[music]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. Happy Friday. We'll start today with two social media stories in the news, centering perhaps a different take than what's mostly been in the news over the last 24 hours. Heads up that we will name-check China, Utah, and Westchester counting on this.

What you've probably heard is that there was a long contentious hearing in the House of Representatives yesterday with the CEO of TikTok getting grilled for hours on whether China is using the China-based company to spy on Americans, and maybe they are. Actually, I don't think Congress ever established that yesterday. We'll talk to a reporter who's following this in a minute and see if we can find out. Here's a dissenting take. It's 60 seconds of New York Congressman Jamaal Bowman of Westchester County speaking yesterday on MSNBC as this hearing was going on.

Congressman Jamaal Bowman: Republicans have been beating the anti-China drum since even before they took control of the House of Representatives. This is more governing through fear-mongering without actual evidence. I'm a sitting member of Congress. We have never received one briefing explaining the dangers of TikTok and how TikTok are a national security risk. This is a rush to judgment without having a larger conversation around the harms of social media in general.

Our data right now on Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Twitter, Instagram, our data right now is available for purchase, for sale, for trading, and it is currently being shared with foreign governments and foreign companies without our consent, without our knowledge. Let's talk about all social media companies, what the harms are, and then write federal legislation to deal with those issues instead of scapegoating TikTok.

Brian Lehrer: To Congressman Bowman, as you heard, his congressional colleagues are missing the forest for the trees so they can say, "China, China, China." Here's the other story. The state of Utah just passed a law, two laws really, requiring parental consent for minors to use the wildly popular TikTok or any other social media site or allowing minors to use TikTok at all at certain hours or other social media. Here's the lead from an AP story out this morning.

"Children and teens in Utah would lose access to social media apps such as TikTok if they don't have parental consent and face other restrictions under a first-in-the-nation law designed to shield young people from the addictive platforms. Two laws signed by Republican Governor Spencer Cox yesterday prohibit kids under 18 from using social media between the hours of 10:30 PM and 6:30 AM, require age verification for anyone who wants to use social media in the state and open the door to lawsuits on behalf of children claiming social media harmed them."

"Collectively," this says, "they seek to prevent children from being lured to apps by addictive features and from having ads promoted to them." That, from the Associated Press in Utah. Parents, China hawks, anyone else? Let's talk. With us for this is Louise Matsakis, tech reporter for the news organization, Semafor. She co-writes their tech newsletter. Louise, thanks for coming on. Welcome to WNYC.

Louise Matsakis: Thanks for having me, Brian. I'm really excited to talk about this topic.

Brian Lehrer: Parents or any teenagers cutting school and listening right now, we want to hear from you. Should you need parental consent to go on social media if you're under 18? Should all states do what Utah is trying to do? Anything you want to say or ask about the congressional hearing on TikTok in China, 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692. Louise, what was yesterday's hearing actually about?

Louise Matsakis: Yesterday's hearing was the culmination of three years of discussion about TikTok in Congress. This started when President Trump tried to ban TikTok three years ago, and that was blocked by two federal courts. Since then, we have basically been having this really long, circular discussion about what to do about this app, which is owned by a major Chinese tech company called ByteDance, which is the Facebook of China, I think is a fair comparison. We really didn't come to any conclusions, I think, but spending almost, I think, over five and a half hours watching the CEO of TikTok, Shou Chew, answer questions from lawmakers.

What struck me is that this is not just about one app. I think I heard just as many questions about child safety, about what is social media doing to children around the country as I did about this company's Chinese ownership and what sorts of risks it might pose to national security. I think that Representative Bowman makes a good point, which is that TikTok has become the poster child in many ways for this much larger discussion about both Chinese influence in the US and social media and how we should allow these platforms to be used by the youngest members of our society.

Brian Lehrer: The Jamaal Bowman clip made it sound like this is a Republican hysteria, but the coverage I've seen mostly portrays the hearing yesterday as a bipartisan pile-on. Is this an issue between the parties or a rare point of agreement?

Louise Matsakis: This is definitely a rare point of agreement. I think that Representative Bowman is correct in that this originated as a Republican issue, but I think slowly and more quickly more recently, Democrats are starting to realize that this is an issue that has traction with voters across the spectrum. You started seeing them join various legislative efforts to potentially ban TikTok or restrict its activities in the US. You've seen the White House not want to come to a deal that would resolve national security concerns with TikTok.

They've delayed that deal again and again, which TikTok has been in negotiations with the administration for, at this point, several years. It's definitely a bipartisan issue at this point. I think that these two sides will come at the issue from different angles. I think the Republicans are definitely emphasizing the China bit, whereas I think Democrats are more likely to maybe not endorse a full ban. You're definitely seeing that this is a rare point of bipartisanship for sure.

Brian Lehrer: In a few minutes, we'll play a clip from the hearing that will give people a taste of what it sounded like. There was a lot more questioning than letting the witness answer. [chuckles] You tweeted yesterday that one line of questioning we keep hearing is TikTok is a sanitized platform in China, so why is there harmful content on TikTok in the US? Is the premise true that TikTok is a sanitized platform in China, whatever sanitized means, but not here?

Louise Matsakis: I think it is true, but I think it's not because ByteDance is more benevolent or cares more about the Chinese market. It's because if they don't heavily censor the platform, they're going to face repercussions in China, right? I think why that line of questioning was problematic to me is that why are we making this comparison to how social media functions in an authoritarian regime?

I didn't have maybe time to say all of this because it's the length of a tweet, but I do think that lawmakers are picking up on something, which is that Chinese regulators try to address some of the same concerns that they have about child safety, right? There are rules about how much time you can spend on TikTok in China. There are rules about what kind of content you can see if you're a minor. I think that's actually an issue where there is a lot of overlap. I think these lawmakers say, "Oh, this platform is heavily censored. Why is it not censored here?" To me, that brings up a lot of First Amendment concerns.

Brian Lehrer: All right, we'll come back to the hearing in TikTok and China and the spying question, but Jude in Nutley, New Jersey wants to react to the Utah law. Jude, you're on WNYC. Hello.

Jude: Hey, how are you? Thank you so much for having me on your show. I just called in basically to say that I would welcome a partnership because I have teenagers at home and it is somewhat of a challenge to see what they're on. You can't be 100% of the time. I would welcome some sort of partnership with a platform for my child.

Brian Lehrer: Would you welcome government restrictions on what your child could do or do without your consent?

Jude: Not so much a government, more of the platform because I feel that from looking at what happened with the hearings yesterday, I felt it was very one-sided. No one was listening to what the options were. I feel like it's all in one swoop and a lot of good things can be lost in that process. It's more of, as a parent, you have to use your phone as a tool to regulate what your child sees, but also if the platform-- Like they're doing in Utah if I'm not mistaken, there are also certain timelines. If, after a certain time, they can't get on their phone and go on the app, then I would be open to that.

Brian Lehrer: Jude, thank you very much for your call. I appreciate it. There's a concerned parent. Louise, is it clear to you what they're actually doing in Utah? Could no child, even with parental consent if the kid is under 18, go on TikTok after 10:30 at night?

Louise Matsakis: I think it's worth noting that this law is so new and it's not really clear how it's going to be implemented on a technical level. Putting in these restrictions would be really difficult. I'm not sure how you would verify people's ages, how it would work literally within the app. The idea is that you would have to have parental consent to even sign up for an account, which I think raises a lot of privacy concerns about teenagers who are maybe in an abusive household or who want to use these platforms to reach out to resources to connect with their friends, potentially connect with their teachers.

The idea is really that any sort of activity that a child under the age of 18 has on these platforms, their parents would be able to see. I think one of the restrictions would be that all of your private messages would go to your parents. That sort of restriction, I think, brings up a lot of questions and I think this is going to be keeping privacy advocates up at night. I think to the point that your caller mentioned, this is definitely an issue that parents have. I think a lot of parents are seeing negative effects of what's happening with their kids online and they don't know what to do. There's not a clear solution.

Brian Lehrer: When the caller talked about how it would be good if there was some kind of partnership between the apps and parents, does it not exist already that parental control options that a parent with access to the app could implement?

Louise Matsakis: Yes, so there are already parental controls. If you voluntarily say that your age is under 13 or under 18, there are different experiences that TikTok will offer you. If you're under the age of 13, you're an 8, 9, 10-year-old, they're actually not allowed to post at all. Again, that is assuming that you are voluntarily providing your correct age and that a parent is helping you sign up and they know what age you said that you were, right? A lot of this is voluntary right now and it takes a lot of involvement on the part of parents, I think.

Brian Lehrer: The parents would really have to police it to even know if the kid was registering as older than they really are or something like that, right?

Louise Matsakis: Totally.

Brian Lehrer: What about the part of the Utah law that I read from the AP story that would enable lawsuits against the social media companies for harm, psychological harm, or other harm that's being done to children? Can people sue them now if they want to allege that?

Louise Matsakis: We have seen lawsuits like that. Every year, there are dozens, maybe even hundreds of lawsuits filed against social media platforms for allowing harmful content to negatively impact people. A lot of times, those lawsuits don't go anywhere because of something called Section 230, which is a federal regulation that ensures social media platforms are not liable for the content that other people post, right? That's why you can't sue Yelp because I left a restaurant a poor review.

It's not clear to me how that aspect of the law will be enforced, but yes, that's sort of the idea. I think what Utah legislators are seeing is parents saying, "Because of TikTok, my kid is depressed. Because of Instagram, they started experiencing anxiety, and we want to hold these companies accountable for that." I just think, legally, how that will play out is really still up in the air, but that's the idea. I think this is a really blunt instrument that Utah went with, but I think it really shows how much this issue is on the minds of voters.

Brian Lehrer: Louise Matsakis with us, tech reporter for the news organization, Semafor, as we're talking about two stories from the last 24 hours, the contentious hearings in Congress yesterday with the CEO of TikTok, and the new Utah law signed by the governor there yesterday, which would restrict social media access. This is to any social media site for minors under 18 in various ways. We have what looks like two opposite takes on the phones on the Congressional TikTok hearings. Gordon in Montauk, you're on WNYC. Hi, Gordon.

Gordon: Hi, Brian. Thank you for taking my call. It's mandated by Chinese law, this brutal dictatorship, each and every one of the people that are on TikTok, all of their contacts, all of their relatives, all of their information is now turned over to the Chinese government in which they make a social rating score. If you're not up on that social rating score, you'll be denied your digital currency, another reason for us to use cash.

You'll be denied to getting on an airplane. You're a political dissident. You'll be shunned. This is a gross violation of our rights to privacy here in America. This Congressman, how much money under the great lion of the Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia, allowed untold millions of dollars. Our Congress has been bought out. This congressman should resign immediately. Also, how much money is he receiving from the China lobby?

Brian Lehrer: You're talking about Congressman Jamaal Bowman of Westchester, whose clip we played earlier, dissenting from the China hawkishness that many of his colleagues were displaying, saying we should be looking at harm caused by all the social media apps. Well, Gordon, thank you very much. Actually, I'll get your take on that in a minute, Louise, and see if you have any idea if Congressman Bowman, he's part of the squad with AOC and them, whether he's taking big campaign donations in the way that the caller alleges from anybody, including the government of China, or people linked to there. Victor in Chinatown has a very different take from Gordon. Victor, you're on WNYC. Hello.

Victor: Hello. Can you hear me? Hello?

Brian Lehrer: Yes, we got you. Hi.

Victor: Yes, I'm a longtime resident of Chinatown. I've been here for 72 years. It's strange that in the 1950s when I grew up during the Korean War when the Chinese were attacked during the McCarthy period. Here we are, 2023, the House is run by another guy named McCarthy. I just saw crime in Chinatown went up 135%. This anti-Chinese sentiment that seems to be uniting the House and the Senate, there's something more to that than just TikTok, right? We all know what it's all about, but nobody wants to say it.

Brian Lehrer: What I heard yesterday though from one member of Congress, at least, Victor, was we're not against the Chinese people. We're against the Chinese government for the many things that they do that are abusive internally and in foreign policy. They don't want the Chinese government having access to all American data. What do you say to that?

Victor: Yes, but when you deal with the Chinese government, people can't seem to separate Chinese people, Chinese-American people. When you have a lot of negativity towards a certain race, you know what happens? Crime goes up. Anti-Asian hate goes up. Now, what are we going to champ down that the Chinese Americans who served in this country will help build this country are not part of the CCP?

Brian Lehrer: Victor, thank you very much. A pretty interesting contrast, Louise, from those couple of callers. I could ask some specific follow-up questions, but were you thinking anything in particular as you listened to them?

Louise Matsakis: I think what I was thinking is that there is totally truth in what both of them are saying. I think that part of the reason that we're in this situation with TikTok is because of how the Chinese Communist Party has behaved over the last few years, right? Xi Jinping has cracked down on civil society, on tech companies like ByteDance, and has made it very clear that, ultimately, he and the party are in control of their activity.

I think, on one hand, that's totally true. Having covered this company and China's tech ecosystem more broadly for the last few years, I can also say that racism is very real. I think we do have to be careful about how we talk about these issues in order to protect Chinese Americans and Asian Americans. I think it's really difficult and there are no easy answers, but I definitely have seen rhetoric from members of Congress that I think really stepped over that line into racial or ethnic hate.

I think it's just really unfortunate that we're in this position, but I think we have no choice at this point. We can't go back to the pre-2015 era when it was unclear how far Xi Jinping was going to go. I think there was a lot more optimism about tech collaboration and the internet being a global free place where different companies, no matter what country they came from, could compete on an even plane. That's just not the world we live in anymore.

Brian Lehrer: As you were giving that answer, I was looking up the Jamaal Bowman page on OpenSecrets, the website that looks at who gets campaign donations from who. There's no reference to China or anything explicitly China-linked. OpenSecrets does say that Bowman got more than half his funding from out of state, mostly from California. I don't know what, if anything, that suggests, but there was that.

In the Congressman Bowman clip, he was making the point that all the US-based social media companies are already doing what Congress is investigating TikTok over, which is gathering our data every which way when we're online and then selling it for a profit, not only to other companies but also he said to foreign governments, which is exactly the concern that's being raised with TikTok. Do you know if that part is true? Are Facebook or Google or Twitter or whoever selling our data, not just to other companies who want to approach us for sales but to foreign governments?

Louise Matsakis: I would say that it's not technically accurate that Facebook is brokering a deal with China to sell our data. It's unfortunately not that simple, but it's definitely 100% true that there are data brokers collecting information like your location, your preferences, whether you googled certain medications, all sorts of really sensitive information, and it is being bought and sold. There are also lots of American companies or companies from other parts of the world that handle this sensitive data and it's not secure.

We've seen, time and time again, hackers that experts believe are associated with the Chinese government have obtained that information. I think one of the most notorious incidents was the US Personnel Office got hacked. That was all the information on people who worked for the US government, including the information that they gave as part of an application for a security clearance. It's believed that China got that information. They definitely do not need TikTok to get this information. The reality is that we do not have a national privacy law that regulates how your data can be used.

Brian Lehrer: Here's Acacia in-- actually, I'm not sure where Acacia is, but who wants to put the campaign donation allegation in a very different light. Acacia, you're on WNYC. Hello.

Acacia: It's maybe not necessarily a campaign donation, but I just want to bring up the fact that a lot of members of Congress have a lot of money invested in Meta stock. Meta is dying. It's hemorrhaging money. Only boomers use Facebook anymore. They're really trying to protect their interests. They're trying to force a sale to an American company to make America profitable, continuing to be the head of the tech world.

Brian Lehrer: Interesting.

Acacia: That's my thing, is that they just want to protect their interests.

Brian Lehrer: Acacia, thank you very much. Meta, of course, being the parent company of Facebook. According to Acacia, it's really going both ways, Louise, right? She says a lot of members of Congress have investments in Meta and Meta stock has been going down and so they're trying to protect Meta, Facebook, from competition by TikTok. I don't know if that's true, but it's an interesting theory. By the same token, I would guess that a lot of members of Congress do get campaign donations from Meta.

Louise Matsakis: Yes, I think it goes beyond campaign donations. I do think that this is a huge gift to Meta, to YouTube, to Twitter. Only a few years ago, the CEOs of these companies were dragged before Congress, right? They were having a really bad time and there was a lot of momentum to pass a national privacy law. Then that effort got derailed. I think the focus ended up squarely on TikTok. It's totally a gift to these American social media companies. I think it's fair to say that TikTok is being held to a different standard than they are.

I think that's really just about TikTok's national origin. It's really unfortunate, I think, that a lot of the discussion right now is on a single platform instead of what can be done about this industry overall. I think that there were members of Congress yesterday during the hearing who got that, who realized that this is a bigger issue than just TikTok. I really hope that the conversation gets broader again to realize that there are plenty of companies in this country who are based here, who were born here, that also have a lot of these same problems.

Brian Lehrer: On the other side of this one-minute break, we will hear an example of the treatment that the TikTok CEO got in Congress yesterday. An example that may inform you, folks, and may make you cringe. Stay with us.

[music]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC with Louise Matsakis, tech reporter for the news organization, Semafor, as we're talking about two social media stories in the headlines today. The Congressional hearings with the CEO of TikTok yesterday, Shou Chew, and the law signed by the governor of Utah yesterday restricting all social media platforms in various ways to minors under 18. Here's a clip from the hearing that I think exemplifies what that was like yesterday. This is Republican Congressman Neal Dunn of Florida not letting the TikTok CEO really answer his question. You'll hear the congressman refer to TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance.

Congressman Neal Dunn: Madam Chair, I'd like to enter into the record this October 20th, '22 Forbes article entitled, TikTok Parent ByteDance Planned to Use TikTok to Monitor the Physical Location of Specific US Citizens.

Cathy McMorris Rodgers: Without objection, so ordered.

Congressman Neal Dunn: Thank you. The project assigned this to a Beijing-leaded team and they were going to follow individual American citizens. I ask you again, Mr. Chew. Has ByteDance spied on American citizens?

Shou Chew: I don't think that spying is the right way to describe it. This is ultimately--

Congressman Neal Dunn: We can differ on the--

Shou Chew: This is ultimately an internal investigation.

Congressman Neal Dunn: Any TikTok or ByteDance data that is viewed, stored, or passes through China is subject to the laws of China. One-party authoritarian state hostile to all American standards of privacy.

Brian Lehrer: A speech more than a conversation, but somewhat of an exchange between Republican Congressman Neal Dunn of Florida and the CEO of TikTok, Shou Chew. Louise, they disagreed over the definition of spying there if there was an exchange at all. Can you clarify that for us?

Louise Matsakis: Yes, so what they are referring to there is this incident in which a ByteDance internal team that was responsible for oversight of corporate corruption within the company was trying to find the source of leaks. There was internal information from TikTok that was leaking to journalists. What TikTok did is that they looked at the TikTok data of American journalists and, I believe, a journalist in the UK to try and figure out which TikTok employees they might've been speaking to. It was this internal corporate issue as I think Chew tried to clarify.

At the same time, I think that it was this incident that really exemplified the kinds of problems that lawmakers are really, really anxious about is that this data is out there and it can be used for whatever TikTok wants, right? Some of the people who work at TikTok and TikTok's parent company, ByteDance, are on mainland China. That's just the reality. I've been reporting on this company for a long time. I can tell you that there are employees in China who are doing their jobs. Whether or not you consider that nefarious, I think, depends on your politics. The reality is that this is a company that is based in China. I think this incident was a really unfortunate scandal for the company.

Brian Lehrer: Well, the congressman said TikTok abides by lesser standards of privacy than we have in the United States. That made me think, what are the standards of privacy we have in the United States for US social media companies since they seem to gather and disseminate so much data at will?

Louise Matsakis: Right, I think that's a great point. I think what this shows is just if it has anything to do with China, that is the line that lawmakers see. We didn't see as much discussion about this data in general where it's flowing, how much is being collected. It's really about, is it touching China? Does it have anything to do with China? I think that's just a really 2D, very one-dimensional way to look at this.

Brian Lehrer: Kirsten in Red Bank, you're on WNYC. Hi, Kirsten.

Kirsten: Hello, so I had two spots on this. One is that this is just another political stunt. The Republican Party, one of their primary planks if they have any in their platform is to be anti-China. This is a fantastic opportunity to put their anti-China in this on display. Secondly, there was a witness that was there in military uniform. I'm sorry. I don't know who it was.

He said something to the effect of TikTok is a loaded gun. [laughs] The irony knocked me over because we have actual loaded guns aimed at our kids right now. In the hearings about that, they hauled a Parkland parent out, threw him out. I think they need to get their priorities straight. We have actual loaded guns pointed at our children and the irony is really just too much.

Brian Lehrer: Good contrast between the analogy and the physical reality of the loaded guns. Eshu in Queens, you're on WNYC. Hi, Eshu.

Eshu: Hi, so I wasn't able to listen to the hearings yesterday, but I believe this is more of like a topic of content moderation. Because I remember growing up in the '90s, we had these websites that were aimed for young kids and teens and stuff. You would have to put your parents' emails in to get access to them and all of that. I remember being a big video gamer myself. Certain games I wasn't allowed to buy because of the ratings and whatnot. It feels like with social media, that all disappeared, that content moderation. Yes, the privacy is a big aspect of it, but where does that censorship line of that content moderation come to play?

Brian Lehrer: Louise, is there anything you can say about that? We've certainly come a long way in social media world on the relationship between teens and parents, right? I remember when we talked when Twitter was fairly new and Facebook was fairly new. A lot of young people were still on Facebook. The earlier caller made the point that it's mostly baby boomers now. Then parents concerned would look onto the Facebook pages of their kids. The kids would flip out and say, "Mom, Dad, my Facebook feed is private." They'd say, "No, your Facebook feed is the most public thing that you do." They saw it differently in that respect. Does Eshu recall anything relevant to this conversation that you could think of?

Louise Matsakis: Yes, I think that social media has moved really quickly. You're seeing parents and kids figure out how to grapple with that. I remember using a desktop computer when I was the age of teenagers today. It was my mom's desktop computer. I had to go to bed at some point. Now, you have kids with their iPhones under the covers. Who knows what they're looking at sometimes?

I think it's definitely really difficult. There are these safeguards in place that these companies have tried to use for parents. There are parental controls. Again, it depends on how much effort the parents want to put in. It's really hard to watch what your kid is doing on their own cell phone all day. I think the gun comparison is great. I really wonder whether this TikTok is potent opium or TikTok is a loaded gun, whether that line of rhetoric is actually going to work with voters.

Because when you make a threat like that or you try to get people scared, most of the time, it's something that they don't have a lot of experience with, right? The threat of nuclear war or something like that. With TikTok, this is an app that 150 million Americans use all the time. I just don't know if drumming off all this fear is effective when people know that this is just a social media app that functions very similarly to the other platforms that were born in California.

Brian Lehrer: You tweeted out a Washington Post article that I hadn't seen saying, "TikTok's critics argue, it could be a vessel for pro-Beijing messages," but that the article profiles a dissident who uses TikTok to criticize the Chinese government. Can you summarize that for us?

Louise Matsakis: Yes, so I think that this dissident is one example of, actually, a lot of the types of narratives that I see on TikTok all the time, which are often anti-China, right? There are people across the political spectrum who are expressing their views on this app. When I hear, "Oh, this is just a vessel for CCP messaging," or "This is an app that's going to poison the brains of Americans," I really just hear somebody who's probably never downloaded it before.

Because if you actually look at the plethora of content on the app, there definitely is plenty of material that would not make Xi Jinping happy. I think that that's good to point out that this is not a one-sided platform by any means. Just like YouTube, just like Facebook, just like Twitter, this is a place that people use for free expression. I think that that's really important to know. What would it mean for the greatest democracy in the world to ban a platform that is being used by millions of people for free expression? I think it's a really troubling precedent.

Brian Lehrer: Let me get one more call in here. Endrin, if I'm saying your name right, in Westport, you're on WNYC. Hi there.

Endrin: Hi, yes, I think the whole entire debate around this is so incredibly ridiculous. Americans, people all over the world every single day, are giving their information to these social media companies, so we're making a choice already. I don't know. We have a choice. We can either be on social media or not be on social media. We give it to them and so nothing is free. Why are we even targeting TikTok specifically? I have two kids. They both use multitudes of social media. I've never checked on them. [chuckles] That's me as a parent saying it. If I wanted it to stop, I would take away their phone.

Brian Lehrer: Easier said than done. You'll be in for a big fight if you try to take away their phone. Of course, I get your point. Thank you. As we run out of time, Louise, what's the next actual step here? Is Congress going to pass some kind of law or is the Biden administration going to do something by executive order?

Louise Matsakis: Where we are right now is basically between a rock and a hard place. Last week, the Biden administration signaled that they would not accept a deal with TikTok to keep all the data in the US. They wanted instead to see TikTok spin-off from its parent company, ByteDance. Basically, a forced sale. Yesterday, hours before the hearing, the Chinese government indicated that they would not approve such a sale. We are in a really tough position where I think it's unclear what would happen.

There are a few legislative efforts. One in the Senate is called the RESTRICT Act. It's a bipartisan piece of legislation that would make it easier for the Biden administration or another administration to ban platforms or to restrict their activity based on their national origin. That might be a path. The RESTRICT Act might pass. I think that, right now, we are still in the place we've been in for years. I don't think anything is going to happen in the next few weeks or so. It's going to be a wait-and-see situation.

Brian Lehrer: Louise Matsakis covers tech and China for the news organization, Semafor, and co-writes the Semafor tech newsletter. You're based on the West Coast, aren't you?

Louise Matsakis: I am. I'm in Los Angeles, where it is only 7:30 AM, but I'm a New Yorker--

Brian Lehrer: I was going to say, you sound so bright-eyed and bushy-tailed. Thank you for getting up early and doing this with us. Great job.

Louise Matsakis: Thanks, Brian. It was great talking with you.

 

Copyright © 2023 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.