Title: Should Trump reconsider enforcing TikTok's compulsory sale order?
Recently delving into antitrust law discussions, Holman Jenkins had an insightful take. He opined that antitrust law, at its best, is a waste of talent, and at its worst, it's dangerous and illogical for law school graduates to aim for a role in this corrupt, self-sustaining system. One could only wish more people would apply Jenkins' antitrust analysis to TikTok, a social media app facing an unnecessary "sale or ban" law imposed by the federal government.
Currently, the verdict on TikTok's operations in the U.S. remains uncertain after the Supreme Court upheld a law demanding TikTok divest from its Chinese owner or faces a ban. Although the Supreme Court's decision may seem just on the surface, it's misleading. Jenkins, undoubtedly, understands why. The majority of investments in Chinese technology, including TikTok, are mainly American. Consequently, forcing a sale would strip TikTok of its sophisticated investors who backed a concept few would consider, while severing it from the technological talent that made it the world's most popular app.
Some critics question TikTok's operations due to its data collection practices and alleged ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). However, they overlook the fact that data collection is the reason why free social media sites, including TikTok, are available at no cost. Even if TikTok ceased to exist, the CCP would still have access to American social media user data through easy purchases.
Moreover, the Supreme Court's concern about the CCP tracking locations, building personal information files, and engaging in corporate espionage hinges upon the assumption that TikTok is under the CCP's control. If TikTok is indeed controlled by the CCP, addressing data collection and breaches becomes a non-issue, as Jenkins explains.
Antitrust law, as Jenkins Romantically despises, is largely ineffectual against rapidly developing, competitive economies, especially when controlled by a communist government as critics imply about TikTok. In such a scenario, the problem of data collection and propaganda is resolved.
However, President-elect Trump faces a dilemma regarding an unnecessary law that could lead to theft if enforced. Opponents argue that from a national security perspective, Trump isn't taking the issue seriously if he fails to enforce the law. Yet, preserving free people and free markets - the essence of peace - is contingent on the unhindered flow of goods and services.
Critics against the law not only perceive it as an infringement on First Amendment rights but also as discriminatory, undemocratic, damaging to small businesses, and poorly regulated. Moreover, a forced sale could be viewed as an unconstitutional overreach of executive power, creating a dangerous precedent.
In conclusion, a closer examination of TikTok's situation reveals multiple reasons to disfavor the federal government's "sale or ban" law. The law infringes on First Amendment rights, lacks proper evidence, misrepresents data security concerns, and unfairly targets a single company, among other issues. Critics encourage better regulation as a more effective solution.
The Wall Street Journal's John Tamny echoed Holman Jenkins' sentiments, arguing that the antitrust approach towards TikTok is misguided and potentially hazardous. Donald Trump, facing a dilemma with the TikTok issue, was advised by Jenkins to reconsider the "sale or ban" law, as it could infringe on First Amendment rights and set a harmful precedent.
