Is The Clock Really Ticking on TikTok?

The research firm Statista indicated that there were over 120 million TikTok users in the United States as of July 2024. 

The recent activity surrounding TikTok has the air of a high-tech TV reality show. Congress passed a law, the US Supreme Court ruled, and on January 20, 2025, President Trump weighed in with an executive order delaying the ban for 75 days. If you’re confused, you can check this story out in the references.

There are several arguments both pro and con that have bandied about. With the help of Google’s Gemini AI, here’s a short summary:

Arguments for a ban:

* Data Security: Concerns exist that TikTok's data collection practices could allow the Chinese government access to sensitive information about US users.

* Foreign Influence: There are fears that TikTok's algorithm could be used to spread propaganda or manipulate public opinion on behalf of the Chinese government.

Arguments against a ban:

* Freedom of Expression: A ban on TikTok is seen by some as a violation of free speech rights.

* Economic Impact: TikTok supports numerous content creators and businesses in the US, and a ban could have negative economic consequences.

* Ineffectiveness: Some argue that a ban may not be fully effective, as users could potentially find ways to circumvent it.

Supposing for the moment that you had a ban – just how effective would it be?

First of all, tech-savvy people could figure out a work around. This could include use of VPNs or other methods. Sooner or later these methods would be dumbed down so that even non-tech users could employ them.

A ban would make it more difficult for people to get the app from the app stores. However, those people who already have the app would more than likely be able to continue using them.

Lastly, enforcing such a ban would be very complicated and require the cooperation of  parties such as the internet service providers, carriers, phone makers, etc., who may not be inclined to cooperate. And, of course, the volume of complaints who be astronomical.

TikTok could effectively argue that they are not the only social media platform that raises potential security and privacy concerns.

Influence Is Where The Action Is – and that Pesky First Amendment

It would appear that foreign influence is the key element separating TikTok from the rest. 

Nation States have several instruments that they can employ to foster their messages, policies and goals. These include: Diplomacy, Information, Military, and Economic (DIME).

Information remains the weak link. Diplomacy, Military, and Economic activities all have responsible Cabinet agencies and most of them have published strategies that have flowed down from a National Strategy released by the White House.

Information as an instrumentality of government has none of these. There is no National Strategy, there is no responsible Cabinet Position, there doesn’t even seem to be a Presidential Advisor or National Security Council Representative.

Isn’t it about time that the US government stops the TikTok influence clock, or at least slows it down?

References: 

1. TikTok Users

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1299807/number-of-monthly-unique-tiktok-users/

2. TikTok bans explained: Everything you need to know

https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/feature/TikTok-bans-explained-Everything-you-need-to-know

Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil – Why the principle of the Global Engagement Center (GEC) Matters

I published the last original PSYOP Regimental Blog posting in March, 2023 after becoming President of the PSYOP Veteran’s Association (www.usapova.com) on 1 January 2023. After two years on the job, it became clear to me that the Blog was a vital communications tool.

I’m kicking off with a posting about the need for a whole of government information strategy and a designated organization to be responsible for it.

Unlike chicken soup and wine, bad news does not get better with time. Foreign enemies and adversaries are eating America’s information lunch every day and there is neither a strategy, nor a designated single organization responsible for changing this dismal picture.

The US Department of State closed the Global Engagement Center on December 23, 2024. It’s mission was: “To direct, lead, synchronize, integrate, and coordinate U.S. Federal Government efforts to recognize, understand, expose, and counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed at undermining or influencing the policies, security, or stability of the United States, its allies, and partner nations.”

On December 26, 2024 Fox news headline was “State Department’s ‘Global Engagement Center’ accused of censoring Americans shuts is doors” The article quotes nonother than Elon Musk: Elon Musk had deemed the Global Engagement Center (GEC), established in 2016, the "worst offender in U.S. government censorship & media manipulation," and its funding was stripped as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the Pentagon’s yearly policy bill.

On Jan 2, 2025 The New York Post reported “Biden admin ‘rebranding’ State Dept’s controversial Global Engagement Center under new name – with same employees” see: https://nypost.com/2025/01/02/us-news/biden-admin-rebranding-state-depts-shuttered-gec-under-new-name-with-same-staff-report/

Given the negative impacts of foreign influence, it seems only logical that ‘someone’ has to be monitoring and hopefully mitigating foreign influence. 

The U.S. does not have a whole of government Information Strategy as it does for National Security. This leaves a very big void and vulnerability.

On September 26, 2024, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) published GAO-24-107600 on Sep 26, 2024  which proclaimed “The Departments of State, Homeland Security, and Defense are working to define and detect foreign disinformation. This Q&A report describes their efforts. We also discussed their relevant legal authorities. This report is the first of two that examine U.S. agencies' efforts to counter foreign disinformation threats, including identifying and publicizing threats.”

You can find their PDF version here. The reported noted three key takeaways:

“Key Takeaways 

·      State, DHS’s Office of Intelligence of Analysis (I&A), and DOD monitor both public and nonpublic sources of information and use a variety of methods to detect foreign disinformation targeted at overseas or domestic audiences, depending on the agency. For example, State and DHS’s I&A analyze social media to identify disinformation and disinformation actors. 

·      State, DHS, and DOD conduct activities to counter foreign disinformation targeted at audiences overseas or domestically, depending on the agency. Collectively, these activities include identifying, publicizing, and researching disinformation threats as well as educating U.S. and foreign partners and the public on how to recognize and build resilience against disinformation threats. 

·      To define foreign disinformation and related terms, most of the U.S. agencies we spoke to use the National Intelligence Council’s IC Lexicon for Foreign Malign Influence, which aims to standardize terms and add precision to disinformation analysis”

The bottom line is that there is neither a whole of government cohesive information strategy, nor an overall organization responsible for developing, implementing, monitoring, and managing information efforts and counter foreign influence efforts.

Perhaps the Trump Administration can properly address this challenge.