TikTok’s hopeless quest to prove it’s American enough

TikTok is facing an existential identity crisis: Is it a Chinese company? If the answer is yes, that probably means it will be banned in the U.S. 

In the five-hour marathon congressional grilling of TikTok CEO Shou Chew (Zhōu Shòuzī 周受资) that concluded last Thursday, the bipartisan committee covered a wide range of issues, including the protection of minors, data privacy, content moderation, and more. A few questions were thoughtful and highlighted issues that warranted a closer look, and more became memes on TikTok and Twitter as examples of ignorance about technology and the world outside the U.S. But the unavoidable problem at the heart of everything is connected to one central issue: Is TikTok a Chinese company? 

And by that, the question was, is TikTok beholden to the Chinese Communist Party? If it is, TikTok must deal with a plethora of data privacy and national security concerns with far-reaching consequences in the U.S. 

The undeniable fact that TikTok is owned by Beijing-based ByteDance weakens TikTok’s argument from the outset. Despite Shou Chew’s assurances of TikTok’s autonomy during the hearing, the reality is that he cannot fully control or predict the actions that the Chinese government might impose on ByteDance. Furthermore, the Chinese government’s influence on domestic companies often extends beyond regulatory compliance, including appointing Party officials to company subsidiaries, closely monitoring company operations, and sometimes much more.

Though TikTok currently operates without direct interference from Beijing (as far as we know), the risk remains that the Chinese government could assert control over ByteDance, and by extension, TikTok. And Chew, as the CEO of its U.S. subsidiary TikTok, has no control over the parent company. In light of these factors, TikTok’s connection to ByteDance inherently exposes it to the potential influence and control of the Chinese government. 

To convince lawmakers that plans are underway to make TikTok truly “American,” Shou Chew talked about Project Texas — the $1.5 billion U.S. entity that will store all U.S. TikTok data and code and operate content moderation under U.S. government-approved third-party oversight. Not only will this new entity’s employees have to be either U.S. citizens or Green Card holders, but the U.S. government will also have the final say over employment decisions.

After the hearing, Chew re-created his testimony in a TikTok video, reiterating that “American data will be stored on American soil, by an American company, overseen by American personnel.” 

The new arrangement is even named after that most American of American states: Texas. Nothing screams “We’re American” quite like it. 

The new sacrificial lamb? 

TikTok’s message is loud and clear, but just as TikTok tried to appease the U.S. government, this “America-first” approach creates a host of other issues. Ahead of the congressional hearing, China’s Ministry of Commerce undercut TikTok’s plea to American lawmakers by stating that a sale or spin-off of TikTok from ByteDance is subject to Chinese law on technology exports.  Regardless of its domicile, TikTok must strike a balance to avoid upsetting China. TikTok’s fate is inextricably linked to its holding company. 

Aside from how China feels about TikTok, the more pressing question remains: Can TikTok ever truly be considered American enough? During the five-hour interrogation, Chew remarked in a moment of frustration, “I don’t think ownership is the issue here.” 

In TikTok’s defense, Chew stated that TikTok’s investments and commitments surpass those of any other U.S. social media platforms. TikTok bears the brunt of shortcomings in regulating U.S. big tech, replacing Facebook as the new sacrificial lamb, with ByteDance’s birthplace being its original sin. 

TikTok’s public relations and lobbying campaign in Washington, D.C., has actually mirrored the efforts of its American peers when it has faced government scrutiny, for example, spinning itself as an “enabler of small businesses and creativity,” as Mark Zuckerberg did during Facebook’s 2018 hearing. However, the approach did not work well during Shou Chew’s tough interrogation from the bipartisan committee, even compared with past performance from another Chinese technology firm with overseas ambitions, Alibaba. Back in 2017, Alibaba Group and its charismatic founder, Jack Ma (马云 Mǎ Yún), made headlines with their “1 million jobs” plan, which scored goodwill in the new Trump administration and in the public discourse. 

But the geopolitical landscape has fundamentally changed since then.

The rebuke levied on TikTok, regardless of the company’s ongoing efforts, suggests an unleveled regulatory playing field on which American social media platforms and TikTok are judged by different standards of their efforts. 

TikTok’s fate? 

During the hearing, lawmakers grandstanded theatrically, and attempted to reduce the complexities of the TikTok issue to a series of “yes” or “no” answers. But sensible regulation of TikTok demands a more multifaceted approach. Complex technical discussions shouldn’t be reduced to simplistic characterizations for the sake of the audience — lawmakers who have neither the competency nor the genuine interest to make social media platforms better. 

As F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote in an era before social media, “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function…one should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless yet be determined to make them otherwise.” 

However, in TikTok’s case, it cannot maintain allegiance to both Chinese and American interests simultaneously. Nothing short of divestiture will be enough to prove its loyalty to the bipartisan lawmakers, and the imminent threat of a ban is as real as it gets. F. Scott Fitzgerald might have been an optimist, but there’s very little hope left for TikTok in the best-case scenario.