Capitalism rewards success. Privately owned companies often succeed when they create things that people like, use, and value. The more people like, use, and value something through voluntary transactions, the more economic success it will have. That is the capitalist system. A free market where people are free to make their own choices, and the choices they make are the truest and most honest reflection of their preferences and values.
Governments want to punish success that the market rewards. The U.S. government is telling the world that if a foreign-owned company enters the U.S. market and becomes very successful, the government can and will force a sale if it becomes too successful.The punishment for TikTok will not be for being Chinese, but rather for being Chinese, as many Chinese companies have operations in the US. and was incredibly successful.
The problem here is not the Chinese people, nor is it TikTok. The problem is Article 230 and the third-party principle.
Congress has argued that ByteDance has become too successful and needs to exit the hugely popular video hosting service TikTok. If TikTok had languished on the App Store, this sale request probably wouldn’t have happened. What bothers people is the success of TikTok. Therefore, ByteDance needs to be punished if it succeeds. That is ByteDance’s only crime. The company’s success has been envied, but now it is being forcibly punished.
Are people uninformed? Don’t people read every day how the U.S. government is exploiting the third-party doctrine on behalf of private companies to expand its surveillance state in order to expand warrantless surveillance? Don’t people know that governments routinely force private companies to monitor their customers and share the results, and profit from it?
Which scenario would be worse for the American people? This scenario involves illegally obtained data falling into the hands of the U.S. government, which has jurisdiction over American citizens. Or will that data end up in the hands of the Chinese government, which has no jurisdiction over it?
The problem here isn’t Chinese people or TikTok. At issue is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. This provision gave technology companies immunity for third-party content, indirectly subsidizing the modern surveillance state.
Section 230 and the Third Party Doctrine creates and distorts the vision of a democratized, decentralized internet where people retain their personal sovereignty and where all companies run the same business model: an oligarchy that practices data rape. I changed the structure. It all came from the U.S. government.
Yes, Section 230 and the third-party doctrine have subsidized and encouraged private companies to adopt data extraction business models. Governments have enabled and weaponized the surveillance economy. Capture attention, entertain, amuse, enrage, and engage. And get your data while you’re distracted.
Attacks on TikTok are forced, whether it’s a ban from Apple or Google’s app stores or a forced sale. It is a violent intervention, an expropriation, an attack on capitalism and success.
We should not punish, envy, or resent their success. Regardless of the nationality of the entrepreneur, it should be praised. Forced sales and acquisitions destroy value and are therefore acts of economic warfare. Any destruction caused by a government means a war in which the government deploys administrative weapons. Not all weapons of mass destruction are atomic bombs.
The answer is not to force or ban the sale of Tik Tok, but rather to repeal Section 230, abolish the third-party doctrine, and ultimately codify data sovereignty. Free the World Wide Web!
