Farewell TikTok? Plus, the Role of Memory and Forgetting with the L.A. Wildfires.
50:10 Share

On Friday, the Supreme Court said yes to the TikTok ban. This is essentially a case that pits free speech rights, both of TikTok and of the 170 million Americans who use it, against the government's national security concerns. From WNYC in New York, this is On the Media. I'm Michael Loewinger. On this week's show, American TikTokers are hoping for a last-minute reprieve ahead of the ban on Sunday.

But maybe they need the app more than the app needs them. When TikTok was banned in India in 2020, there were 200 million Indian users on there. Almost double the amount of Americans on there. This is not their first rodeo. Plus, a tried and true antidote to the shock of seeing Los Angeles in flames. Memory is the ability to see change. It is equipment for addressing the crises of our times.

If you are completely surprised, then essentially you have no equipment for understanding, no context. It's all coming up after this. On the Media is supported by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if you could save some cash? Progressive makes it easy to see if you could save when you bundle your home and auto policies.

Try it at Progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states.

From WNYC in New York, this is On The Media. I'm Brooke Gladstone. And I'm Michael Loewinger. Just as I sat down to record this introduction on Friday, there was breaking news. This decision is just in from the Supreme Court, the court upholding the federal law that bans TikTok in just two days. This is a big...

But earlier this week, two presidents, the outgoing one and the incoming one, released dueling promises to save the app. The Biden administration is considering ways to keep TikTok available in the U.S., even if this ban proceeds. President-elect Trump, who takes office Monday, is reportedly considering an executive order that would give TikTok's owner up to 90 more days to find a buyer. Well, that's odd.

Wasn't it Biden who signed the TikTok ban into law in April? And wasn't it Trump who first tried to boot the app back in July 2020? President Trump is moving forward with his pledge to ban the video app TikTok in an executive order issued last night. So why is Trump now presenting himself as TikTok's savior?

Maybe he thinks it's good politics. Support for the TikTok ban has dropped from 50% in spring 2023 to 32% this past summer, according to Pew. That and the app served him well during the campaign, helping him reach millions of young voters.

Or maybe it has something to do with a certain ultra-wealthy benefactor, billionaire trader Jeff Yoss, co-founder of an investment group called Susquehanna, which has a big stake in TikTok's parent company, ByteDance. For years, Yoss was a vocal never-Trumper.

Then a few things happened. Candidate Trump and Yass met and spoke at a mega donor event in the spring of last year. Shortly after that, Trump announced he had changed his mind about TikTok.

Later that month, Jeff Yoss penned an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal announcing he'd changed his mind about Trump. Mr. President, you met recently with Jeff Yoss, who's a hedge fund manager, has a stake in TikTok. He's a huge GOP donor. CNBC's Squawk Box last March. Steve Bannon has suggested that you've been paid off to switch your view. How did your view change? How did that come about? And did you have a conversation with Jeff Yoss about it?

Oh.

Ah, okay, that settles it. Look, it's okay to change your mind. Democrats have done it too. The law passed last year was intended to sever TikTok from the influence of the CCP while keeping the app available for Americans. New York Senator Chuck Schumer on Thursday. It's clear that more time is needed to find an American buyer and not disrupt the lives and livelihoods of

millions of Americans, of so many influencers who have built up a good network of followers. Meanwhile, Senator Ed Markey is pushing legislation to give TikTok's parent company more time to sell to an American company. In no way should we have TikTok go dark on Sunday.

Schumer and Markey both voted for the TikTok ban back in April, which, you might remember, was tacked on to the much-delayed $95 billion foreign aid package. The TikTok ban, aka the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, was sponsored by now-former representative Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin.

who has not changed his mind on TikTok. Here he is on Fox News in November 2023, talking about his op-ed for the free press titled, Why Do Young Americans Support Hamas? Look at TikTok. Increasingly, young Americans get their news from this app. This is controlled

by a Chinese company that is at the behest of the Chinese Communist Party. And if you don't think the Chinese Communist Party could or would weaponize that platform to spread anti-American propaganda to divide... If Gallagher has his way, then the U.S. will join several other countries that have shut out the app, a list that includes Afghanistan, India, Iran, and North Korea.

David Cole is a professor of law and public policy at Georgetown University and the former national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union. I asked him if there was evidence for the government's case that TikTok had given user data to the Chinese government or served up propaganda to Americans on the app.

The United States offers no evidence that that has ever happened. But the United States says, yeah, you know, China has done similar things outside of this country. China has stolen personal data from other sites in the United States. And so the risk is just too great, even though it's never transpired.

Yes, I believe they referenced China's hack of financial data belonging to 147 million people who had their information with a credit card reporting company.

You know, no question that China is a bad actor with respect to trying to mine our data. So in that sense, it's not speculative. But, you know, if China had the authority to do this and it was not illegal, it is, you know, notable that that never happened in the history of TikTok.

You say that the case, quote, pits the speech interests of half the country's citizens and a major U.S. media outlet against the national security concerns of Congress and the executive branch. Media outlet is an interesting way of describing TikTok. Was that part of the company's defense or is that just your characterization? That's my characterization. And look, TikTok is asserting its own First Amendment rights to media.

select and share information with its users in the way that it deems best, just as X does, just as Facebook does, just as Instagram and YouTube do. And it's a U.S. corporation like all of those.

Is that part of the media infrastructure in the United States? Absolutely. A very large percentage of Americans, and especially younger Americans, get their news from TikTok. So yeah, it's absolutely a media outlet, and it should be very disturbing to

that the United States government is coming in and saying, because we're concerned about the points of view that might be expressed on this media outlet, we get to control who owns that outlet. Yes, they're doing it only with respect to an organization that has some foreign connection,

But what would that mean about The Guardian, the British-based newspaper? What would that mean about BBC? What would that mean about Politico, which is owned by a German corporation? Could Donald Trump come in and say, you know, Politico has been really hard on my appointments and my nominations. So I'm going to demand that the German company that owns them sell it.

I think we would all recognize that that's deeply disturbing. In oral arguments before the Supreme Court last week, it seemed like the justices mostly bought the data collection argument. They were a bit more skeptical of this argument

content manipulation argument. But even for the liberal justices, it seemed like the fact that the law is aimed at getting ByteDance to sell TikTok meant that free speech wasn't necessarily an issue here. It seems to me that your stronger argument, or at least the one that most interested me, was this argument of, look, if the government is doing something specifically for the purpose of

changing the content that people see, that has to be subject to strict scrutiny. But I don't see that as affecting TikTok. What did Justice Kagan mean when she said strict scrutiny? And why is that important? The first question in this case is, is the TikTok law a content-neutral regulation of TikTok that just happens to affect speech?

Or is it directed at TikTok's content and therefore a content-based law that requires strict scrutiny? The most demanding standard of review that constitutional law recognizes. And most of the time, strict scrutiny is fatal because government has to show not only that it has a compelling interest...

but also that this law is the most narrowly tailored way to further that interest.

I want to return to the First Amendment questions in a bit, but just on the question of data collection practices. A counter argument that we've heard from critics of the ban is that American tech companies also collect this type of data and they sell it to data brokers. And then foreign adversaries, I guess China included, could buy American data collected legally in the United States illegally.

Justice Sotomayor, however, didn't seem to buy the argument that TikTok is doing what its competitors such as Google are doing. How many of these sites have...

all of the data collection mechanisms that TikTok has. From what I understand from the briefs, not only is it getting your information, it's asking, and most people give it permission, to access your contact list, whether that contact list has permitted them to or not. And there's a whole lot of

data stuff that was discussed in the brief that I don't think any other website gathers. Many apps ask whether they can get access to all of your contacts. That really wasn't what the government argued. And if our concern is with data privacy, which is surely a compelling interest.

Is shutting down TikTok the most narrowly tailored way to protect that interest? What about passing a law that says it's illegal for TikTok to share that information with China or with any other foreign country? Congress didn't even consider that option. It would allow the 170 million Americans to continue to use TikTok and would protect people's privacy.

What's the precedent for a case like this that the court might be considering?

This is essentially a case that pits free speech rights, both of TikTok and of the 170 million Americans who use it, against the government's national security concerns. We've had a lot of those over the course of our history. The McCarthy era was shot through with cases in which the court was asked, "Do the First Amendment rights of Americans to join the Communist Party, to read communist literature, to espouse communist ideas,

win out over the government's national security concern that the Communist Party is connected to the Soviet Union and an effort to overthrow the United States by force and violence. You write that initially the Supreme Court did little to slow, much less halt, this campaign of political repression. In hindsight, however, the court recognized that it had been too deferential to the government's national security assertions. How did it react?

It developed a whole host of First Amendment doctrines that are very protective of both speech and association, including, for example, you cannot punish someone for being associated with the Communist Party or any other organization unless you can show that that person joined for the specific purpose of furthering some illegal end of the group.

But they did so only after Joe McCarthy had been censored by the Senate and the tide had essentially turned against the McCarthy anti-communist campaign. Yeah, you pointed to the famous Pentagon Papers case in 1971, where the court voted 6-3 to deny the government's effort to block the publication of the Pentagon Papers, which

it wanted to do, citing claims that it posed a threat to national security. Right. So this is sort of the other side of the coin with respect to Preston. The Pentagon Papers case was very much a case pitting free speech rights on

of a media outlet and its readers against the national security assertions of the federal government. And in that case, the court said, no, you can't block the publication of the Pentagon Papers, even though the government came in and said it will undermine our national security, undermine our efforts in a war. And that decision is seen as one of the high points in the court's 200-plus-year history.

Another case that I've seen cited in this conversation came from journalist Mike Masnick, who wrote about the TikTok ban back in March for TechDirt. He referred to the 1965 Supreme Court case called Lamont v. Postmaster General, in which, quote, the government sought to restrict the delivery of communist political propaganda from outside the country.

the court struck down the restriction on First Amendment grounds, stating that it was a limitation on the unfettered exercise of the recipient's First Amendment rights. So, in other words, the court ruled that Americans had a right to access foreign propaganda? Absolutely. That's a critical case in the TikTok argument because it establishes that we, Americans, have a right to hear ideas that

even if those ideas come from a speaker that doesn't itself have First Amendment rights, a foreign government that was an adversary. Nonetheless, the court said, no, Americans have a First Amendment right to get access to those ideas.

What do you say to the argument that the free speech rights of TikTok users are not truly in jeopardy because they can just go and use another app? It's not like they can't post what they think and feel over on YouTube or Instagram, right?

Well, I think there's a reason that TikTok is as popular as it is. It does something different, evidently, from other platforms, and that's why it has so many users. So, yes, there are alternatives, but that has never been a justification for allowing the government to shut down one avenue of speech. We don't say, well, because the Washington Post exists, it would be okay for the government to shut down the New York Times.

I think what people don't necessarily fully appreciate is how dangerous the precedent would be if the Supreme Court allows this to happen. It's not just TikTok's future that is at stake. It's the future of free expression in this country and the future of the principle that the terms of our debate are to be determined by us, the people, and not by the government itself.

David, thank you very much. Thanks. David Cole is a professor in law and public policy at Georgetown University. His latest piece for the New York Review of Books is titled Free Speech for TikTok. Coming up, the so-called TikTok refugees are brushing up on their Mandarin. This is On The Media.

WNYC Studios is supported by Babbel. Are you holding back on foreign travel plans this year because you are afraid of the language gap? Well, no need to mind the gap if you have Babbel. This year, speak like a whole new you with Babbel, the language learning app that gets you talking. Babbel's quick 10-minute lessons, handcrafted by over 200 language experts, get you to begin speaking your new language in three weeks or whatever pace you choose.

And because conversing is the key to really understanding each other in new languages, Babbel is designed using practical, real-world conversations. Let's get more of you talking in a new language. Babbel is gifting our listeners 60% off subscriptions at babbel.com slash wnyc. Get up to 60% off at babbel.com slash wnyc, spelled B-A-B-B-E-L dot com slash wnyc.

babbel.com slash wnyc. Rules and restrictions may apply. On the Media is supported by Progressive Insurance. You chose to hit play on this podcast today. Smart choice. Make another smart choice with AutoQuote Explorer to compare rates from multiple car insurance companies all at once.

Try it at Progressive.com, Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Not available in all states or situations. Prices vary on how you buy. On the Media is supported by Rocket Money. The start of a new year is the perfect time to get organized, set goals, and prioritize what matters most. One common top priority for many of us is financial wellness.

Thanks to Rocket Money, financial goals can feel achievable. They show you all of your subscriptions right in one place and pull together spending across different accounts to track spending habits. Rocket Money's dashboard also gives you a clear view of your expenses across all of your accounts and can help you easily create a personalized budget with custom categories to help keep your spending on track.

Whether your goal is to pay off credit card debt, put away money for a house, or just build your savings, Rocket Money makes it easy. Rocket Money has over 5 million users and has saved users a total of $500 million in canceled subscriptions.

Cancel your unwanted subscriptions and reach your financial goals faster with Rocket Money. Just go to rocketmoney.com slash OTM today. That's rocketmoney.com slash OTM.

If it's time for you to say goodbye to your car, truck, boat, motorcycle, or RV, consider donating it to WNYC. We'll turn the proceeds from the sale of your vehicle or watercraft into the in-depth news and programming that keeps our community informed. Donating is easy, the pickup is free, and you'll get a tax deduction. Learn more at WNYC.org slash car.

This is On The Media. I'm Brooke Gladstone. And I'm Michael Loewinger. And with that, the TikTok era comes to an end.

If you've scrolled on TikTok at all this past week, you've seen the farewells to an app that, whether you love it or hate it or never downloaded it, has undeniably transformed our politics and culture. Look, I know there's a lot of bad stuff on this app, but I really am going to miss it. For years now, it's been one of the Internet's top search engines, especially for Gen Z.

In 2023, according to a study commissioned by the company, TikTok contributed $24.2 billion to the U.S. GDP. It's just an app, but it's our whole life now. I mean, we've worked seven days a week.

80 hour weeks for five years. Yeah, to build this up. A new generation of personalities found micro and mega fame on the app. And not just influencers. Authors, musicians, journalists, actors, comedy writers, small business owners. Just about every remaining gatekeeper in America was leapfrogged at one point or another by TikTok's powerful algorithm.

And yeah, like other social media sites, it was home to viral misinformation. It gobbled up our personal data on a massive scale and kept some of us glued to our screens for a probably unhealthy amount of time each day.

But many of TikTok's users this week have been mocking the government's rationales for killing it. I just have a quick message for my personal Chinese spy who's been spying on me through this app for five years. I just wanted to say, 谢谢,再见,我爱你. Accounts big and small have been frantically directing their audiences to follow them out into the social media wilderness. Hi, everybody. 大家好。

Goodbye. This is my last TikTok. Here are the following links if you wish to find me. I made a blue sky. Right here's my Instagram. I will be uploading on YouTube and I will be finally launching my podcast. So, bye TikTok. Tech journalist Ryan Broderick has been tracking the great TikToker migration and what it tells us about the future of the internet for his newsletter, Garbage Day. Ryan, welcome to On The Media.

Thank you for having me. Happy to be here. You recently wrote that, quote, Americans still don't realize what TikTok is. And when you say Americans, you mean users, the people who use TikTok, but also politicians and the Supreme Court justices. And you pointed to an exchange between Amy Coney Barrett and TikTok's legal team from last Friday as proof of this. Am I right that the algorithm is the speech here?

Yes, Your Honor. Well, I would say the algorithm is a lot of things. The algorithm has built within it. It's basically how we predict what our customers want to see. The editorial discretion. Yeah, the editorial discretion. It also has built within it the moderation elements. You know, you see these very funny exchanges where the Supreme Court is saying, what is being violated here? Where is the free speech?

Is it in the algorithm? Is it in the hashtags? Like, what is this? And to me, it just seemed so indicative of a large scale misunderstanding of not just on our end of like what TikTok is, but also TikTok sort of like refusal to admit what they are as well. You say American lawmakers think that TikTok is a social platform.

I mean, I know from spending time on TikTok that TikTok's users also think that it is a social platform. Why is it not that? There are social elements to it, of course. But TikTok is the sister app of ByteDance's other app, which is called Douyin, which can only be used inside China.

And Douyin, like most Chinese social networks, are primarily social shopping apps. They make their money from live streams with influencers hawking products, which you can then buy directly through the app.

TikTok, when it launched outside of China, was always a long play to bring social shopping to the rest of the world. And you can see this with the introduction of TikTok Shop, which happened, you know, a few years ago. All of the ways that the app surfaces content can be used for finding social content, but they were built to sell you products.

You'll hear users say the algorithm feels different than Instagram or YouTube or whatever. And that's why. It's because it's literally built for something very different.

And we in the US have never really acknowledged that or understood it or cared about that. We've kind of used it inadvertently for other things. But that's what TikTok is here for. It's a long play of trying to make Chinese style social shopping big in the West. And when you say social shopping, you're kind of referring to what is more common in China and other countries where like

everything apps where you could communicate and buy your groceries and et cetera, et cetera. That's not something Americans are that exposed to currently. Honestly, like imagine if TikTok was owned by Amazon.

That's kind of what all these apps are making a play for. You have what look like social networks that have e-commerce inside of them, but then you also have e-commerce apps that have social content inside of them. And to try to keep up, Amazon has even tried to add more social features. There's a short-form video feed inside of Amazon now. So that's the way that a lot of these Chinese apps have been evolving, which is towards you're looking at social content in between buying things. That's the idea.

I think that's an interesting distinction. I'm not sure I understand what bearing it has on the legal arguments for and against banning TikTok, nor do I see its relevance to the meaningfulness to its user base. A lot of the conversation around the ban in the U.S., particularly from lawmakers, but also in the media, is this idea that like TikTok will have to cave and they'll have to sell in the U.S. because the U.S. audience is so valuable.

And the point that I was trying to make is that it's not because we are just one step towards a global e-commerce network. Now, are we massive and are we very influential? Absolutely. But the idea that

our goofy videos are so valuable to TikTok that they would sell, to me, feels laughable. The way that Mike Gallagher, the lawmaker who sponsored the, what we call the TikTok ban, the way he puts it is, you know, China is engaged in a smokeless battlefield of the internet and that TikTok represents a form of soft power over Americans, right?

I think that ByteDance via TikTok is probably doing some version of what Meta with Facebook has done to the rest of the world. Like, I do think that at this point we can say that there are radicalizing effects of social networks or social-like networks that have political consequences. Do I believe that it is as simple as we want this political outcome so we're going to show people that content and that political outcome happens? I mean, the research doesn't back that up.

I do think the way that people experience content online and the algorithms that push it towards us do create political effects. Because TikTok is so interested in hyper-targeting your interests, no two feeds are alike, right? Like your TikTok feed and my TikTok feed never too shall meet.

And a lot of the impact of that has been on building small, weird subcultures or fandoms or communities. But you also have a lot of marginalized communities saying that on TikTok, they feel very comfortable where if they go to Instagram per se, they feel like very antagonized or attacked or whatever.

And that does have an effect on political speech. As we saw at the end of 2023, when Israel invades Palestine and the youth of America on TikTok are, you know, talking about it in this way that people are saying is, you know, anti-Semitic or whatever it is. If you look into it, it's teenagers reacting to the conflict.

in a way that didn't feel moderated by mainstream media or whatever. You know, they felt like they could just sort of have these conversations amongst themselves. So there is a political effect due to algorithmic incentives and what it's showing you. But I don't think it's as simple as, I mean, look, if the Chinese government has created a brainwashing algorithm, like they're way ahead of us. Like we might as well give up because this stuff is way more complicated than I think our lawmakers believe it to be.

But to be clear, we still don't have evidence that China is, say, flicking a switch to make American teens more pro-Palestinian than for Israel. We don't. We have evidence that TikTok has been used to spy on American journalists. We have evidence that ByteDance employees in mainland China have moderated content outside of China on the app. We do have evidence that

Chinese values politically have been sort of baked into certain decisions around hashtags. In the same way, I'm sure any country would say that American values are baked into Facebook. But I have not seen any proof that any tech company on earth knows exactly how those things will play out until they do play out.

On January 19th, on Sunday, we may see TikTok shut off the service, banned permanently, temporarily. We just, at time of recording on Thursday, January 16th, we just don't know. As many TikTok users prepare for that eventuality, as you mentioned, many are lamenting the feeling that there isn't a clear replacement.

for TikTok. Here's one viral video from a guy who goes by Etymology Nerd. TikTok is fundamentally different from Instagram or YouTube because the user interface is meant to encourage participatory discussion across broad groups of people. I post videos across all three apps and TikTok is the only one where I regularly see people responding to my videos with their videos. The other apps just don't have that infrastructure so those conversations don't happen.

There was one viral TikTok that illustrated, I think, this frustration with Instagram as well. I am really sorry to all the influencers and content creators begging us to follow them on Instagram, but me following you on Instagram is not going to help because I'm not going to be fed your content. Here's a screen recording of my current Instagram feed. Starts with an ad. Then it'll push me magazines. It pushes Vogue. A brand I don't follow. Finally, something I'm interested in. Spotify.

Sponsorship, suggested account I don't follow, finally a friend of mine.

All of which speaks to this feeling that millions, upwards of 170 million TikTok users are being set loose into an internet landscape that can't replace it. And in the wake of the Supreme Court's hearing on whether to let the U.S. ban TikTok, some users this week started migrating over to another Chinese social media app called Xiaohongshu, also known as Red Note. So

Tell me about this new app that's kind of just entered the mix. The first important thing here is that Red Note, at least right now, does not require a Chinese phone number to set up an account. That's different than, say, Weibo or WeChat, which are a little more complicated for a non-Chinese citizen to use and set up. Red Note is all in Mandarin, but the UI is pretty simple, so you can kind of wrap your head around it. But Red Note has been passed around on TikTok for...

for a while. I found a couple small black TikTok creators who were talking about it, and one of them in particular was saying that she had heard about Red Note from other black women on TikTok. So I heard about Red Note a couple of weeks ago because all the black girlies were on here talking about how cute it was over there. And it is indeed cute as shit over there. It is all in Mandarin.

I will say that though, okay? It would be closest to probably China's Instagram or China's Pinterest, but

but it has a lot of social shopping features added into it. So it's full of beauty brands doing live stream demos of their products, which you can buy inside of it. So, you know, I've compared it to like QVC. It's like aggressively monetized social network, but it has TikTok-like experiences. So

So the users there are finding it similar enough to TikTok that they can have the same kind of localized, kind of like raw, seemingly unfiltered, but kind of filtered experience that they would get on TikTok.

It's also just a massive meme and troll at this point because young Americans are so angry about the ban that they're doing anything in their power to piss off U.S. lawmakers and especially make sure that people at Meta know that their products are awful and they would never go to Instagram. They lobbied with millions and millions of dollars to get this app banned. And they want us to just hop on over there? No. No.

So it's kind of like a multi-level troll happening right now, but there is a experience that is similar between Red Note and TikTok.

And the app's name in Chinese translates to Little Red Book, which of course sounds like a reference to the famous collection of speeches by Mao Zedong. But it is not. Yeah, yeah. It's much funnier. Apparently, when you graduate Stanford University, they give you like a little red book. The guy who founded Red Note, his name is also Mao. But according to the Washington Post,

He was inspired by red, which is the color of Stanford Business School, and I guess also a color that's associated with Bain & Company, the consulting firm or something. That rules. That's so good. I didn't know that part. That's so funny.

And this was like the punchline that I kind of hit in my piece on this as well, which is that TikTok is so much more capitalistic than any social network that we have in the U.S. because it is literally trying to get you to buy a bunch of junk all day long. And because we deemed it too communist or too socialist or too nefariously tied to the Chinese government –

We have pushed people to an even more upper class capitalistics Chinese social network that is trying to sell you even more junk. I just think the irony is just is too funny there. The people calling themselves TikTok refugees who are who are going to Red Note looking for some analogous experience. How are they fitting in so far?

So a lot of it's been very cute. Hello, friends from TikTok. Welcome to Xiao Hong Shu. I'm shocked when I opened this application tonight because I can imagine that

I've seen a lot of jokes about McDonald's and how fat we are. I've seen a lot of Americans asking what different Chinese

Chinese emojis mean. I've seen a lot of Americans just being shocked that Chinese cities are beautiful. There's a lot of trading of nationalistic propaganda going on in a way that's kind of cute. And I've also just seen a lot of Chinese and American young people realizing that they have a lot in common and a lot to talk about. And I think that that's honestly really important. Now, things are...

More recently getting a little darker because China does have nationalist trolls the way we do. And they're getting a little angry about all the Americans had red note. I'm also seeing like American, like Trump supporters going in and fighting with them. I also saw this thing where Americans were teaching the Chinese users how to 3d print guns. So like, you know, like anything on the internet, it's going to spin out of control right now. We're in this moment where Chinese regulators haven't

put down any sort of ruling or, you know, any sort of decision on like what's going to happen here. But Red Note is already looking into walling off Chinese Red Note from the rest of the world and hiring U.S. moderators. But I think it's just that kind of a fun cultural curiosity right now that this is happening. But I don't think this is the rise of the next TikTok.

Do you think that the effort by American lawmakers to stem the influence of Chinese tech on the U.S. will be successful? In the short term, probably. In the long term, I'm less clear. I mean, obviously there's a political aspect to the panic about Chinese soft power, but I think that it is also revealing a deep insecurity about America's own

technological thumbprint on the world. Chinese developers have figured out new and different, very novel ways of using the internet, and people like them. People do like them. That is not like a conspiracy theory. And so I don't think passing these kind of regulations, ones that I should point out have profound implications for how the First Amendment works in America.

I don't think that is a great way to deal with this waning influence and this sort of insecurity that America has right now about its tech offerings. Ryan, thank you very much. Thank you for having me. I'll see you on Red Note.

I'm there, but I heard that for security reasons, you're not downloading it. So it's got me kind of second guessing my decision to just plop it on my phone. No, I did not download it because I did see a developer able to find a backdoor in it pretty quickly. And I don't know what that backdoor goes to or means. So I'm not going to do that. You can't find Ryan Broderick on Red Note, but you can find him through his newsletter, Garbage Day. Ryan, thanks so much. Thanks for having me.

WNYC Studios is supported by Babbel. Are you holding back on foreign travel plans this year because you're afraid of the language gap? Well, no need to mind the gap if you have Babbel.

This year, speak like a whole new you with Babbel, the language learning app that gets you talking. Babbel's quick 10-minute lessons, handcrafted by over 200 language experts, get you to begin speaking your new language in three weeks, or whatever pace you choose.

And because conversing is the key to really understanding each other in new languages, Babbel is designed using practical, real-world conversations. Let's get more of you talking in a new language. Babbel is gifting our listeners 60% off subscriptions at babbel.com slash wnyc. Get up to 60% off at babbel.com slash wnyc. Spelled B-A-B-B-E-L dot com slash wnyc.

babbel.com slash w-n-y-c. Rules and restrictions may apply.

On the Media is supported by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever find yourself playing the budgeting game? Well, with the Name Your Price tool from Progressive, you can find options that fit your budget and potentially lower your bills. Try it at Progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates. Price and coverage match limited by state law. Not available in all states.

I'm Meghna Chakrabarty, host of On Point. At a time when the world is more complex than ever, On Point's daily deep dive conversation takes the time to make the world more intelligible. From the state of democracy to how artificial intelligence is transforming the way we live and work to the wonders of the natural world. One topic each day, one rich and nuanced exploration. That's On Point from WBUR. Be sure to follow us right here in your podcast feed.

This is On The Media. I'm Michael Olinger. And I'm Brooke Gladstone. As I read this, at least 27 people have died in the L.A. fires and 12,000 structures destroyed. Heavy smoke continues to blanket the region. Further polluting the zone is a toxic haze of conspiracies and lies erupting online. This from TikTok. Someone on Facebook posted this video of what they said was a laser explosion.

starting a fire in LA. - Can someone explain to me why we have trees with green leaves on them? Streets and streets, but yet all of these homes are destroyed, disintegrated, down to literally nothing, but the trees down the entire street, totally okay.

Meanwhile, conservative media is applying MAGA's all-purpose obsession to chaos on the ground. LA's fire chief has made not filling the fire hydrants top priority, but

But diversity. In legacy media, coverage of the tragedy is marked by apolitical shock and awe and the recurrence of a single word. It's been unprecedented what we've seen. The fire is just moving through these suburbs at extremely fast rates. That is pretty unprecedented. This has been an absolutely unprecedented event for the L.A. County Fire Department.

Rebecca Solnit is the author of many books, including A Paradise Built in Hell, The Extraordinary Communities That Arise in Disaster. In a recent Guardian column, she said that as a California native, she found it shocking, of course, but not particularly surprising.

They're very precedented, a word we should maybe use more. The Paradise Fire in 2018, an entire town of 18,000 structures burned, which is a higher count of structures and a greater loss of life than we've seen in L.A. to date. L.A. itself has had fires less destructive of structures, but more destructive in terms of acres than we've seen yet. The biggest fire in California to date, which was quite recent, burned more than a million acres.

The L.A. region, particularly Malibu, is the place where fire is just an inherent part of the ecology. And so I was bothered both by people suggesting nothing like this had happened when the last catastrophic fire in Malibu had been in December.

You mentioned it was only a month ago that, I don't know, 4,000 acres burned around Malibu in just two days? Thousands were ordered to evacuate. Kurt Kahn stayed behind. All these things were swirling down, and there's just sparks and embers blowing everywhere, and you think the world's coming to an end. That reminded you of the essay that the L.A. writer Mike Davis wrote back in 1998. He said that the case for letting Malibu burn is...

is that it is inevitably going to burn. The more you suppress fire, the more the fuel load builds up, and so the fire burns hotter. And that's a problem all over California. The National Park Service, the Forest Service, etc., really were founded on East Coast and European ideas that fire was some violent, unwelcome intruder in the natural world, and we got Smokey the Bear and all kinds of other stuff. ♪

"That's a good job!" said Smokey the Bear. "Only you can prevent forest fires!"

Actually, fire is a healthy and natural part of the ecology for the most part. And you can never point to climate. It's entirely responsible, but it's definitely augmenting drought and lots of other conditions that make these fires far more intense. But when it comes to any kind of preparation, you said something that really struck me. You wrote, catastrophic fire erases what was there before. So

So does forgetting. Memory is a resource for facing the future. And that forgetting creates terrible vulnerabilities.

I actually went back and reread a piece John McPhee published in The New Yorker in 1988 about the very steep, very young LA mountains prone to catastrophic debris slides in which rain or other conditions loosen up boulders that can take out whole neighborhoods in these avalanches. And one of the things he wrote about is that developers would build in these places that were very prone to them,

The debris avalanches would wipe them out. The developers would rebuild and people who weren't there for the last one would move in. There's a kind of baseline that comes from being in a place for a long time. You learn from history about what can happen, what has happened, what will happen again. And that's why I say memory is a superpower. If you remember, you have a context, you can give it meaning, you can understand why something happens.

If you are completely surprised, not just shocked, then essentially you have no context, no equipment for understanding. What about the narratives around who is really to blame? Is forgetting feeding some of that?

There's a way people want simple comic book villains. And really, if you want to point fingers, I think the main entity to point at is the people, the institutions, the corporations that decided to prevent us from taking action on climate change issues.

and that is first and foremost the fossil fuel industry. Their names are on these fires. They've known for decades that catastrophic climate change was coming, that it would mean loss of life, loss of property, and they decided to go for it. They decided to place quarterly earnings over the fate of the earth for thousands of years to come.

And individual climate catastrophes are all related to their decision to do this and the governments and institutions that decided to deny delay and drag their feet on climate action.

People often think, oh, it's too late. There's nothing we can do. We don't know what to do. None of that is true. We just have a bunch of people stopping us from doing it, including the incoming administration. That reminds me, Chris Wright, Trump's candidate to lead the Energy Department,

says that it's ridiculous to blame anything to do with the California fires on climate change. In fact, the square footage of burned lands has declined.

There's a kind of right-wing idea of radical individualism. I think of this as being why climate change is not just inconvenient to them, but almost offensive, because the most basic principle of climate is that everything is connected to everything else. The stuff we burn puts greenhouse gases in the sky, which further insulate the earth, which heats it up, which wrecks the weather and unleashes chaos.

That connects very directly to something else crucial to Trumpism in this country and authoritarianism in general, which is that if you want absolute power and control, other systems of truth pose a threat to you, and that includes science, history, and memory. Another narrative that has popped up is that of looters descending on L.A. This is familiar to you as a student of natural disasters.

Yeah. And, you know, looting is a minor problem when people are dying and entire neighborhoods are burning down. That's clearly not the biggest problem, but it relates very well to how law enforcement sees the world and how conservatives who tend to value private property over human life tend to see the world differently.

and the media is so often a sucker for these narratives. This is the moment looters enter an evacuated home in the Palisades. They were later arrested and charged with stealing $200,000 worth of property. High alert for looters out here. The National Guard has been brought in to bolster security, and some people have gone back home to try to defend what they have left. Obviously, it does happen.

But what we actually see in disaster is that most people are altruistic, resourceful, creative, and deeply empathic. They take care of each other. They improvise rescues. Here's some tape of that very thing in California. Two of the only houses still standing on his block are homes Felipe Correa says he personally saved with his garden hose.

I caught on fire a couple of times. You caught on fire? Yes. And Altadita Man is being called a hero tonight for saving eight neighbors' homes. So then I went over to here, to George's house, my neighbor George, and the side of his house there was on fire. Then I went to Eleanor over here. Her backyard was on fire. Donation centers like this one at the Santa Anita Racetrack flooded with much-needed supplies and volunteers eager to help.

There's all kinds of supply hubs, mutual aid, people offering hauling services, water stations, community kitchens. But the most poetically perfect one, I think, is the writer Octavia Butler wrote about catastrophic Los Angeles in the year 2025.

And she is from El Tadino, where a bookstore named Octavia's Bookshelf exists. And they were so nimble and pivoted immediately to become a supply hub. They put all their books in the attic and turned all their bookshelves into essentials that people who had to evacuate or lost their homes needed.

Lots of volunteers came to help them staff it. Lots of donors came to help them supply it. And it's pretty magical that something named after Octavia Butler is actually now helping people meet what you could call Octavia Butler conditions. You found that mid-crisis community building can produce actually lasting change.

The most amazing example of that for me in a way is Dorothy Day, the social activist and religious mystic, the co-founder of Catholic Worker, who was a child in Oakland when the 1906 earthquake hit the San Francisco Bay Area. And she had this epiphany that while the disaster lasted, people loved each other. Her whole life was trying to figure out how do you create permanent circumstances that generosity and solidarity can happen together.

because these things are often fleeting. They kind of dry up as life goes back to normal. And that's what A Paradise Built in Hell is about, is the disaster is hell, but the paradise is these communities that people create in response to them. And the question I was left with at the end of the book is,

What kinds of discipline, what kinds of memory, what kinds of storytelling let us build more of that, value more of that? In fact, you wrote that every crisis is in part a storytelling crisis that we're hemmed in by stories that prevent us from seeing or believing in or acting on the possibilities for change. And you point to one that was refuted by a 2022 study in the science journal Nature,

It found that most Americans believe that only a minority support climate action when in fact a large majority does. What's the impact of that? I think the media has not done a very good job of showing how much support there is for the governmental action and the financial expenditure to address the climate crisis.

But the belief that, oh, we're a lonely minority of people feeds into the sense of powerlessness and defeatism around climate action. And so it's a destructive story that also happens to not be a true story.

You know, when I was reading one of your pieces in The Guardian from a couple of years back, you wrote about taking a group of people to Terminator 2. But there's a narrative in there, and in all Hollywood action films, it's essential, that you say should not be applied to the real world. And that's the narrative about exceptional people, heroes, doing the really important work.

Here's the tricky thing. I love Terminator 2, particularly because it gives us the message in a lot of different ways that the future is something we make in the present. In that sense, it's very empowering. The not so helpful thing, like almost every Hollywood movie, is we get a tiny minority of superheroes whose superpowers are basically the capacity to inflict and endure extreme violence.

What we see with something like the LA Fires is that the heroes are people who don't need to have really big muscles and don't need to engage in violence, who are distributing water, hauling stuff for evacuees, offering shelter, cooking food, listening deeply,

change doesn't happen overnight. I've seen extraordinary campaigns happen over 5, 10, 20 years. I saw the Keystone XL pipeline get stopped over a 10 or 12-year campaign. I've seen the climate movement grow and win thousands of victories over the course of this century. This is part of why I talk about memory as a superpower to go back where we began.

Memory is the ability to see change. The ability to see change is equipment for addressing the crises of our times. The meaning, the context is the memory. And that's what we need to understand the world and act in it. Thank you very much, Rebecca.

You're welcome. Rebecca Solnit is the author of many books, including A Paradise Built in Hell, The Extraordinary Communities That Arise in Disaster. She also launched the climate project Not Too Late, Changing the Climate Story from Despair to Possibility. ♪

That's it for this week's show. On the Media is produced by Molly Rosen, Rebecca Clark-Calendar, Candice Wong, and Katerina Barton. Our technical director is Jennifer Munson. Our engineer is Brendan Dalton. Eloise Blondio is our senior producer, and our executive producer is Katya Rogers. On the Media is a production of WNYC Studios. I'm Brooke Gladstone. And I'm Michael Loewinger. I'm Ira Flato, host of Science Friday.

For over 30 years, our team has been reporting high-quality news about science, technology, and medicine. News you won't get anywhere else. And now that political news is 24-7, our audience is turning to us to know about the really important stuff in their lives. Cancer, climate change, genetic engineering, childhood diseases. Our sponsors know the value of science and health news.

For more sponsorship information, visit sponsorship.wnyc.org.