The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday passed the Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, which is legislation that would force TikTok owner ByteDance to sell the social media network or face a ban in the United States. The bill now goes to the U.S. Senate, where its fate remains murky.
U.S. lawmakers are hoping to force ByteDance to sell the TikTok social app to a company outside of China. Lawmakers have concerns that the Chinese government could gain access to data about users located in the United States. ByteDance would not legally be able to refuse such a request from China officials. There have also been concerns that China would use TikTok to spread political propaganda.
While the bill names TikTok outright, it also bans any other app the President determines to be a “national security threat.” Technology lawyers are concerned that the vague terms in the bill could get other apps and websites banned as well.
“Nobody actually knows who’s covered by this bill,” said Eric Goldman, an internet law professor at Santa Clara University in a phone interview with Gizmodo. “We focus on the TikTok piece because that’s obviously who would be targeted first. But this law has uncertain effects because we really don’t even know who we’re talking about.”
Other than specifically mentioning TikTok, the bill is rather murky otherwise. An app or website must meet two qualifications to be banned. First, the app must be a large platform that allows users to create profiles for sharing content. That would include news websites that allow users to log in and post comments. Second, you must also be “controlled by a foreign adversary,” which could include an app that is merely “subject to the direction or control” of someone in Russia, China, North Korea, or Iran.
Goldman says this bill doesn’t consider how many apps and websites fall under it. Many of the 65 House Congressional members who voted against this bill, seemingly agree with Godman, as many of them say the legislation doesn’t consider freedom of speech or claim it was rushed — it took just four days to pass the bill in the House. Goldman calls the bill a “performative stunt” that’s meant to send a signal to voters on China.
What about apps like Facebook and X (the social network formerly known as Twitter)? After all, the 2016 election saw Russian operatives using Facebook groups in an attempt to sway voters. A few months back, on X, the Iran-backed terror group Hamas spread misinformation while paying for promotion services and blue checkmarks. Would this put those two social networks at risk?
“There’s plenty of room here for creative interpretation for how someone could be in a foreign country calling the shots without being an owner,” said Evan Brown, a Chicago-based lawyer with a focus on technology. “The President really has the unchecked power to put another app on this list.”
The wide range of apps covered by the TikTok bill, and the vague terms to categorize them as “controlled by a foreign adversary” gives the President a lot of power. Is it too much power for one man or one administration?
