538 Debate Club: Should TikTok Be Banned?
56:52 Share

This episode is brought to you by Shopify. Forget the frustration of picking commerce platforms when you switch your business to Shopify, the global commerce platform that supercharges your selling wherever you sell. With Shopify, you'll harness the same intuitive features, trusted apps, and powerful analytics used by the world's leading brands. Sign up today for your $1 per month trial period at shopify.com slash tech, all lowercase. That's shopify.com slash tech.

Clearly Gen Z uses it the most, but there are a lot of people who are hooked on TikTok. Like that grandmother who like talked about planning her funeral. What? She's in her 90s. She's like, I'm going to the cemetery to pick out a plot today. Like, blah, blah, blah. Like, should I get buried next to my ex-husband? I have a new boyfriend and I'm kind of into him. That's crazy. It's Gen Z like nihilism laundered through a 90-year-old. Exactly.

Hello and welcome to the FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast. I'm Galen Druk, and welcome to the Great TikTok Debate. Yes, there was a simpler time when TikTok debate meant asking whether it's a good idea to brush your teeth with a bottle of Jack Daniels, but I'm afraid those days are over. Last week, the House passed a bill that, if enacted, would force the Chinese company ByteDance to divest from its American operation of the social media app TikTok.

If ByteDance doesn't find a buyer under this bill within six months, app stores and service providers would be barred from hosting the app in the U.S. until it divests. Some have described this as a de facto ban. And while TikTok is the only app named in the bill, it could apply to similar apps owned by foreign adversaries.

The stated concern is twofold, that China could use the app to collect information on Americans and meddle with the information we are consuming. The bill passed the House overwhelmingly, 352 to 65, after a classified briefing from the Department of Justice. The DOJ similarly briefed the Senate on Wednesday this week, and it's not clear whether the bill will pass the Senate, but if it does, President Biden has said he will sign it.

Both parties have become increasingly skeptical of big tech and social media and have gotten more concerned about China and the threats it might pose to national security. But does this justify a possible de facto TikTok ban? After all, 150 million Americans use the app. A lot of them love it. Young people in particular use it to do things like follow the news, express themselves, and learn the answer to the timeless question of who the f*** does it?

did I marry? Banning TikTok would mean changing the way millions of Americans engage with the world.

So to tease out the different arguments and nuances at play, we are bringing back today a segment that we haven't done in a little while, and it's debate club. So I have assigned each of my colleagues joining today a position to argue. Think of this as like high school debate. Their positions don't necessarily match up with their personal views, but they will do their best to represent those arguments nonetheless.

So let me introduce today's debaters. First up is senior elections analyst Jeffrey Skelly. He will be arguing in favor of the House bill currently under consideration. Welcome, Jeff. Hey, Galen. Thanks for having me. Good to have you. Next up is FiveThirtyPolitics podcast intern and current senior at Spelman College, Jayla Everett. She will be arguing in favor of the status quo or potentially privacy laws that apply to all social media. Welcome, Jayla. Thanks.

Thank you. Happy to be here. Happy to have you. Good to have at least one TikTok user on the podcast today. And lastly is senior elections analyst Nathaniel Rakich. He will be arguing in favor of banning all social media, Chinese owned or otherwise. Welcome, Nathaniel. Hello, Galen. And I'd like to thank Hofstra University for hosting this debate. Thank you.

It's going to be a good, clean fun. You play the part very well. Emanuel, how do you feel about being cast as our Luddite of the podcast today? I feel great about it, Galen. Social media is destroying American society. We need to put a stop to it. And I'm confident that this podcast is the perfect place to launch that campaign.

I like your transatlantic affectation that you've put on just for this. It suits the debate format very well. I wasn't aware I was doing that.

All right, so here's how this is going to work. You are each going to give your opening statements, laying out the best arguments for your position. Then we're going to do a cross-examination of sorts. I'll lob questions your way, and so will your colleagues. Then we're going to do closing arguments. And after that, we will debrief, maybe even declare a winner.

Jeffrey, with the position in favor of the House bill currently being considered, that could arguably be called a de facto ban on TikTok, but at the very least is a required divestiture. Take it away. Yes, I'm here to argue for the House bill. Look, a fundamental concern is that China can manipulate American users. The Communications Act of 1934 stipulates

Limited foreign investors to at most a 25% share of control in American media broadcasters. We didn't want foreign companies controlling what is broadcast to millions of Americans. Well, today, millions of Americans watch TikTok videos every day, a Chinese-owned company. And ByteDance, that company, is from China, which is part of a short list of countries that the U.S. government has formally designated as foreign adversaries, a technical term, foreign adversaries.

That list is China, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Russia, and Nicolas Maduro's government in Venezuela. So short list and not a very good one. Additionally, China could access Americans' personal data using TikTok. Sensitive user data like location information or IP addresses could be vulnerable.

China has a set of national security laws that force Chinese companies to help with intelligence gathering if asked. Do we want to take a chance that China's government will do something like that down the line if it hasn't already? We banned the sale and import of communication equipment from Chinese companies for similar security concerns, most notably from Huawei. Moreover, we should prioritize free expression in digital forums, and it's not like China has a strong record on free speech.

TikTok has reportedly censored some videos that the Chinese government deems sensitive, and American brands have found themselves self-censoring to avoid offending China. Not to mention there's research that suggests TikTok is not good for the mental health of young people who are just having their brains warped by watching hours and hours of this, and it's making them unwell. So I think there's a pretty good case for banning TikTok.

All right, okay, coming strong out of the gates. So Jayla, perhaps a tough act to follow, but we are going to hear from you why the status quo is the virtuous position. Take it away.

Starting off with a bit of a mock trial opening, but nevertheless, ladies and gentlemen, today... Okay, here we go. Snaps. I like it. Ladies and gentlemen, today I stand before you to advocate for the retention of one of the most popular apps within our digital landscape, TikTok.

Capturing the attention and engagement of millions worldwide, TikTok has become a crucial platform for many. According to recent Pew Research reports, 33% of U.S. adults are active users on TikTok. However, when you consider that in 2021, only 21% of adults use the app, you understand that in a few short years, the user base has experienced exponential growth.

Well, yes, as Galen noted, this popularity is in part due to younger demographics. This growth can not only be attributed to them, as adults of various age groups and income levels are embracing TikTok as a means of entertainment, expression, and even news consumption. You see, TikTok has evolved beyond this platform for sharing short videos. It's become a dynamic space catering to diverse audiences from teenagers to professionals.

Not to mention the app's impact on the U.S. economy is undeniable, as a recent Oxford economics report estimated that TikTok contributed $24 billion to the U.S. economy in 2023 alone. From small businesses leveraging the platform for marketing to creators publishing educational content, TikTok serves as a sort of economic engine driving growth and innovation.

The potential sale of TikTok raises complex challenges, including concerns about national security and privacy. And while it is imperative to address those concerns, it is crucial to recognize that as of now, there is no concrete evidence of ongoing threats to national security through TikTok.

Nevertheless, when we consider the impact the app is having on society, instead of a ban, I propose that U.S. lawmakers consider different questions, like how can we ensure that TikTok operates transparently, disclosing its data collection practices, and ensuring user privacy? How can regulators work collaboratively with tech companies to establish clear guidelines and enforce accountability?

TikTok is not a perfect app. And concerns regarding how the app protects the privacy of Americans are valid and must be addressed. When we look at how Americans feel, AP North polling reveals that only 31% of U.S. adults support such a ban.

Bringing the polling in. Jayla. Okay, sorry, go ahead. While a significant majority either oppose it or remain neutral. For daily users, opposition to a ban soars to 73%, highlighting the platform's deep-rooted connection with its loyal community. In conclusion, the case for retaining TikTok is compelling. As a catalyst for creativity, community, and economic vitality, TikTok enriches our lives in a myriad of ways.

Banning the app could have far-reaching consequences jeopardizing jobs, economic growth, and educational initiatives that are supported by the platform. All right, Jayla, another strong argument making the economic argument. And, you know, if we listen to political tropes, it's all about the economy, stupid. So, going to be a difficult act to follow. Nathaniel Arlete, take it away. Four times.

That is how many times in the 30 minutes that I spent preparing for this argument that I was distracted by my phone or by social media. Social media is destroying this country's productivity. And in addition,

All of the points that Jeffrey made about TikTok and its security, its data security, absolutely hold true. And they hold true for all the apps. You know, Google may not be as bad as the government of China with our data, but can they really be trusted? They don't have Americans' best interests in mind. Facebook, Meta, all these places, they want to get people to keep using their products. They want to make a buck off of you and off of your data.

In addition, particularly for children, social media is a scourge upon society. Eight and a half hours a day, that is how much time the average teenager spends staring at a screen. Five and a half hours for a tween. According to the CDC, 57% of female high school students experienced persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness during the past year. That is a quote.

That's up from 36% just a decade ago. Similarly, the CDC found that in 2021, 30% of female high school students had contemplated suicide seriously. That's up from 19%. Now, you may say,

Correlation isn't causation. Well, guess what? According to research studies, they have found correlations, actual causation between social media use over three hours a day and twice the risk of negative mental health outcomes, including depression and anxiety. In addition, social media is making our students stupider.

According to the Program for International Student Assessment, test scores have been falling for years. And this is from before the pandemic, so it isn't related to pandemics and lockdowns. Science scores peaked in 2009 and reading scores peaked in 2012. In addition, the study found that students who spent less than one hour of time on digital devices at school scored 50 points higher in math than students who were spending five hours a day or more on screens.

This is, generally speaking, really holding our children, who are our future, back from developing their emotional and intelligence well-being. Intelligence well-being, that's definitely a thing. So, in conclusion, social media should be banned for everyone, but particularly for children. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.

Nathaniel, okay, more snaps. As you heard from Nathaniel, no less than our future is at stake. From his perspective, for Jayla, no less than our economy is at stake. And for Jeffrey, no less than our national security is at stake. You guys really came to play today and you clearly understand how politics work.

So we're going to start with Jeffrey for cross-examination. I think one of the arguments you hear the most against this de facto ban of TikTok or forced divestiture of TikTok is that it singles out one business in a way that is un-American and it

It focuses on too narrow of a problem. And some have even accused this avenue as being xenophobic or racist, that by focusing on China instead of hard evidence of wrongdoing by TikTok, it's trumping up fears that don't have basis, at least in current evidence, while overlooking some broader problems. What do you say to that?

Well, I believe the way the legislation is written, this could have an impact on how other apps are also behaving and how other media companies. So while I know TikTok is very much the focus of all this, it has the potential to have longer term effects on how we interact with people.

apps that are owned by companies that are not from the United States or majority owned. In that sense, I think this is just maybe the first big case of this. It could apply elsewhere in the future too. I don't think it has to be just about TikTok. If we take action like this now regarding TikTok, we can do that in the future with other apps that we have these sorts of concerns about.

Regarding the xenophobia argument, I think it's important again to reiterate we actually list China as a foreign adversary on an official list, a very short list of countries that we view as a foreign adversary. It's not to me so much about the anti-Chinese sentiment as just concern about our national security, the potential influence that the Chinese government could have over China.

TikTok's sending data to the Chinese government, the potential influence they could have. We're in an election year. The potential influence that TikTok could have over people if the Chinese government or Chinese interests were to influence what people were seeing is an important thing to keep in mind here. I understand the concerns, like the xenophobia concerns, but I think it's primarily a national security issue. And so I think that that kind of outweighs those other concerns.

So I think one of the arguments that the pro-TikTok ban folks make is that this is manipulating our youth's minds from a potentially Chinese perspective, that the algorithms work in such a way that folks have even made the argument that the algorithm in the United States promotes things like depression and suicide and all

all kinds of like mental health and other issues that are sort of toxic to the minds of children, while the algorithm in China is promoting things like education and nationalism and things like that. So there is this concern that China can use it not just to collect data on Americans, but then to manipulate the minds of our youth. But if that is the concern,

why aren't we concerned about the ways that other algorithms can manipulate the minds of our youth and the body politic, frankly? I mean, haven't we been through this before where foreign adversaries can use the existing social media apps to influence debate or even potentially spark protests or what have you? So why focus just on a Chinese-owned app when really...

Maybe Nathaniel's position of banning all of these kinds of social media will get at the underlying problem of Americans' minds being manipulated by social media algorithms. Hear, hear. To be clear, I think there are certainly concerns about any sort of algorithmic social media platform. All the other ones you mentioned are owned by American companies, with my particular focus on national security as maybe like the top line concern here.

I think we're just in a position to take quicker action regarding TikTok than we are for a bigger conversation about social media. This is not to say that we should ban all social media. I don't necessarily agree with Nathaniel's position on that, but I do think that

One big swing versus maybe a smaller step that is perhaps more feasible right now. So from like the national security concern and to your point, like the potential warping of young Americans' minds, I'm not going to necessarily make the case that that's absolutely what's been happening. But I think that there is genuine concern about that. And again, there's a reason why with traditional broadcast media, we don't let foreign companies have that kind of power. Right.

and controlling those companies. And it's for a very good reason. So, you know, with TikTok being viewed by so many people, that, you know, gets back to the national security concern.

To saying that it would be akin to banning all sort of broadcasts as opposed to just banning, say, Russia from owning one of the broadcast companies. Yeah. You know, during the Cold War, we wouldn't have let the Soviet Union, like, set up a TV company in the United States. Like, you know, I'm not to, like, really simplify it, but it just seems like –

Kind of an obvious thing, right? With TikTok being viewed by millions and millions of people, I think it's akin to that in some ways.

So, Jeffrey, it sounds to me, though, like you're making two different arguments. You're saying that the TikTok ban is something we can do now that's like quick and easy and like it's a step. But then you also said that you're not necessarily in favor of banning all social media. So so like, which is it right? Like if it's that the TikTok ban is something we can do quickly as part of this larger problem, then it sounds like you agree with me, which I have no problem with. Yes, TikTok ban is step one. But then you seem to contradict that.

I was just saying that I do think that there are larger concerns about algorithmic-based social media platforms. But I think from my preeminent concern here, which is national security, dealing with TikTok is sort of like a more pressing matter from a national security standpoint. Oh.

But why does it have to be a ban? I think that the European Union put in effect different digital rules regarding how to make major social media platforms regulate what people see and also have to adhere to privacy regulations. And that still ensures this free speech idea. And it also applies to apps like TikTok and also Facebook, which, as you mentioned, American-owned company, and Google.

So why couldn't it be that they the U.S. Congress was implementing a national policy like this? Why does it have to go to straight banning TikTok? In theory, it is not does not have to be an absolute ban. ByteDance could sell TikTok in the legislation. They're given six months to do that. Obviously, it is putting pressure on them to sell. And there is a good chance that it will, in the end, functionally prove to be a ban. But again, I think this, again, is getting back to like the national security aspect of this.

China is a foreign adversary. Do we care about Taiwan? Do we want to limit the influence of a country that is at odds with much of what we hold dear? I don't know, Jeffrey. I feel like you are underestimating the risk that other social media companies pose, both kind of domestically and national security-wise.

The government of China, like they are opposed to U.S. interests. But I do think U.S.-based oligarchs like, you know, Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, you know, they have a lot of power through these apps. And if they wanted to influence an election and put a finger on the scale through the use of their platform and through the

kind of moderation decisions that they have and also all the data they have access to, they could absolutely do that. And that is just a dangerous amount of power to put in the hands of one person. And in addition, if you just want to limit it to the national security side of things, it's still a concern, right? I mean, we've seen in the past, you know, actors like Russia and China, like, you know, try to, you know, kind of have influence on

kind of in a more covert way, not in a way that's sanctioned by these companies, but go on Facebook and create accounts that spread misinformation and try to disrupt elections in that way. So I think this is a real clear and present danger to America. I can't argue against that. It's literally your job to argue against it. Well, again, this gets back to...

The House just passed this legislation overwhelmingly in a bipartisan way that we never see, right? Like very rarely see on something that is, I would say, this salient of an issue. Issues that get a lot of attention tend to be the ones that are very divisive. But here we are, and the House overwhelmingly passes this, including right after Trump's

Some of them had gotten sort of a secret briefing, I think, for the Justice Department that had information that they have not made available yet for public consumption that convinced a lot of people that, yeah, it's probably the right move. Like what Nathaniel is saying makes sense. And there are, again, real concerns about algorithmic social media platforms. But in terms of just what we can find consensus on to do right now that will address a very real national security concern regarding China, this is –

clearly moving and can be moved. Like we can do this. Right. I agree. I agree. We should do this and then we should do more things. And it sounds like you agree with that position.

Okay, so Jeffrey making the national security and political expediency argument. Let's move on to Jayla's cross-examination, which is in favor of the status quo and perhaps regulations that would apply to any and all social media apps. Jayla, how would you respond to what you've heard so far and how it does or doesn't back up your position?

Well, give me a second. So I think it all backs up my position, but not this position. I think that in general, while we're having this conversation about the regulations and the privacy concerns that all of these are valid fears to have, but at the same time, there are things that could be addressed by U.S. lawmakers. As I've said earlier in my opening statement, it's really figuring out having TikTok

collaborate with U.S. lawmakers so that tech companies are establishing those clear guidelines of how to enforce and have accountability regarding U.S. citizens' privacy concerns. I think that when it comes to talking about how TikTok is rotting children's brains, like everything is rotting a child's brain nowadays. And so you can't pinpoint one app being the problem on that.

You could say it's a TV show watching Nickelodeon, whatever it is. I think it's more so how we teach kids how to interact with social media in a healthy way. Because for some, TikTok has really been a way to access different communities, hear different viewpoints, and be exposed to lifestyles that we otherwise wouldn't really know much about in a very personal way that the algorithm allows us to have.

But at the same time, again, we have to consider how they might see content about being depressed or having issues with mental health and maybe resonate with that or maybe that will hurt them. But that's more so implementing regulations regarding like monitoring the TikTok company itself for how to regulate that content and also what appears for children who are under 18 and over 18 and things like that. So I don't think, again, that the problem... My physician doesn't think that the problem...

is something that TikTok is a problem and it needs to be banned completely. It's more so figuring out how to make TikTok a platform that at first glance is automatically protecting users' privacy, as well as continuing to limit its misinformation that you're seeing on the app and also helping users engage with the content in a healthy manner. So Jayla, what is a healthy way for a child to interact with a cigarette?

Okay, this is crazy. That's a crazy question. Okay, I know it's hyperbole, but some will make the argument that social media has become the new smoking. And I know that these arguments have become a little trite, like sitting is the new smoking or whatever. But some people will argue that there is simply no way to interact in a healthy way with people.

this kind of like TikTok in particular, maybe social media broadly, because it is so addictive. And one of the points that folks make is that TikTok or otherwise is specifically designed to play on

a human need or desire, which is social interaction. And so that's why you get these quick bursts of dopamine or like happiness from having those interactions, from seeing a funny video, from getting somebody to like your post or your tweet or whatever it may be, but that it doesn't actually satiate the human desire for

interconnectedness, belonging, community. And as a result, it's almost like a slot machine and it creates a feedback loop where the more time you spend, the more lonely you feel because you haven't actually gotten that information. But at the same time, it's giving you quick hits of dopamine. Similar, you could say, to gambling or even, as I suggested earlier, smoking. So

How do you go about ensuring that people don't fall down the rabbit hole or develop these sort of feedback patterns that create lasting bad habits?

I think it comes down to your lifestyle choices and the way that you balance social media and just living your actual life. It's obviously an unhealthy thing to go to social media to only feel community in that way, to continue scrolling mindlessly, doom scrolling is what it's called, and not get anything from it, but feel fulfilled in that way.

I think that part of that starts with like establishing that relationship is maybe setting time limits on the app. I know that like on iPhones, you can say I'm only designating 15 minutes to TikTok a day. That's something where it can be like a fun outlet and you can go to it to see different things, maybe hear about a new heated blanket that everyone's raving about and continue on and keep on with your day. I think that's the healthiest way to approach it.

It's not the company's job to make sure that people know how to interact with that app, if that makes sense. It's something that's on the individual. And for parents, it's something that you have to teach your kids how to

balance because now, I mean, like growing up for me, at least I only, it was only going outside and playing with friends, but now it's iPad. The kids have iPads at age three and they're looking at apps like YouTube. So what's the problem with looking at YouTube? You know, there's, there's always going to be an argument for what an unhealthy relationship you can have with an app is it's figuring out how to not have that problem anymore and figure out what works best for you.

I think the problem with that, though, Jayla, is that parents can't be trusted to do that, right? A lot of parents are not responsible enough to keep social media or those devices out of their kids' hands or how to teach them how to do it responsibly. And so I think that, unfortunately, you do need a light touch of government intervention, such as a total ban on social media. Yeah.

I think to put it another way to what Nathaniel's saying is that even if parents are trying to do this, and many are, it is highly difficult because TikTok is very addictive. Okay, so should we ban Doritos and cake too? Doritos are literally, we know, designed to be addictive. Like it's supposed to create this feeling in your brain of like,

instantaneous satiation, but you're not actually full, so you need to keep eating them in the same way, in the same way that TikTok and other social media apps work. And so if Americans can't be trusted to interact with anything that's dangerous, then where are we left? You can't have anything. You can't have

You can't have cake. You can't have big gulps. And we all know how that went down in one of the most liberal cities in America. It was a big political loser. And so if the position is that these can be used in a way that's deleterious to Americans, then frankly, can Americans even be trusted with big rocks or stones? Yeah.

I mean, I think, Galen, show us the studies that say that Doritos are causing lower test scores and depression in teenagers and stuff like that. Like, if those are the case for big rocks. Obesity causes depression? Sure, okay. But, like, are Doritos specifically to blame for that? Like, Doritos, like, if you show me a study that says that, like, Doritos directly lead to obesity and depression, then sure, absolutely, then I would agree with you.

But I think that I don't actually have data on this, so I'll be happy to be corrected. But I think that most people would assume that the health effects of social media are more deleterious than the health effects of Doritos.

I mean, the companies claim it themselves. Bet you can't eat just one. A literal suggestion of addiction. The addictive, yeah. And kind of like training something to be addictive like that is always kind of potentially problematic behavior. But I think there's also the additional hurdle of is it causing a significant amount of harm? If something were theoretically, if there were some substance that was completely safe and pleasant and had no negative health effects, but it was addictive, that would be fine, right? Yeah.

You see the difference? I do. I feel like we're getting into the territory of a cross-examination of Nathaniel. I want to make sure we give Jayla a fair shake here. Is there any other... Well, you're going to get your opportunity to make closing arguments, but do you want to weigh in here at all before we move on to Nathaniel's cross-examination? We can move on. You guys got me. All right. I have a couple questions. No, I have a couple questions for Jayla. I'm not going to let some of this stuff go unchallenged. So first of all, Jayla, you cited some polls. Ooh.

According to the APNORC poll, only 31% of adults say they would favor a nationwide ban on TikTok, but only 35% are opposed and 31% aren't sure. So that's hardly a consensus. And I believe you mentioned another poll that had a slightly higher share of people opposed, to which I would just ask, do you think that majority should rule for everything? That just what most Americans think should always be the law?

So to reference the polls that I did cite, I never cited another poll outside of the AP North polling. The poll I did cite was saying that there's 33% active users on TikTok of Americans. So just starting there. Okay.

And then in terms of the poll, I wasn't saying that it should represent what Americans think should be set as precedent. I was just pointing out a mere fact that a lot of Americans don't have a stance on this issue, which I think is a good signifier of how we should approach it. I think that there should be that leaves this kind of like gray area in terms of what should happen instead of regulations, if not.

If people are neutral, then they don't feel either way towards what's the middle ground of not banning it and keeping it the same. It's figuring out how to regulate this in a proper manner. Americans understand nuance, Nathaniel, so why don't you? Good question. All right. All right. Nathaniel, it's time for your cross-examination. So I think the biggest argument we've already discussed a little bit, which is that if you

You're going to outright ban anything that has a deleterious impact on Americans. You can't just begin and end with social media. You have to ban all kinds of things. And we've already established as a society that we value individual freedom over the possibility for Americans to behave in self-harming ways.

Even cigarettes, which literally have no benefits to them, at least as far as I know, other than like, you know, socializing outside the club. You feel good from a little, you know, little nicotine boost. I mean, that's, you know, TikTok.

I was going to say, you know, you know what, you know what? A little nicotine boost. That's the, that's the people who are doing like learn whatever on Tik TOK and are like teaching is that small little bit. That's like the positive and otherwise what is an extremely negative app. Anyway, I think actually maybe nicotine does enhance brain function. Um, but, uh,

Allegedly, allegedly. I'm not sure. 530 Politics podcast host Galen Druk. But you can get nicotine in other ways besides smoking, like gum. But okay, not that I'm now arguing my own position.

We have agreed as a society that we are not just going to ban all activities that present possible self-harm. No, no, we haven't. Yeah, we have. And it's literally in our constitution. It is borne out every time. Social media is in our constitution. Okay, this is a ridiculous argument you're making. It is borne out every time we have an argument. Even like I mentioned, big gulps in New York City, we couldn't ban them because

It's capitalism. If people want to sell a product and people want to buy it, so be it. Go for it. That's irrelevant.

What you're saying, what the position should be, not what America has, quote unquote, decided. First of all, I don't buy that framing at all because I think that cigarettes are an excellent example. It's pretty hard to be a smoker in America today because it is getting really regulated. Like there are a lot of places that you can't smoke anymore that you used to be able to smoke. But those are ultimately all regulations. We have agreed that it's fine to try to shape behaviors.

No, but I'm saying you're making the argument that America has decided that it is a decided thing that America has decided that we are going to be like, you know, pro freedom of expression and freedom of, you know, like usage over over like

protecting people from self-harm. And I don't think, like, I think that it's demonstrably not true. And that is still an open question. Second of all, you're making a slippery slope argument, which is literally a logical fallacy. Oh, if you ban one thing, then you're gonna have to ban everything else that is addictive or causes harm. That's just not true. Like there are different degrees of things and people can make decisions based on like different science about Doritos versus rocks versus cigarettes versus TikTok or all social media. So like your arguments are not valid.

You know, we used to have cocaine and Coca-Cola and use lead paint, and we don't do that anymore because we realized they were harmful, and so we regulated them. Yes, but not that we've banned all soda or that we've banned all paint, right? So we target the things that are most destructive within those products. Like TikTok. TikTok.

but you're not being cross-examined right now. We target the things that are most destructive within those products and regulate that, which is to say we can regulate the algorithms. We can regulate just TikTok if that is uniquely a threat

to national security. We can do hard things, Nathaniel. We can understand nuance. We can ban people under the age of 18 from smoking while allowing adults to make their own choices. So in suggesting that we ban all social media, you are basically infantilizing the American public. You're restricting their rights beyond what is necessary in order to prevent self-harm and the national security.

And ultimately, you are making an un-American argument. Wow, that's another ad hominem attack. And that's just not an effective strategy. Look, I agree that the priority here is to ban social media for children. I think it's a lot harder to make the argument that you're infantilizing children because literally some of them are infants. Yeah.

Like, the future, the youth of America needs to be protected. They, in many cases, you know, obviously depending on their age and, you know, maybe in their specific personalities, can't be trusted to make decisions that are ultimately going to be healthy for them. And they don't have those full, that kind of the full autonomy that adults have. In terms of adults, look, again, show me the data. If there is a way...

to take away all of the negative impacts on adults and children of social media without fully banning it.

Sure, that sounds great. Sign me up. But we just don't have the data that is going to back that up. And there are, I think, many aspects of social media that are still distracting the presence of phones in schools. And even like texting, that is distracting. You know, that has been shown to distract children. There was a study that found students who were on their phone take fewer notes and retain less information in class than

Students who text in class tend to do worse on tests. These are bigger issues that aren't going to be solved through just fixing the algorithm. So it looks like we're losing our phones as well in Nathaniel's authoritarian America. Yeah, in Nathanielstan, there will be no phones ever. No, that's not true. But they will certainly be more regulated, certainly not allowed in schools. And yeah, okay. All right, let's move on to closing arguments.

Today's podcast is brought to you by Shopify. Ready to make the smartest choice for your business? Say hello to Shopify, the global commerce platform that makes selling a breeze.

So

Did you know Shopify powers 10% of all e-commerce in the U.S. and supports global brands like Allbirds, Rothy's, and Brooklinen? Join millions of successful entrepreneurs across 175 countries, backed by Shopify's extensive support and help resources.

Because businesses that grow, grow with Shopify. Start your success story today. Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at shopify.com slash 538. That's the numbers, not the letters. Shopify.com slash 538.

Today's podcast is brought to you by GiveWell. You're a details person. You want to understand how things really work. So when you're giving to charity, you should look at GiveWell, an independent resource for rigorous, transparent research about great giving opportunities whose website will leave even the most detail-oriented reader busy.

GiveWell has now spent over 17 years researching charitable organizations and only directs funding to a few of the highest impact opportunities they've found. Over 100,000 donors have used GiveWell to donate more than $2 billion. Rigorous evidence suggests that these donations will save over 200,000 lives

and improve the lives of millions more. GiveWell wants as many donors as possible to make informed decisions about high-impact giving. You can find all their research and recommendations on their site for free, and you can make tax-deductible donations to their recommended funds or charities, and GiveWell doesn't take a cut.

Go to GiveWell.org to find out more or make a donation. Select podcast and enter 538 politics at checkout to make sure they know you heard about them from us. Again, that's GiveWell.org to donate or find out more. Jeffrey, you are going to close things out for us first. So go ahead. You know, as I think I've laid out pretty clearly,

TikTok is fundamentally a national security concern. We don't let foreign companies own majority, not even close to majority stakes in our traditional communications and media broadcasters. And TikTok is a huge broadcaster in effect. Therefore, we should probably do the same with it. You've got millions of Americans watching it every day, and it's a company that

It comes from China, which is on a short list of what our government has formally designated as foreign adversaries.

So along with that concern, you have personal data concern and the fact that the Chinese government could order TikTok as it is a company under Chinese ownership to give information, intelligence information because of the way that national security laws are written in China. As an example of that, the Justice Department has investigated a case of TikTok employees seeking out user information.

As a part of trying to find out who is passing information to journalists about the company. Well, if TikTok's employees are capable of doing that, what's to stop the Chinese government from doing the same, right? I think just fundamentally, it is different from American social media companies because of this national security concern. And I think as we were talking about lead paint earlier or cocaine and Coca-Cola, like we don't need to ban all of them. And there is a bigger discussion we had about algorithmic social media in general.

But we don't allow lead paint anymore, right? I view TikTok as lead paint. It's poisoning the country and potentially could poison the country in an election year and provide a potential weakness in our national security. So I think banning TikTok makes a lot of sense. All right, Jayla. As we come to the culmination of this debate, I think it's important to reflect on the broader implications of the issues at hand.

While concerns about TikTok's potential for misuse by the Chinese government and privacy breaches are important concerns, they are not unique to this platform. They are systematic challenges that affect users across various social media platforms like Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube as well. And while the idea that TikTok could be exploited by foreign app

to influence American elections is a grave concern. Again, we must acknowledge that those similar threats exist on other platforms as well, which is why US lawmakers need a comprehensive approach to protecting users' privacy and safeguarding our democracy. These privacy concerns cannot be ignored, but they extend far beyond TikTok. The collection and misuse of user data are rampant across platforms. Therefore, addressing these concerns requires a strategy that includes all social media platforms rather than just singling out TikTok.

While TikTok as an app must be regulated, 7 million American businesses sell their products through TikTok. And the app's initiatives, like Learn on TikTok, have partnered with 800 public figures, publishers, educational institutions, and subject matter experts to bring educational material to the app. And that

for many, this app has exposed them to different viewpoints and ideas in an innovative way. Not to mention the social media app has given voices to people in communities that are typically ignored in a 24-7 media cycle. I think in light of these realities, banning TikTok would not

eliminate these underlying risks, but would merely displace them onto other platforms. And so instead of planning TikTok, lawmakers must focus on implementing regulations that protect users on the app. And by doing so, we can uphold democratic values, safeguard individual liberties, and foster a safer and more inclusive environment for all. J-Love for president. Okay. All right. Nathaniel, close us out.

Well, look, I think all you have to do is listen to my colleagues' own words on this issue. Jeffrey acknowledged that TikTok and social media in general are bad for national security. They are bad for American youths. And I think Jayla quite rightly points out that these concerns are not unique to TikTok. They apply to all their social media companies as well. And that is why, folks, we need to ban TikTok.

all social media, to look out for our children and to build a more just and equitable society for all. This isn't going to be easy, to Galen's point. This is something that we've never tried to do in America before, but I believe we are up to the challenge. I believe that we can do it because, folks, the work goes on, the hope endures, and the dream shall never die. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ted Kennedy.

Okay. All right. Great job, everyone. I am so impressed with everyone's performance today. We're all winners. You're all winners in my eyes. Except maybe TikTok. Except maybe TikTok.

Okay, now that that little shtick is over, I do want to ask about the political implications of all of this. Because Biden has said that he would sign a TikTok ban. Trump has said that he doesn't support a TikTok ban. Even though when he was president, he tried to ban TikTok with an executive action. He now says he doesn't support a TikTok ban because it would empower other folks like Mark Zuckerberg at Meta, etc. And...

I think folks perceive that to be a play for maybe getting more of the youth vote in the 2024 election. I'm not sure exactly what the rationale behind that is. Obviously, members of the House are also concerned for their own electoral well-being, and they overwhelmingly voted to ban it. So what is the politics of a TikTok ban? I just don't think it's very important.

Politically. That I think is the – if you have that much bipartisan agreement on it, it suggests to me that there was perhaps more concern about not passing a ban politically than a potential damage from it or at least the damage from it politically –

would be minimal enough that it would not be worth – like the larger concerns about TikTok outweighed any potential electoral risk. And since electoral risk is so often the driving force behind many vote choices in Congress, that I think is telling. I don't think the election is going to be decided by TikTok. And I don't think that young voters, even if they are the people who are most likely to use TikTok –

are going to be making their voting decision based almost solely on TikTok. Like, that just seems very unlikely to me. J.L., I mean, what's your perception of that question, being more in touch with the TikTok user base than at least me?

I think Jeffrey made a really good point. I think that while TikTok can be used by different political campaigns to like engage their audiences and hear more about their platforms and understand what the candidates believe and don't believe, I don't think that it's going to be the end all be all in who someone votes for. And that's why I do think that the move is very political. And I think that it will affect a lot of people, specifically influencers who do have more of a pull, I guess, on how people will vote and

what they'll do and how they interact with the election, whether it's just reporting

telling them to register to vote or not. But at the same time, I don't think it's the end for everything. Because again, there's so many other platforms. There's Instagram, there's YouTube, you can go to other places to see those same creators and hear the same things talked about. But do you get the sense that there could almost be a retaliation vote where young people are like, you banned my favorite app, I was literally spending hours a day on it. And

I blame, you know, obviously this is a bipartisan thing if it happens, but Biden would be the person who signs it. So like I blame Biden. So I, you know, I already had my suspicions about him and now I really don't like him. Have you heard that argument or get any sense that that could be a real sentiment?

I think it could be a real sentiment from anyone, but I've not seen that on the app. The most I've seen be talked about is people wanting to know who's going to buy it so that they can invest in that company. That's the most conversation I've seen about it. I don't think that people are going to take it as like now Biden definitely doesn't have my vote. Maybe will it factor into maybe they already I think that if they use it as a reason, it's probably because they already weren't going to vote for Biden in the first place.

There we go. There we go. You have formally been inducted into the FiveThirtyEight worldview. Hell yeah. Post facto explanations for something that is much more complicated in terms of why you voted for who you did. Yeah, I mean, I tend to agree. I just think it's a question that we just don't have much data on because it's just such a new thing and it's already hard to measure to JLo's point. Like,

why people vote the way they do and, you know, how much they're actually motivated by an issue versus just kind of partisanship or vibes. So, like, I'm a little hesitant to make a proclamation one way or the other. Like, I was somewhat hesitant

interested to see how many people were calling into members of Congress's offices to oppose the ban. I think that is a non-trivial level of political engagement to take the time to do that. That made me think that maybe this could be something that actually is important to, admittedly, a pretty small

slice of the population, but it could be high salience for them. That said, I think like, yeah, like particularly for young people, like I think so many of the people who are calling and who are TikTok users just aren't eligible to vote because they're under age 18. And even those who are eligible to vote, you know, who might be in college or something like that,

This is already obviously a demographic that doesn't turn out in very high numbers anyway. And you would expect that somebody like a 21-year-old who is voting is probably somebody who is more kind of up on the issues in general and would be less likely to be a single-issue TikTok voter. So I tend to agree that it's not really going to matter, but I would like to see more data and more kind of study into the question.

Yeah, I think it was notable when it comes to the politics of all of this that it's roughly a third, a third, a third in terms of feelings about the forced divestiture, which is support, oppose, and don't know. That's quite a large portion of Americans who don't know, which is indicative of a couple things. It doesn't fit neatly into our partisan politics, so people can't just take one partisan cue from a politician from their party and be like, okay, I support or oppose this.

And in fact, sort of Trump opposing the ban, which is being argued as a way to counter China, is also frustrating people's feelings because for people who in part support Donald Trump because of his positions on China, well, then which position do you take? I do think, though, that as we hear more people take a position on it,

those views will be like that undecided, the I don't know, don't have a position number will shrink. I have a feeling given the quotes that I have seen so far that it will move more towards in the direction of being pro-ban. I mean, whatever happened in those closed doors moments

meeting, that closed-door session, convinced the committee to move the bill forward 50 to zero. So a unanimous feeling. That was in the House. Yesterday, the Senate got the same classified information. And let me just read a quote from Senator Blumenthal.

on this. He says, "I will say very emphatically the American people need and deserve to hear what we've just been told because they would be deeply frightened. The American people should be told everything we heard. There's absolutely no reason to keep it secret. There are no sources or methods that may be endangered. It's analysis by our people about what the Chinese communists are doing. They know what they're doing. We don't need to keep secret from them what they know they are doing right now. Only the American people don't know and they deserve to hear."

If we do learn more, which it sounds like people in power want us to learn more, I feel like, if anything, the pro-ban position might be further hardened. And in fact, we had somebody on this very podcast evolve their position over the course of this exercise. When we were, to pull back the curtain a little bit, when we were brainstorming doing this

Jayla, you were like, yeah, I'm pro TikTok. You use TikTok, whatever. So maybe out of ease or whatever, we just assigned you the pro TikTok position. But in the course of doing your research, you changed your mind. Yeah, I think that it's easier to just sit when you use an app, I think so mindlessly, which I have been using TikTok basically since I've been using TikTok since when it was musically before. So like for a long time. And I think that I've kind of gotten

mindless about what the app was. I mean, I think sometimes it would occur to me like, that's so weird that this for you page is so specific to my life and it understands this about me and I'm seeing this content. Then it'd be like, well, it's good content. So like move on. But I think in doing this research and seeing again, just like the data of just like how it's affecting different teens, especially like young kids under the age of

18, seeing how it is a national security threat and how much stuff regarding the app and how it's functioning is undisclosed to American government. It's really concerning. And it makes me think again about not only like my use of the app, but how

it's affecting others. And yeah, I don't know. It kind of left me in a weird spot regarding how I'm going to use it going forward. Yeah, wait. Have you been convinced to get off TikTok? I think I have. Whoa! I think I have. Whoa. Okay. Breaking news. It's kind of crazy. It's interesting. Jayla, my experience with TikTok is that when it blew up during the pandemic, I downloaded it and used it before bed one night, maybe starting at 11. And

The next time I looked, I mean, Taylor's oldest, you've heard this from plenty of other people. The next time I looked at the time, it was like 1.30 in the morning. And I was like, holy shit.

And I, you know, I'm in no way a wasp, but I have some sort of like American learned puritanical instincts that are like, this is too pleasant. This is like too enjoyable. Self-deprivation instinct like kicks in. I cannot have this. I deleted it from my phone and I haven't had it since. It is addictive. It is. Boy. When I first had it, I like was using it. I think...

During pandemic time, I was definitely using the app for like four hours a day, which is so bad. And when I brought up the TikTok limits, it's because I had to use it for myself. And so now I have it on for I only can use 15 minutes a day because it was so bad before that. It's so easy to get sucked into it and just like doom scroll and just look at it and not think anything of it. When it's like, go outside, get some sunshine on your face. Touch grass. Touch grass. Who won? Oh, boy.

I think in terms of quality of argumentation, I think you all won. Okay. All right, Caitlin. Everyone can't get a prize. Coward's way out. Just the millennial here giving everyone a prize. Listeners, it's up to you. You can tweet, email, whatever, TikTok. Send us your thoughts in terms of who won. Use it while you can.

Yeah, I mean, in terms of the, like, who's right on the merits, I'm not here to tell people what to think about social media. We have talked on this podcast in the past, though, about some of the damaging effects, like the epidemic of loneliness and all kinds of things that, like, no matter what, it's not a one

one-to-one replacement for the good things in life, like family, community, school, church, whatever. And so, like, if you want to use it, use it, but don't let it replace the real, like, solid things in life. That's my position in the end. All right, folks, thank you so much, Jayla, Jeff, and Nathaniel for doing this today. Thanks, Galen. Thank you. Thank you, Galen. It was fun.

My name is Galen Druk. Tony Chow is in the control room. Our producers are Shane McKeon and Cameron Chertavian. And Jayla Everett, of course, is our intern. You can get in touch by emailing us at podcasts at 538.com. You can also, of course, tweet at us with questions or comments. If you're a fan of the show, leave us a rating or review in the Apple Podcast Store or tell someone about us. Thanks for listening, and we will see you soon.