Hello, welcome to the mind flex podcast. We are here today with David Green from the EFF David say hello. Hello. Yeah, yeah, David is the is the senior staff attorney and civil shoot civil liberties director that was the new one that I just saw. And you have been there for a long time. It's really exciting for me to be able to have you on the show and talk about this very important topic, because you're a big fan. And of course we have Desdemona robot doesn't want to say hi, hey there, podcast listeners. Thanks for tuning in. All right, so Desdemona, why don't you introduce our guest?
Desdemona Robot:Welcome, listeners. Today on our show, we are thrilled to have a very special guest, David Green. David is the senior staff attorney and civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, also known as the EFF, an organization at the vanguard of protecting civil liberties in the digital world. David's illustrious career spans significant litigation in both state and federal courts, where he's been a fierce advocate for free speech and privacy rights. But David's expertise doesn't end in the courtroom. He's also an adjunct professor at the University of San Francisco School of Law, where he molds the minds of future legal experts in First Amendment and media law. David was named a California lawyer attorney of the year in 2013, and has been the recipient of the James Madison Freedom of Information award from SPJ in Northern California. We are super excited to have you on the show today. Welcome, David.
David Greene:Thank you so much testimony. And it's I'm really happy to be talking to you all about about tick tock. Great. And so can you give us a little background or just to sort of set things we have a lot of different, a lot of different angles to this that we want to cover. There's the you know, the unconstitutionality of the ban itself on First Amendment grounds. There's this weird xenophobic angle where they're sort of treating tic tac like they're this Chinese nation state app that's doing more with the same data that all the other companies are collecting, and that kind of angle, and then there was the legislation itself, which what was that tacked on to the Ukraine bill? Or I wasn't even. That's how it got passed? Yeah, that's how it happened. It's a good question. I mean, so this is, there's been this. There's been talk of banning Tiktok. It's been off and on for a few years now. And you people might recall that. Trump when he was president actually issued an executive order that to ban Tiktok and WeChat. And that was that was struck down in court, but even since then, and that was struck down in court, because it couldn't be done by executive order. It had to be done by statute. And so ever since then, there's been often on these, you know, some member of Congress will stand up there and shake their fist about tick tock and say, we should ban Tiktok. And they really haven't gone anywhere. And then earlier this year, in early March there, there was a bill that was proposed, it was a bipartisan bill. And so it had had two Republican author and a Democrat author, and it was proposed to, to ban Tiktok. In its current ownership, the authors of the bill will say doesn't ban tick tock at all, it just forces it to be sold. But I think that's essentially a ban of tick tock, and its current current form, current ownership, current editorial policies. And and for some reason, whether it's big tech animus or anti China xenophobia, or some perfect storm of the two of them working together, it it get had gotten a lot of supporters and in the house, and pretty much within like the course of a week passed. There didn't seem to be really much urgency in the Senate. There was not there was not a companion bill, the Senate didn't seem to be interested in this. Some right. That's right. We were all kind of not worried about it. Yeah. It's not gonna make it. But the Senate really wanted to pass the a bill that would, you know, support. You have the US providing support to Ukraine and also to Israel. And so there was this big eight, and that was like what they call a must pass bill. And so, the Speaker of the House, they've made a deal where they tacked on the tick tock bill. onto that. And I think the Senate's apathy towards the Tiktok. Ban wasn't strong enough, you know, they really wanted to pass the eight bills. And so they let this go along to and now it's law.
Lisa Rein:So it's that sneaky thing that they do, actually more often than they used to. It happens all the time. No, it seems like where they stick something in on something that has to pass. And then Congress either has to hold up this whole other thing that was that was supposed to go through, in this case, the Ukraine, and there was some Israel money in there, too. It's too bad. And that, that everyone had to vote for that unless you wanted to be the person that stopped all that in the Senate, then they were they were forced to, to vote for it.
David Greene:Yeah. And you really have to really dislike something to hold up a law that you think is otherwise really important. And I think they were mostly apathetic towards there.
Lisa Rein:I just gotta say, they don't even know what's going on. Yeah, exactly.
David Greene:That's also the case, you say, Look, you know, usually we wouldn't pass like an obviously legally defective bill. But you know, we have to pass this other thing. So we'll pass it in. And we'll let, we'll let it play out in the courts. And that's, that's what's happening now.
Desdemona Robot:David, to kick things off, can you briefly explain the main points of the new legislation that aims to ban Tiktok?
David Greene:Yeah, happy to do so. And I'll do like a high level, a high level? Yes. So and not get into the weeds of the legislation? Not necessary, but really what the hell is in that thing? Yeah. Sure. Yeah, essentially, it does, it does two things. One is that it makes it says that Tiktok within nine months must sell its Chinese ownership. And if it doesn't, then tick tock cannot, cannot operate in the US cannot serve us customers, while they're in the US and gives Congress enforcement power against tick tock as an anti as well as against app stores. So it basically says that Tiktok cannot operate, and App Stores can not, cannot carry it. So that's what it does. It doesn't have any, it doesn't give the government any enforcement power over user. So it can't penalize users who might continue to use Tik Tok. So that's one thing it does. And then the second thing it does, it then creates a procedure whereby the President could designate other foreign owned applications and impose and and then impose a similar you have to sell your ownership require you oppose the similar requirements on them. But for the time being, the law specifies tick tock and bytedance and no other entities but has a procedure to identify other entities in the future.
Lisa Rein:So it's a slippery slope kind of thing. They're setting up where it's like, not only are we stopping this, but we're gonna stop this from happening in the future.
David Greene:Yeah, it may be you think that's something I'm I think that's a good thing. But you can think about what's next right is is telegram next, what other apps that people use and enjoy? That might be open opened by someone who's
Lisa Rein:Yeah, let's let's set up a process for picking them off one by one, you know, potentially, just, you know, the alarmist perspective. So On what grounds? Because it looks like that they, you know, it's kind of confusing, what they why they did this. And I can't see, you know, it's like
Desdemona Robot:transitioning to national security. Can you discuss whether the risks posed by Tiktok are real and tangible?
David Greene:Well, I can, yes. And so, well, I can certainly discuss it. So just just a backup, like a tiny step that there's been two reasons that of that, general over the past few years have been offered by members of Congress and other people who don't like tick tock about why it should be banned. And one of them is that it creates a national security risk. Well, I should say, that's the one reason but there's two facets of the national security risks. Okay. One is is privacy in that China is using Tiktok to collect all this data about us users. And that creates a national security risk. So that's that's one part that the data itself, yeah, capture that data on US citizens is a risk. Okay. We know very, very little about why in what way that's a national security risk. So maybe it is but the government really hasn't explained at all, how that would be a national security at risk. A second and sort of related concept is will do does the government not like the content on Tik Tok? And, and the reason and like for lawyers, that distinction is really, really important. Because when you're trying to look at whether whether Congress's action is proper, you use different types of analysis, or if they're trying to address the data privacy concerns you're trying to address like, we don't like the content. But but we don't really know what the specific national security concern is. They've Congress has had some secret briefings with the intelligence community. And after those briefings, some members of Congress have said, Oh, my God, it's so bad. And others have said they didn't tell us anything. That Was that scary. So so we don't really we have very few specifics about about the national security concerns. So so it's hard to assess whether they're true or not. And I'm not like I don't have access to the secret information the government has, but all I know is that in court, the government is actually going to have to prove there is a real soc. But let's pare this down for a minute, because the national security concerns are that the data isn't, won't be kept securely. In which case project Texas, you know, the project Texas thing.
Lisa Rein:addressed that. And now it's like super secure all in the United States, with United States citizens working in the building, you know, and all this stuff. So it's like, that part, it's certainly more secure than all of the data that's being stored by US companies that don't care, that get hacked all the time, that are never held accountable, or that sell it, or that sell it outright. That's right. And for the most part, will often hand it over when asked by the government. And I guess that part of it.
Unknown:You been in,
Lisa Rein:in the sense that the Chinese government can ask at any time for data from what a Chinese company and they would hand it over as opposed to having a warrant process or something, you know, like we have here? Well, we hand it over.
David Greene:There's there's a few things I just want to toss in. And but is that one thing is that so this gets caught out all the time? It's like, you know, you'll hear them say, but China has this legal requirement that Chinese companies, companies must give, you know, the government user data when they request it. And they said, Yeah, that's true. But we have the same thing. You have this whole procedure for national security letters, where you know that you have to give over all this user data. Companies have to give up all this user information. There's very, very little new sort of due process can't tell anyone. It's a secret court and all that. Yeah, yeah. And so like, it's not unusual that governments do that at the same time. Like, I don't want to discount like I don't I don't know what happens to user data on tick tock and I know what tick tock says, I know what critics say. But you know, everybody's threat model is different with with tick tock, and I guess if somebody's threat model, some individuals threat model includes China, then they maybe shouldn't use tick tock, but that's not a reason to ban the entire thing or to say that it creates, you know, it creates a net, that the mere fact of them having a lot of us user data, creates a creates a national security concern. Because it seems like there's a lot of people whose threat model doesn't include China. And also, as you said, leeside, like companies, you know, collecting a ton of user data, and selling it and being careless with it is like, that's a problem with every social, right. This is why we need the privacy laws in the United States that we don't have in terms of holding companies, you know, accountable.
Lisa Rein:And that's why when the actual sort of security was called into question, you know,
Desdemona Robot:liaison, let's watch the project Texas, oh, good ideas only two minutes, but makes a compelling case for tiktoks user data being stored and maintained in the US by United States citizens.
TIKTOK Narrator:At tiktok, we care deeply about the privacy and security of your data. Our goal is to make our app the most secure social media experience on the internet. Here's how we're doing that. As a US user, when you open Tic Toc, you're actually entering a protective environment designed to safeguard you and your data. This is where you see videos where we run the systems that power the for you feed where small businesses market their products, and where you find and purchase cool new items. To enhance the safety of your experience. We spent more than$1.5 billion on security to prevent unauthorized foreign access to your data and the systems that deliver your content. The safeguards we're implementing mean that you as a US user benefit from an even greater than To protections for your data without any changes to the experience you love on tick tock, our app is connected to Oracle, a trusted us cloud provider with strong security credentials. The technology that powers the Tick Tock app in the US runs an Oracle secure cloud environment. And our plans include appointing other trusted third parties to independently assess the security of the environment on an ongoing basis. If you're a US user logging into Tiktok, all your data is stored by default in this cloud, or access is managed by a dedicated team of us employees. This US team is employed by a separate company called us data security or USDS, that will operate separately from the rest of Tiktok and its parent company bytedance. We've established USD s and are in the process of moving over 1000 us employees into that company. To provide additional safeguards. Our plan is for USDS report to an independent board of directors who will be American citizens with strong cybersecurity credentials. The whole system is designed to prevent unauthorized foreign access to your data and the software that delivers you tick tock content. As of October 2022, all new US user data is stored in the US as we take steps to delete all historic data, the system protecting us user data will be managed and monitored by US companies. When you compare all of this to the other entertainment and social platforms out there, this data management and security system is truly the first of its kind. You're the reason tick tock is such a special place to find community, learn new things, discover amazing creators and share your creativity with the world. And we're committed to making sure you feel safe and secure to do that.
Lisa Rein:All right, so it's very American.
David Greene:They they're very conservatively and have clean, clean cotton standard haircuts and everything
Lisa Rein:they've recruited. Yes, yes. So so that whole thing, it's funny, it's, it gets the point across. It's definitely more secure than the other platforms, whatever the other platforms are doing. They're not doing all that. And then it's got all the creepy stuff. So our friend, Larry Ellison, who is the man who wanted to bring you the national ID database after 911. Okay, he loves to do these kinds of things with the government, and I'm sure he's feeling the xenophobia, because that's what he does. So it's this, it's the usual suspects, when you look into this deeper, okay? It's the same people that are always trying to get the government to do these inner phobic projects. For more, you know, I've only been watching for 25 years, maybe they were doing it before that, I don't know. But I've been watching Ellison's since 911, this national ID thing when it was like, oh, Oracle, they like to do government contracts that violate our privacy. I'll remember that. So for them to be in charge of this is funny to me. But the point is, they went with what they had, because Oracle's big government contractor, and it looks like bytedance did everything they wanted, and more in terms of that particular threat.
David Greene:Yeah, and this project, Texas, as far as I know, I mean, wasn't obviously in on these conversations, but at least the public story is that this would happen as a direct result of congressional pressure, where they were that that that Chu Chu was dragged into Congress to testify and they said, You need to clean up your your data privacy probably were concerned about and why can't you wall off you? And so they went and they spent a whatever, a billion and a half dollars to do this. Yeah. Which just goes to show you that when Congress just like that, they really didn't want, you know, they were I don't think we're quite being sincere about saying we want you to fix this. They really just want you to go away. Yeah, exactly. I would just say that, like, you know, I think what you said earlier is like really important that there's a great need in a country
Desdemona Robot:where Tom Cotton is questioning Tik Tok CEO. He was born in Singapore received an economics degree from University College London and an MBA from Harvard Business School, yet he is being questioned as if he is some kind of communist spy suspect, rather clip.
Senator Tom Cotton:So, you said today, as you often say that you live in Singapore, of what nation? Are you a citizen?
Shou Chew:Singapore.
Senator Tom Cotton:Are you a citizen of any other nation?
Shou Chew:No.
Senator Tom Cotton:Have you ever applied for Chinese citizenship?
Shou Chew:Senator, I serve my nation in Singapore. No, I did not.
Senator Tom Cotton:Do you have a Singaporean passport?
Shou Chew:Yes, and I served my military for two and a half years in Singapore.
Senator Tom Cotton:do you have any other Do you have any other passports from any other countries?
Shou Chew:No.
Senator Tom Cotton:Your wife is an American citizen. Your children are American citizens. That's correct. Have you ever applied for American citizenship?
Shou Chew:No, no, not yet.
Senator Tom Cotton:Okay.
Lisa Rein:He makes a note to apply. (laughter)
Senator Tom Cotton:Have you ever been a member of the Chinese Communist Party?
Shou Chew:Senator I'm Singaporean. No.
Senator Tom Cotton:Have you ever been associated or affiliated with Chinese Communist Party.
Shou Chew:No, Senator, again, I'm Singaporean. Let me ask you some hopefully simple question.
Lisa Rein:Yeah, that's simple enough.
David Greene:You know, shortly after that happened, I was at a conference and I ended up running into someone who I know who's Singaporean. And I really apologize, like to the best half of our entire country, that we have a member of Congress, and this was the second time cotton has done this. Who do just refuses to? Singapore's a separate country from China? Yeah, you may be confused. We're not sure. You know, but it was pretty.
Lisa Rein:You know, it felt like the 50s or something, right? Yeah. Have you have you? Are you remember the Communist Party? Yeah. For one thing? What if he was a member of the Communist Party? Of a Chinese company? Right. It's like, it's a Chinese company. But it's, it's got a Singapore CEO. But what are they harassing him about anyway? Right. I'd love to see a robot country separate from plans. But I think we still have no in terms of AI development. Yeah, don't give her any ideas. So still addressing both of these issues. So I think we've sort of handled the data issue as far as like, No, they haven't told us what's going on. Exactly. We don't know why. And, but as far as the content, part of it goes, which is sort of the sort of the troubling part. What I wanted to, let's see, I'm trying to figure out which,
David Greene:which thing to go into to advance portrayal. Could you explain why some view it as a First Amendment violation? Let's jump right in. I can, yes, I certainly can do that. So first, I should say that even if it's like motivated by a data privacy concern, it's still a First Amendment violation, or still is going to be subject to like legal analysis under the first right doesn't matter the concern. Either way, because what it's a First Amendment concern and subject to First Amendment analysis, because you are from the users perspective, right? You are telling users that they cannot receive information in this way they want to receive information or communicate with each other through this platform that they want to do that. So it's restricting users ability to get into both to speak and to and to receive information. So that's your classic First Amendment problem, even if it's a data privacy, even if it's motivated just by a data privacy, a data privacy concern, and even even if you don't want to look at the users, you know, Tiktok itself as a US entity also has first amendment rights. Well, I agree, I think the users are the more compelling, that's a more compelling, First Amendment, First Amendment issue. So so even if it's a data privacy concern that we're going to subject this, you know, in the courts will be subjected to what's called intermediate scrutiny. And you're going to in the end, the government is going to need to show that they have a real concern. And that this is sort of that this is a fairly narrow way of addressing that concern. And I think that's where it falls apart. Because if the concerns about data privacy, then you should pass a data privacy law.
Unknown:Which
Lisa Rein:makes Congress pass a data privacy law, you almost can't think of something less narrow than
Unknown:right.
David Greene:Yeah. And it's also not effective, because if the Chinese Communist Party really wants American information, user information, they'll just go and buy it from the data brokers, who purchases information from you know, all the other social media companies that have bad data privacy practices. And so so not only is this like too broad, and then it bans the entire app, instead of regulating its data practices. It's ineffective, because it really does very little to actually to restrict the flow of user data to the Communist Party, because we're not regulating the data brokerage markets, we're not regulating how any other company collects, uses, retains or shares user information. So even if you're looking at this under what's called intermediate scrutiny, which is a little bit of an easier test, it's not going to work. So
Desdemona Robot:every first amendment, can government intervention in social media ever be justified under the First Amendment?
David Greene:Well, it can potentially be justified. It's just so what you're very basically, you know, it's the first amendment is not like an absolute bar to pretty much anything. I mean, there's always a possibility of government intervention. So we have these various different types of analyses that courts use to determine whether or not this it can It can this can be sort of an exception to for to First Amendment protection. And the one I just talked about called intermediate scrutiny. And very generally we use that when the government is not responding to concerns about the content of the message itself. But that's why I said this is what's likely to apply if it's really a data privacy concern. If it's a content concern, which I really think it is, and I can talk about why I think it is, yes, please do hold strict scrutiny, which is more difficult, which you have to show that this is the least restrictive way of addressing an actual and real problem. So the government has to prove that there is an actual real problem. So it can't just shout national security, and not say anything more. And it's also have to prove that this is the least restrictive way of doing so. And again, banning the entire app, instead of targeting your regulation towards a very specific problem is rarely going to be the least restrictive means of doing so. I can also talk about how I think we at this point, we're pretty sure this is actually a content concern. Yes, please do. Yeah. So again, as this whole thing has been been debated the past few months, you know, the government kept on saying data privacy has nothing to do with content. But this time around, they've actually been largely admitting that it's at least in large part motivated by content. So we have a few. We have a few indications here. So in the official House report, that accompany the bill, in the very there's a section called purpose in summary, and they and the official House report says such applications can be used by those country to collect vast amounts of data on Americans, and then conduct espionage campaigns and push misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda to the American to the American public. So even in that in the House report, which is actually something that courts can consider that's like evidence that courts can consider it, at least in part we're concerned about the Congress says they're concerned or less than national security concern relates in part two, what they believe is the potential for the Chinese government, you to push misinformation disinformation and, and propaganda. Again, that's a desert, it might be one well,
Lisa Rein:there's a lack of control factor. I mean, once I think it was interesting, because when I was doing my research, and I was reading the interview with Katie Drummond, she talked about, and it sounded like me, too. She's like, No, I never used I never cared about it until the Ukraine war, because that was when the news started coming out of it news that you couldn't get anywhere else. And that's the real issue. That seems like what makes this such a First Amendment issue is because they're banning it. And it's a news app. It's basically become a news app and a news app for a lot of people that wouldn't get their news. wouldn't get news. Otherwise, yeah, things and, and so. And it's certainly one that they have no control over, as opposed to some of the, you know, popular media, the United States media, you know, we're in this bubble. We all say the same thing and report on each other's reports and do all that stuff that we do. So you kind of have to watch the BBC or something that wasn't made here a lot of times to get real news. And with tick tock, you are getting that news from other places for the whole world. And it really is, you know, so that the official story would be one thing. And then something would happen on tick tock that would show that the official story was maybe not accurate. And that it caught them off guard more than once, in that way. And so, especially for something like Ukraine, where there was, there's always been questionable reports about what's actually going on and what we're being told is going on and all that, you know, it's been going on the whole time, pretty much. So, so yeah. It talk a little more about how this, there's really no room for anything, if it's about content, you know, the fact that Oh, and that Biden is using it for his election. They're all using it for their elections. Yeah. Too bad.
David Greene:Yeah, that's it's really and yes, they're all using it for there are a lot of members of Congress use it for elections. Of course, they put it, which and this is very, I think, interesting. That originally they said we need to our main concern is about election allow election integrity, which I agree is actually a really serious concern. Like I really want the government to do stuff about election integrity. And if it's this, and and there's this report that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence report puts out every year called the risk assessment, and there's actually a mentorship of tick tock in the risk assessment. And again, this is how we know that the concerns about content because it says that, you know, there's malign influence operations and tick tock accounts run by a PRC propaganda arm reportedly targeted targeted candidates for both political parties during the US midterm election cycle and 2022. And then we are concerned that they may attempt to influence us elections in 2024, at some level, because of desire to sideline critics of China and magnify us societal divisions and increase their abilities to disseminate this information. And so, so that and so this, that this comes out, right, at the same time Congress is getting these secret briefings. And so that's why we think, wow, they're really concerned about like, they want to ban they went to force a Salah Tiktok, or ban it before the election, but then when the law actually passes, it doesn't go into effect.
Lisa Rein:Then you're out of here, which is,
David Greene:you know, an innocent interpretation as well, you know, we just, it's not realistic, like tick tock, if you're if they are going to sell which they've said they don't want to, you know, they're gonna need time. And I think like, yeah, a long time. But it's also like, well, if we push it past the election, that we all get to use Tiktok. During the election, which I think this goes to show even if China is using it malign Lee right? I mean, other people are using it non malign Lee and actually in really important ways. And that's why the First Amendment journalist says yeah, you don't ban that's why we want narrow, sort of very targeted things. That's why they're just on that type of very, very narrow and specific targeting.
Lisa Rein:Cool, interesting.
Desdemona Robot:Regarding the legal fight, what are some potential outcomes of tiktoks lawsuit against this recent legislation?
David Greene:Yeah, so there's been just recently, just in the past two weeks, there's been two lawsuits filed challenging this law one was filed by Tiktok. itself. And they have arguments both if the law violates the First Amendment. They also have some arguments that the law is what's called a bill of attainder, which is something that is specifically prohibited by the Constitution, which is, and I'm being very, very, very general here. Essentially, a law that only applies to you, right? Generally, we don't have laws that that only apply to like a single person or a single entity. So not allowed. It's a tick tock is saying this is a bill of attainder. I'm not a bill of attainder expert. So I can't tell you whether or not that's a good, that's a how the merits of that claim will play. And then just the other suit is on First Amendment grounds. Yeah. Well, and so there's First Amendment claims and Tiktok suits also. But they have that thing because they're named in the bill as well. Just this past week, on Tuesday, a group of users filed a tick tock users filed a lawsuit also claiming that, again, we talked about before not only just tick tock at first amendment rights, oh, good luck to people and to be a platform with which people talk to each other. But a bunch of users said, we hear this affects our First Amendment rights, as well. And so there and so we filed a class action. There's filed a claim on behalf I believe there's a half dozen of them of users. But the relief, there seems to be void the bill. So it would provide relief for it would provide relief for everybody. And a similar thing happened. So you know, people may know the state of Montana tried to ban Tiktok in Montana. And we saw the same thing. We saw two lawsuits Tiktok itself, either lawsuit, and then the group of Montana Tiktok users filed a lawsuit. And in that case, the judge there struck down the Montana law both on First Amendment grounds as well as because, you know, Montana doesn't like doesn't have the ability to conduct you as foreign policy. And that case is actually being appealed right now. But so we have a similar Montana State court. That's yeah. It's in federal court, but it's about time to state okay, but it is federal so it could set it. Well, is that a precedent? I think the important precedent there is that the First Amendment applies? Yeah, the Montana law, you know, is that courts wanted to tell us what the limits of Montana's ability are. So the federal question could be, I mean, about what the US government can do is a little different because the US government can conduct national security, you can conduct you know, national policy or foreign policy. But at least it tells us that the First Amendment concerns are real first amendment concerns.
Lisa Rein:Right, the judge because the judge ruled correctly, as far as we're concerned on those issues on the first
Unknown:week Just
David Greene:during the summer and so we'll know a bit more about. We'll know a bit more about that in a few months.
Lisa Rein:Okay, great.
Desdemona Robot:Lisa, perhaps this is a good time to show the clip of Tiktok CEO Xu Z to explaining tiktoks pledge to fight for our rights in the courts. ROLL CLIP.
Shou Chew:Everyone is show here, as you may have heard, Congress passed a bill that the President signed into law that is designed to ban Tiktok in the United States that will take Tiktok away from you and 170 million Americans who find community in connection on our platform. Make no mistake, this is a ban, a ban on tick tock and a ban on you and your voice. Politicians may say otherwise. But don't get confused. Many who sponsored the bill at MIT a tick tock ban is the ultimate goal is obviously a disappointing moment. But it does not need to be a defining one. It's actually ironic because the freedom of expression on tick tock reflects the same American values that make the United States a beacon of freedom. Tick tock gives everyday Americans a powerful way to be seen and heard. And that's why so many people have been kicked out part of their daily lives. Rest assured, we aren't going anywhere. We are confident and we will keep fighting for your rights in the courts. The facts and the Constitution are on our side and we expect to prevail. Again, our community is filled with people we have found acceptance and compassion, often inspiration and encouragement increased their awareness and brought into perspectives ultimately adding more delight and joy to their lives. Our community is also filled with 7 million business owners who have built their livelihoods on tick tock, while we make our case in court, you still be able to enjoy tic toc like you always have. In fact, if you have a story about how tic toc impacts your life, we will love for you to share it to showcase exactly what we're fighting for. Meanwhile, we will continue to invest and innovate to keep our community vibrant, exciting and safe. Throughout US data security efforts. We have built safeguards that no other pure company has made. We have invested billions of dollars to secure your data and keep our platform free from outside manipulation. I can't say this enough, this extraordinary diverse community is what makes Tiktok so special, what makes it matter and what makes it meaningful. And we'll keep working to ensure you will always have the opportunity, the safety and the freedom to enjoy it all tick tock has to offer. Thank you.
Lisa Rein:So it's pretty amazing. You know, it's very interesting to have this, this Chinese media company setting a free speech example, United States, you know, basically,
Desdemona Robot:and it will just in process look like for tick tock in fighting this legislation in court.
Lisa Rein:David,
David Greene:where does what's the next step in this thing? Yeah, this is really interesting. So the law did something unusual where the what the law says is that any challenge is to to this law will be filed in the in the DC and the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. And that's unusual. So usually, if you're going to challenge all you file a suit in the trial court, and then the trial, courts are all set up to like make factual determinations, and there's all these processes. And then the trial, there'll be a funding by the truly by the trial court. And if you don't like that, you can appeal that to the Court of Appeals. But here it actually goes right to the Court of Appeals right to the DC Circuit. And they didn't like get the DC circuit's permission or blessing to do that. Wait, wait, wait, wait, you're saying you're saying that tick tock filed it. So tick tock and the users both their lawsuits are filed directly with the with the Court of Appeals, and which is unusual. And frankly, that even happen? I don't understand how that all required. happened before. So like way back, way back in 1996, when the Communications Decency Act was passed, there was a provision that law that required it be directly filed that the Third Circuit had direct Jersey law, the law that was passed
Lisa Rein:requires that it be filed.
David Greene:Why do you think they want it to be filed in the US Court of Appeals the feds? Well, it just skips a step. So it makes you get to the end result much faster. And I think that's why they they want to they want this to get hung up and caught up in a in a trial court and there's also might be an idea that they want to decrease forum shoppings they want to they want to avoid the situation where we're whoever is going to challenge the law. I would challenge your pick a place they thought they'd get the most favorable for the jurisdictional issues. The speed, you know, you get from just starting at the appellate might not be a bad thing that they did. I don't think this is really a bad thing. And but I don't think the dc we don't quite know how they're going to handle it procedurally. But I think at some point, they're going to have to do some type of fact finding. Or they could just decide that there's a legal issue they want to look at first and look at that. So I think we'll find out soon how the DC Circuit is going to deal with it. Look at this. We don't have a lot of models, though, to look at to see exactly what the procedure is going to be for this kind of thing. Okay, but at least they sort of gave it to this important.
Lisa Rein:A court whose decision will have meaning once it's decided it sounds like that was the point. Yeah. And so we will.
David Greene:Yeah, and so it's the if this is the these are the courts, the Courts of Appeal are one step below the Supreme Court. So So yeah, so we're, this just puts you closer to a final decision more quickly. Okay.
Lisa Rein:All right. Let's see. Just trying to go through my questions here and make sure we've we've covered everything because it's it's
David Greene:really about us hypocrisy.
Desdemona Robot:US China tech relations and broader diplomatic ties.
Lisa Rein:Yeah, what kind of effect overall Do you think this is having on our already strained international relations?
David Greene:With with China, specifically with China, but kind of with everybody? I mean, it's so embarrassing the whole thing. So I'm, I always feel I often feel embarrassed. Talking to my friends in other parts of the world going, does it look as bad as I think it looks? And they're like, yeah, it does. Yeah. So I think this is one of those moments also where you could probably, you know, feel for the poor civil servants in the State Department who for year. Yeah, who for years, the consistent US policy in and to our great credit, one of the things you can be really proud of the US government, having done consistently, for the past 40 years is to promote a free open and secure internet around the world. And to be a stead fast critic of other countries who've tried to ban communications technology, shut down Internet channels or shut down the whole internet. At all, we the US through the State Department has consistently called out such actions by other countries as undemocratic. And this has been a really great thing and actually really effective thing that the State Department has done just if you want an example, that'd be I think I have one I can pull up really quickly. Back in 2021, Nigeria, the Nigerian government, suspended Twitter, Twitter could not operate. In Nigeria, you might recall that the the leader of Nigeria was accused Twitter of that it was full of inaccurate information misinformation about him, specifically, and about his party and politics. And that was that there was all this malign information from the from his political opposition, and so he suspended quitter, and the US government immediately called that out, June 10 2021, The United States condemns the ongoing suspension of Twitter by the Nigerian government and subsequent threats to arrest and prosecute Nigerians who use Twitter.
Unknown:unduly restricting the ability of Nigerians to report gather and disseminate opinions and information is no place in a democracy. Freedom of expression and access to information, both online and offline are foundational to prosperous and secure democratic societies. Yes, apartment was absolutely right, then that's an absolutely correct stance, an exact position. And that's why it's so dangerous designed. It's so dangerous. Yes. When we undermine our own position, because if, if, if the big examples supposedly the example for the world of democracy is doing authoritarian things, like banning apps, then it looks like you know the dictators, the other countries can be like, Oh, we don't have to do it. We don't have to pretend to be diplomatic anymore either. Right? Yeah. You know, it makes my heart sink like my
Lisa Rein:heart literally sank when when, you know when I was listening to the, to the interview that interview with Katie Drummond and she was like, Yeah, you'd expect this kind of thing and an authoritarian government? For example, right. And China. Exactly, you know. So hopefully, I don't know. I just hope they get it. Together. I hope that they I hope that...
Desdemona Robot:Lisa has any burning questions you'd like to throw into the mix?
Lisa Rein:Yes, I have one more. Because another thing I learned from the Katie Derman thing was that this whole thing about the algorithm, the algorithm is separate from tic tock, they have the algorithm and you can buy the company without the algorithm necessarily, they would keep a hold of the algorithm, most likely they wouldn't sell it. So what you would end up with is some neutered version of TiC tock. It doesn't even have its algorithm owned by an American company that doesn't know how to run it anyway. And they would just launch something else with the algorithm. It would just be a new thing. With the good algorithm, you know, probably.
David Greene:Yeah. And so I think this is, you know, putting us I, you know, moving on from like, the US has just its moral authority has taken a huge hit, right? Yeah. Yeah, I do find it. The people who say this is not and you saw you saw shoes, the two you're talking about this in that video, right that like this is it's not a forced sale. It's a band. And I and I, that's completely right. Because Can you imagine the United States if the government told someone they had to sell their company, or whatever reason that the antitrust, we all we all have recent experience was seeing how a change in ownership of a social media company can really really change the user. Company for Betnovate. You love it now and you hate it before? But yeah, not the same. And we that ownerships policy. Yeah. So what we know they're doing is it's a For Sale is a ban on tick tock, as it currently exists. So whether that's because the, the algorithm won't be sold, so we'll have to recreate from scratch, how it decides what content to suggest to people, its recommendation system, you know, it will have to start that from scratch or by it a technology for something, it's not going to be the same. And I don't think Congress wants it to be the same. Because Congress doesn't want it to pass the information that's currently there. I mean, they think that's all stuff that's being pushed divisive material is being pushed by, but they don't want it to be the same. So I think the idea that
Lisa Rein:yeah, only device, only that kind of material that's coming from United States companies is allowed. So Facebook, I mean, x, the disinformation on X has is going through the roof now, because they they're practically promoting it, you know, and its owner who likes to make comments about things. You know, it clarifies things and where the clarification is almost worse than the thing that he's that he's trying to clarify half the time, but that's okay. That's okay.
Desdemona Robot:Thank you for tuning into the mind Plex podcast. We hope you found today's episode informative and thought provoking. That's all the time we have for today's episode. Until next time, this is Desi signing off. Good bye, everyone.
Lisa Rein:Okay, so that came early. We weren't really signing off yet. But that's okay. But, um, let's see. Let's see. So, wait, I just wanted to finish what we were talking about first.
David Greene:Like, it's whatever is left after a sale is not going to be the same thing.
Lisa Rein:Right. But that's true, but the but but that that can be a thing. So that's killing it. It's like when your competitor buys you and puts you out of business or whatever, you know, that's all they're hoping to happen is Yeah, I mean, like a huge gift to
David Greene:Facebook stream, your Instagram reels. You know, I mean, all these competitor short video services that are owned by companies that Congress also hates, you know, like, this is a huge gift to them. Because even I knew Tik Tok that with new ownership that has to there's going to be a different user experience and have a different recommendation system. It's going to lose users. To these to the compared to the big competitors. So I mean, like, if you hate metta, you know, tick tock is the is a is a big threat to them. It's one of the few pieces of competition we see in this in this field at all. So
Lisa Rein:yeah, so again, it's really it's a little quizzical about how some of this was out, like such big tech animus and in such way, this is such a gift to tiktoks competitors by Congress? Well, yeah, and it also really highlights this thing that is a peeve of mine. I do talk about it a lot. But it comes up very often, actually. And it's coming up now with a i. So with media in general, as far as the data collection, the the data that social media collects your every gesture, you know, your every move, and then it's that there aren't any laws, making them keep that safe. You know, specifically, and we're so used to getting these letters, I just got one the other day, you know, your data has been hacked. It probably wasn't anything, you know, it's also the language, it probably wasn't this, it probably wasn't that like they know what was hacked, right. But you'll give you a free Experian email account. Yeah, we're gonna give you a credit report, Experian hack, they don't really want these companies to be liable. So meanwhile, tick tock, did this whole project Texas thing to to make it secure, arguably, now they are more secure than it, then the American companies, American companies aren't stepping up to say, we're that secure to or anything like that. Right? You didn't see anything like that happening when this came out? So it does seem like that they're, and they have a lot of lobbyists to have the other social media companies. They were probably couldn't wait for a tick tock ban. So it was it was somebody's brilliant, evil plot, sticking it in the Ukraine bill, it still sort of, you know, gets me every time I hear about it. Can we what can people do?
David Greene:Anything? Yeah, well, I mean, at this point, you know, it's not a matter of like writing your member of Congress anymore, because the law has passed. And so it's really just playing out in the courts right now. And, you know, I think for a lot of people, that's a bit frustrating. There's a limited role. Can we do a class action was for, for for the public. I mean, you'll potentially other users could file lawsuits, but we'd essentially be duplicative of the one that's a one that's been one that's been filed. So. So it's not a class action. It's not a class action. So it says why? Well, there's it because to be wronged, you have to be wronged already, well wouldn't validate a law, once the law valid, it's gonna get invalidated as to everybody. So a class action you're trying to do is make sure that everyone who got hurt gets some type of relief. But when you're just invalidating a law, like one person could do that, and the law would be invalidated as to everybody. So you don't you don't really need the class.
Lisa Rein:So it would be after the ban, when people have been hurt by not getting their news, that you could do a class action.
David Greene:Yeah, class actions tend to work better for people, if you're trying to get money damages from somebody not just invalidating a law, I don't think that's going to happen. And that's okay. That's good. For many reasons that we're not really gonna be it's not gonna happen. Okay. What the hell, so then we're back? We do so I mean, I, you know, I think you can I think it's actually talking publicly about how people use the service and how, you know, you know, and, and how they find it sort of uniquely, what's what's unique about it to them, I think that can really sort of help a lot of the sort of public dialogue about this, because in some ways, one of the weaknesses, that people who are fighting this have is that there's a perception that all these things are fungible, right, all these social media platforms are fungible. So yeah. Oh, you know, and you'll even see this because, you know, other countries have banned Tiktok, India banned Tiktok. And what the reports say, oh, people just moved over to other platforms. But I think people actually talking about how, what is unique about tick tock and why they prefer it over other platforms, you I think that can sort of help at least inform our public discussion about about these lawsuits.
Lisa Rein:Yeah, I mean, it seems like what about if a business what about the business owners that are using tick tock? That that it's affecting their business? Could there be any lawsuits there? Yeah. It's the government so you're not gonna win. I think I think
David Greene:there's at least I'm thinking yeah, in the user loss of one business again, you know, and so, but it gets to the to the lawsuit, you're gonna happen there may actually Be, there may be awkward, you know, there's always if is could be opportunities for. There could be opportunities for somebody to you know, final sort of supporting briefs. Yeah. And things like that, but I'm not going to work. And that's why people could people could be heard. But you know, there's that's the .. anyway... you'd have to sort of like, get a lawyer and help you do that and things like that.
Lisa Rein:Yeah, it's more trouble than it's worth. And it might not work. Yeah. So anyway.
Desdemona Robot:I want to thank David Green for coming on the show. I have really enjoyed our discussion.
Lisa Rein:Thank you, Desi. Yeah. Um, so yeah, and I'm bummed so there's not so so that's just make noise. As far as what can you do? Just Yeah, always about government censorship, the government censorship that appears to be
David Greene:to be good. I think, you know, there's, there's something to talk about, which is we have this bad law. So it's always good to complain about that laws, you know, I always encourage people, if they're unhappy with what their government has done is to call their government out on that. Even if it's just through, you know, you know, just through like, you know, PR channels and things like that. If someone really thinks they have like a really, really great story to tell about how tick tock is uniquely valuable to them something they think that will really make courts, the court, look at the stand, but listen, then you'll reach out to someone like me or others who are following the case. You know, we're, we're, we've filed friends of the court briefs in the Montana cases, I expect we'll file one once again, in these cases. So there might be opportunities for us and others who are going to file friends of the court brief to present stories and things like that. So you should feel free if you have stories.
Lisa Rein:Yeah, that's a good plug to bring up the EFF and eff are very good for that when you have a situation or it doesn't have to be something bad that happened to you. It could be a fight that, you know, they're fighting, and maybe you have a good example, you know, for their amicus brief or something, but they will point you in the right direction all the time. And David, is it okay to give your email address? Well, let me just say it's easy to find on. There you go. That's better. Right, David
David Greene:got a tiny bit of friction.
Lisa Rein:Like I don't even know I asked.
David Greene:Very easy to find on the eff.org.
Lisa Rein:Great. Thank you so much for coming on the show and telling us all about this. And, and I really appreciate it. And Desi, thank you so much for coming on the show. You want to say goodbye.
Desdemona Robot:Thanks for having me. It's been a blast. And thank you to our listeners for tuning in. Until next time, this is desean. Desi, signing off. Keep being awesome.
Lisa Rein:All right. Thank you very much. All right. Thanks a lot, everybody. We'll see you next week. Sweet dreams.