen by empowering our kind of tech oligarchs.
Speaker 3:Yes, and then the Obama administration, then Trump, allowing all sorts of mergers and then allowing this like catch-and-kill, where you know, anytime there was a decent app that was about to take off, facebook or Google or somebody else would like buy it up and then just kill it so that our like crappy little Apps can.
Speaker 3:Social media companies continued to be the only ones thinking that you, the world, had no alternative, no way to challenge them, because they would just come in and beat them. But then TikTok comes along and does something that people like more, and it caught our protected industry, protected by our kind of monopoly, anti-failure to enforce, anti-trust policy, caught them sleeping and at the same time, we were working hand in glove with these tech companies spying on Americans, spying on everybody around the world, and allowing them to just hoover up everybody's data so that we can have a little backdoor to it. And so it's a failure to take any responsibility for doing your own industrial policy for guiding your own kind of social media policy, for protecting the civil liberties of your own population, and so when they then come crying about TikTok, it just lands on deaf ears.
Speaker 5:I get that and you know what my response would be. You know what? Luckily for you and me, we live in a democratic country and we can vote Lena Khan is on the spot? Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 5:We you know our government. We elected Joe Biden. He appointed Lena Khan. She is currently sticking it to big business and to these tech companies. I would also say Joe Biden has actually had a significant number of executive orders that have impact on data transfer to China and all of that. So look, I mean for me a lot of this comes back to it's just like then you don't believe in the government at all.
Speaker 7:And if you don't believe it, it's like but then just be libertarian Like I don't know what to say.
Speaker 5:You know, then Ben Shapiro would come out against an income tax.
Speaker 3:Like.
Speaker 5:I believe in the government.
Speaker 3:I believe in the.
Speaker 5:American.
Speaker 5:I believe in the concept of government, not the current government. I believe in the American people. I believe that representative democracy on a long enough timeline eventually does deliver roughly what some people want. It's not always easy and it's not nearly as what actionable as it should be, and I would like to return to that. That said, it's not China and like. When I look at this, it is very obvious that a forced sale again, not a ban a forced sale is the most elegant option. You force them to sell it. They get to get all these tick talkers and all these content creators. I don't want them to lose it. Listen, I don't like to talk. I don't use tick talk, but it's a free country. You want to rock your brain in 75. Is it 75 minutes a day on social media, be it Twitter, tick talk or everybody else? That's your business. You can do what you want.
Speaker 3:I'm saying they're not going to sell it, do you believe?
Speaker 5:them. I don't believe them.
Speaker 3:Well, okay, we'll put it in two ways To explain to people that the bill forces a sale within 180 days, by bite dance, by bite dance to the American or I guess they could go public too. And if they don't do that, then it is banned. And so the head of tick talk is saying we're not going to sell it, it will be banned.
Speaker 5:I think it's a negotiating position, because what they want to do is they want to get all these tick talkers to come out and lobby against Congress which, by the way, is actually master of the backfire, and hilarious enough. But I mean, at the end of the day, it's really up to bite dance. Are you going to say no to, I mean, the sale price of tick talk? It's probably going to be nearly a trillion bucks. It's going to be $800, $900 billion. There's already multiple US investors that have lined up.
Speaker 5:And let me head that off too, because Crystal brought this up. She's like well, sam Altman and Open AI said they're going to buy it. I'm like, yeah, I wouldn't agree with that and luckily for me, I live in the United States of America, where our core system can block that we want to yeah exactly Regulators have a say over who gets to buy it or not.
Speaker 5:Unfortunately, the real thing that could happen is this could become a geopolitical football. And don't forget because bite dance doesn't get to run its own business the CEO, zhang Zhiming even if he does want to sell it to you know whoever somebody here in America, some investor conglomerate or something like that he would still have to get sign off from Chinese regulators. So I don't think it's actually a matter of whether Zhang Zhiming or the bite dance wants to sell it. This is all in the Xi Jinping's court, whether it's really up to him. I mean, just yesterday the Chinese Ministry of Affairs came out and said it is unfair and goes against the principles of market fairness. And this is what drives me nuts. I'm telling you OK, name one US tech company that gets to do business in China. One, just one. The only one that comes in remotely close is Tesla, and there's a lot of problems with Yuan's relationship right now with that. So any final thoughts before we move on.
Speaker 3:I just also find it wild that the American politicians basically blame TikTok for young people being against genocide in Gaza.
Speaker 4:I think it's a fair story.
Speaker 3:That seems to be the thing that really pushed them over the top.
Speaker 5:I think you were right. I met as a fair concern and if I were you, I would bring up the exact same thing. What is the impetus, the action of why? I unfortunately do think that Israel and all that did play a significant thing, and if it was a ban, I think I would speak out against it at this point because I don't think that that's right.
Speaker 3:But given the fact that it does get banned, well, I mean, that's the thing. Let's say that we were bluffing in some ways. Yeah, let's say they call our bluff and actually just not like take it down.
Speaker 5:I think it would be unfortunate, but I think that the principle of reciprocal trade is too important. I would also say I blame Trump A huge part of this. He should have finished the job in 2019. People can go roll the tape.
Speaker 3:I've been talking about this for the past two thousand and seventy. I appreciate you believing in the idea of government.
Speaker 5:Yeah, I mean this is just. It's just this government. I do believe that the government can and has worked in the past. It relatively recently it's really totally gone off the rails. You know since what? The post-911 security state, but you know we've been through very dark periods. That doesn't mean that we can't reclaim it. I believe very much in democracy and the American government.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I think that's a good thing.
Speaker 5:And that's why we are very lucky, I think, to be living in a country where we actually get to vote, as opposed to a literal dictatorship which is completely controlled by this company.
Speaker 3:And if this brought about genuine self-government and actually represent a government.
Speaker 5:Hey, let's put it about it this way, and I would say this is what I would say to Crystal too she's like well, young people will rise up.
Speaker 9:Good.
Speaker 5:Okay If people are pissed off, and that's the other thing. Look, this is my opinion, this is my voice. If enough young people or whomever to talk to users, because not just young people get pissed off about this you are welcome to have a campaign and to vote and to extract a promise from the, from your legislature and from Joe Biden or Donald Trump, whoever would be the next president, and you can use luckily, you know again your voice to overturn this. You be my guest, I would fight against it, but I believe very much in their ability to try and campaign against it. So that kind of brings it kind of to the core principles, I think, that are in the debate. I, you know, even though my I think my opinion is strong, like I wanted to make sure you got your voice in and also to voice Thomas Massie's opinion.
Speaker 5:Michael Tracy, I highly recommend the. I mean, I have great respect for those two individuals. So you know I'm not going to tarnish them or anything. I think they have a legitimate point of view and we'll see what happens. And what would that Franklin say? We have made a sticky algorithmic app. If you can keep it, I like it. I like it. I like it a lot In terms of the future. I don't know where this is going to go from what I have heard. I'm curious what you think. It, at the very least, is going to take a while in the Senate, if it ever does pass.
Speaker 5:I'm dubious that it passes at all. Personally, just because you got Democrats who control the chamber, do they really want to be on the? You know? Let's say the app does get banned they really want to, you know, get screwed by something like that. I don't think they want to take that risk.
Speaker 3:There's not enough weed you could legalize to earn back the numbers that you're going to lose from panning TikTok.