This week, the Senate of the state of Maryland passed two laws that did not play in the favor of Instagram or TikTok, despite massive pressure and lobbying from the technology companies. One law imposes extensive restrictions on how companies collect and use consumers' personal information. But the other law is more interesting: it prohibits certain social media networks, computer games and other platforms from following other people under the age of 18 or using manipulative techniques on them such as automatically playing videos, or bombarding them with notifications to increase their time of use and consumption of the network.
In doing so, Maryland joins a small group of states that have decided that they need to do something about the "epidemic of screens" in the United States, the addiction to watching videos and excessive scrolling of teenagers, but this story has two dimensions: also the impact on teenagers and children and the difficult content that often appears on TikTok, but Also the claims against the Chinese-owned company (TikTok insist on saying they are globally owned, but the headquarters of the parent company is in Beijing), that it serves as a spying tool for the communist government of China.
There were allegations against TikTok, which also reached the American Congress where the American CEO of the company testified about not filtering inappropriate or problematic content. Barak Hershkowitz, a former employee of TikTok who was interviewed about two weeks ago by the New York Times and News 12, claims that there is a real bias Within the company, on the part of employees who sympathize with the Palestinian struggle and the problem of anti-Semitism, and that Israeli campaigns were intercepted while pro-Palestinian content, including horrific videos from the October 7 attack, as well as problematic statements such as "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" were actually broadcast on the platform. Tiktok in its response to the article, denied the claims and the claim that it maintains an egalitarian policy and that the infringing content has been removed.
And we will return to the United States: beyond these problems, which also do not work in favor of the young video platform, the Americans are currently promoting a law in Congress (the law was already approved in the House of Representatives last month, and is now being debated in the Senate. Biden has already announced that if the law passes, he will sign it) with the complex name "The Act to Protect Americans from Apps Controlled by Rivals" - the law, if passed, will force ByteDance, the parent company of TikTok, to sell TikTok or the app will be banned from use entirely in the United States and removed from the app stores of Google and Apple.
The American motivation, as mentioned, is twofold - one, they fear the Chinese government's use of Tiktok to push propaganda content to citizens, and the other fear is that the surfing and viewing information of 170 million Americans, including people in sensitive positions (government employees have long been banned from using Tiktok), may fall into their hands The wrong ones in China and maybe in other places. The law is expected to face another battle in the Senate, but in the House of Representatives it passed with an overwhelming bipartisan majority: 352 representatives voted for it, and only 65 against.
double standards?
However, while in Congress they are sharpening the knives that will be held to the throat of Bait Dance, there are others in the United States who believe that the law will not only be useless, it may also harm the moral position of the United States in matters of freedom of expression, and give support to authoritarian regimes.
"The United States, particularly the State Department, has been very vocal about other countries restricting access to the Internet or social media based in the United States," Kate Rowan of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a Washington-based technology policy think tank, told NBC.
"If we move forward with this (with the law - N.L.) and ban Tiktok, it's actually a license for authoritarian regimes around the world to do the same to American platforms, and I think we'll see many countries copying us," Rowan adds.
Rowan points out that the United States has always used the open internet as a tool of soft power to promote free speech and a free market of ideas, in contrast to countries like China with the "Great Firewall", Russia with its separate internet or the "Kosher Internet" in Iran. The United States was also a founding member of a 39-nation coalition calling for the adoption of a web free from censorship or political interference. The White House further supported the statement on the "future of the Internet", in which there is an obligation to prevent blocking or interference with legal content, services and applications on the Internet in accordance with the principles of net neutrality and international human rights law," in the words of the statement.
The fear of those privacy activists is as worn as the one now promoted by the American government It would be a perfect excuse for totalitarian regimes to promote similar laws, of course in their favor on the grounds of double standards on the part of the state which is supposed to be the champion of freedom of expression and freedom on the Internet.
"This sends the message that it is acceptable. The reactions to this could encourage fragmentation on the Internet and really hinder access to information and freedom of expression across borders," also warns Wilmari Escoto, a consultant for a non-profit organization called "Access Now" that promotes global network freedom and connectivity. The other, warning voice is actually the one who was the "Cyber Ambassador" In the Obama administration, Chris Painter coordinated the policy on the matter at the State Department. He does not see the law as an attempt to violate freedom of expression, but he certainly thinks that the administration should provide more explanations.
"If the United States tries to shut down a social media network or something because they don't like what is said On top of it, certainly our moral authority will disappear. If we were to try to shut down a social media network before an election, which unfortunately many countries in certain parts of the world are doing, it would certainly warrant an outcry. We don't do that. In fact, we support the complete opposite," adds Painter.
Logic of a bandit
And of course, those who have expressed displeasure with the law are the Chinese government. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said about a month ago when the law was approved in the House of Representatives, that it is "contrary to the principles of justice and fair competition." "When someone sees a good thing that someone else has and tries to take it for himself, it is completely the logic of a robber," added the spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He Yadong, spokesman for the Chinese Ministry of Commerce, added in his own statement that "China will take all necessary measures to protect its legitimate rights and interests."
Tiktok, by the way, is also running a campaign on the platform itself in which Americans tell how the platform has given them freedom of expression. Xu Zichu, the CEO of TikTok, also said in a video he published on TikTok and the social network X (formerly Twitter) that the law will take "billions of dollars from the pockets of creators and small businesses", adding that the law will endanger more than 300,000 jobs.
The law is currently still expected Closer to the Senate and more conciliatory voices are already heard there, who propose to postpone its implementation, i.e. the sale requirement, for a year (and after the November elections), alongside the presidential candidate Donald Trump who now opposes the law (and in the past supported it), but it seems Tiktok is still swimming in turbulent waters in the land of possibilities.