TikTok Congressional Hearing: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
7th
April 2023, 15:09
Six. Hours. Over the third weekend of March, that was the amount of time I spent, over three days on YouTube listening to TikTok CEO Chew Shou Zi, also a fellow Singaporean (which was the only reason I subjected myself to this spectacle at all), fending off a verbal pounding and answering some of the dumbest questions known to mankind.
Welcome to the absurdity that is known as American Congress.
Many of these esteemed gentlemen and ladies who made up the panel, are, for want of a better term, hysterical children. There were several points during the hearing where I alternated between cringing, groaning, or losing my will to live. For hours, they battered Chew Shou Zi with accusations, sarcasm and outright hostility. Some of them just seemed to like the sound of their own voice a wee bit too much, asking questions but not giving TikTok's CEO any space to answer.
But hey, it wasn't entirely bad. Roughly half of these Representatives actually didn't come off like flaming idiots, though it's possibly relative to the ones that did. Let's go over the positives.
Though he was unfailingly polite, sometimes he did push back.
And now, some of the members of the panel that I think asked reasonably intelligent questions, or at least didn't conduct themselves like brats. Yes, surprising as it may sound, not all of them made me wonder how they have a job at all.
Frank Pallone of New Jersey, went right after the opening statement by Cathy McMorris Rodgers. He pointed out addictive algorithms of big tech, nothing I feel can or should be argued against. He also said that he was focusing his attention not only on TikTok, but on Social Media as a whole with regard to data privacy concerns. That's fair, and I certainly respected that.
Even when he was asking questions, even when some of those questions veered into the combative, he managed to do so in a manner I consider both professional and dignified.
Anna Eshoo of California wasn't especially good. But while she started out with genuine questions regarding the CCP, she seemed unwilling to accept Chew's answers, at one point describing his answer as "presposterous". I'm tempted to say, no lady, you're presposterous, but in all fairness, she didn't do enough to not be in this section. Besides, she actually had the sense to keep quiet and let the CEO answer her questions about TikTok's algorithms in detail, which tells me she was actually interested in the answer rather than simply talking for the sake of talking.
John Sarbanes of Maryland was a breath of fresh air, coming right after the dumpster fire that was Bill Johnson (in the "Ugly" section). He conducted himself with dignity and brought up the issues of addictive algorithms used in TikTok, and he said it in a way I didn't strongly disagree with. He appeared open to a compromise for the company to dial down these algorithms, though perhaps skeptical of Chew's willingness to do so. Even when he did interrupt, it wasn't done as a power move or intimidation tactic, and was only because he was running out of time and needed to ask more questions.
Jay Obernolte of California came in as a software engineer and raised several questions that I found of interest, such as a size of the code base, code reviews and software configuration management systems. In particular, he also took the trouble to point out possible flaws in TikTok's proposed Project Texas, and did so without being a prick about it. The conversation between him and Chew was natural, flowed, and a sheer pleasure to listen to.
He even came back for an encore after the break, and posed another question.
I swear, this guy knows what he's talking about, and he explained it way better than I ever could have. Hats off! I don't think it's a coincidence that the other Representatives yielded their time to him so he could come back and ask Chew more questions. His questions were thought-provoking and he was actually interested in the answers and could respond thoughtfully to them!
John Curtis of Utah tried to be affable, to his credit. He recognized that Chew was caught up in giving detailed answers, so he continually exhorted, in his very friendly manner, Chew Shou Zi to go back "up to thirty thousand feet" and give a general picture instead. There was something I don't quite trust about this guy. He gave me the vibe of being the "good cop" in the "Good Cop, Bad Cop" routine. My personal feelings aside, I should at least give him props for trying. He's not in here just for his bedside manner. Also, his point about the difference between "a publisher and a distributor" was quite engaging.
Kim Schrier of Washington is a pediatrician and she conveyed her concerns very well. Her point about addictive behavior like smoking as really on the nose and felt like a personal attack (heh heh).
She came across as genuinely concerned and sincere as opposed to just posturing. Maybe that makes her a really good politician, if ya know what I mean.
Dan Crenshaw of Texas was the last to speak. I didn't want to like this discount Nick Fury, but he did finish the hearing in bold fashion. He even exhibited a healthy level of self-awareness!
And while his words may have been strong, he didn't steam-roller the conversation like some of his colleagues did, or play to the gallery. This is borderline, really, but I think he belongs in this section.
Here are the rest. Some were reasonably polite. They accepted answers calmly without excessive judgement and acknowledged that Chew was answering to the best of his ability. Some raised interesting questions or perspectives. Some miraculously did both.
Most importantly, they let him speak. This is a low bar to clear, but by default, they belong in this section.
Michael Burgess of Texas
Diana DeGette of Colorado
Doris Matsui of California
Kat Castor of Florida
Yvette Clarke of New York
Debbie Dingell of Michigan
Nanette Barragán of California
Lisa Blunt Rochester of Delaware
Darren Soto of Florida
Lori Trahan of Massachusetts
Ann Kuster of New Hampshire
Lizzie Fletcher of Texas
Scott Peters of California
Mariannette Miller-Meeks of Iowa
Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota
This does not mean that I agree with everything they said. It just means that by my estimation, and I could be grossly off-base here, they conducted themselves properly.
I will also say that contrary to how much of the internet, in particular TikTok users (surprise, surprise) have portrayed this committee as a bunch of buffoons, many of them didn't really say anything I consider objectionable. They gave Chew Shou Zi an honest shot even if their attitude was sometimes a little prickly. Some of them were even friendly (some, like John Curtis, overly so).
The next section focuses on the congressmen and congresswomen who could have done better. Some of them had a good idea but flubbed the implementation. These are the ones that didn't exactly cover themselves in glory. They were bad, yes, though not to excruciating levels - that's for the "Ugly" section.
I'm not going to hit below the belt and base this on pronounciation, even though it was painful to hear them mangle Chew Shou Zi's name, or the names of Douyin, or Zhang Fuping, or even TikTok. Let's give a little grace. Despite the USA's reputation as a melting pot of cultures and races, roughly 80% of Americans speak only English, and some don't even speak it that well. Thus, expecting them not to slip up is grossly unfair.
Besides, we have more substantial things to focus on.
The Chair, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, definitely qualifies for this one. Right off the bat, she set the tone for some heavy-handed hypocrisy with this...
...and then this.
That was not only disrespectful to the witness, more importantly, it was unprofessional. Talk about playing to the gallery. I'd expected better from American Congress. Maybe I shouldn't have.
You don't need to have technical know-how to understand that in any system run or used by human beings or by algorithms created by human beings, "100% certainty" is a statistical impossibility. Thus, answering a question like this basically forces the answerer to lie or say "no". This was not stupid; it was malicious. The only reason why this lady is not in the "Ugly" section is because I acknowledge that unlike many of the speakers, she had an tricky job to do as Chair, and thus I'm going to cut her a little slack.
Bob Latta of Ohio started out OK, but at some point he got ridiculous, repeatedly pushing "yes or no" despite the complexity of the questions he posed, kept interrupting like a petulant child. He gave me the impression that he was entirely superfluous to this hearing. Like, what value did he really provide to the hearing? He seemed to have already made up his mind; why was he even here?
Sir, it's impossible for me to conclude that you're anything but a waste of the last five minutes. I'm gonna move on.
Sad to say, Richard Hudson of North Carolina belongs in this section even though most of the internet might opine that he belongs in the "Ugly" section. The clips of him asking Chew Shou Zi about whether TikTok can connect to his WiFi have gone viral and he's been the target of much derision.
But here's the thing - while his question might have come off asmoronic clumsily phrased, I believe he had a larger point to make about TikTok potentially being able to access other device in the network. While that's certainly possible, that is also currently in the realm of science fiction. If this is a real and present danger; forget TikTok, shut down your entire goddamn internet.
To be fair, that segment aside, he was serious as a heart attack and didn't resort to theatrics. This was professional, no matter what you think of the WiFi question. I don't think he deserves to be in this section with the likes of, say, Bob Latta; alas, there are only three categories.
Brett Guthrie of Kentucky is included here not because of his behavior. He conducted himself properly. By my standards anyway, which sadly seem to be higher than those of American Congress. However, he slipped up by constantly harping on how different the content is between China (Douyin) and the USA (TikTok). Even when Chew Shou Zi tried to let him off the hook by gently suggesting that this was a less meaningful comparison than against other Social Media platforms in the USA, he insisted on walking right into it.
And Chew finally just let him have it.
Wow, the sheer shade. Brett Guthrie moved on pretty quickly from that one. Yeah, you better run.
Mr Guthrie, content on Social Media is a reflection of the laws of the land. If drug content is not present in China and Singapore, that is because these countries have no tolerance for that content. It's not that TikTok needs to do better (although they certainly do), but that America herself needs to do better.
Tim Walberg of Michigan's main questions were about data access by the CCP. It was hard to follow this conversation. This dude was giving off the impression he barely understood English, much less tech or business. Waste of five minutes, moving on.
Gary Palmer of Alabama. Tried to shut down Chew multiple times with the tired old "yes or no", and failed quite amusingly. Blustery, pompous and a real windbag. I would have put him in the "Ugly" section, but he didn't merit even that much recognition.
Greg Pence of Indiana did the whole "old man shaking his fist at technology" routine and frankly it was funny AF.
Did this dude just whine about doing his job on National Television? The only thing this tells me is that if so many hearings have gone by and nothing has been done, some people just aren't doing their jobs. If this was supposed to convince me that it's all TikTok's fault, it sure wasn't very successful.
Troy Balderson of Ohio was not especially pugnacious, and I do feel a little bad about having to put him in this section with some of these losers, but some things he said bothered me strongly on a logical level.
Now, I'm not a parent. Partially because I recognize that it's a lot of work. But this should be a no-brainer - Social Media is not anyone's parent, let alone TikTok. Therefore it is not the job of Social Media to filter objectionable content from the young. It is the job of parents.
Russ Fulcher of Idaho just made a five-minute speech and asked zero questions. Like, seriously, dude.
Tried to slip a joke in there somewhere. I appreciate that. What I didn't appreciate was that five-minute speech he could have given literally anywhere else but a hearing that was set up to elicit information from Chew Shou Zi. Fail!
The following are those who were both combative and useless. A potent combination, though not quite enough to bump them to the "Ugly" section.
Neal Dunn of Florida.
John Joyce of Pennsylvania.
Raul Ruiz of California
The following are reluctant additions into this section. They tended to be inflammatory though not over-the-top rude. Again, I didn't necessarily disagree with anything they said; that's not why they're here. They're mostly here because I don't think they raised any interesting points. At worst, their presence did not strike me as being particularly useful.
Paul Tonko of New York
Tony Cárdenas of California
Marc Veasey of Texas
Randy Weber of Texas
Angie Craig of Minnesota
Rick Allen of Georgia
Diana Harshbarger of Tenessee
Jeff Duncan of South Carolina
Now do bear in mind that these aren't always outright condemnations. Some of them were just very middle-of-the-road and it didn't feel fair to place them in the "Good" or "Ugly" section. As such, I've generally tried to be very restrained in my criticism. I haven't started getting savage yet.
Now we go onto the ugly! Not literally ugly, even though some of these faces won't be winning beauty pageants anytime soon. No, this section is reserved for the truly astounding levels of either ignorance or bad behavior.
Kat Cammack of Florida is the quintessential occupant of this section. There have been other members of Congress, such as Richard Hudson, that were, in my opinion, unfairly raked over the coals of Social Media. Cammack was not one of them. She was belligerent beyond the point of necessity, interrupted constantly, and as she kept talking, I wondered - who the fuck let this Karen in here?!
There was also this segment where she threw out accusations and as Chew Shou Zi tried to answer, she kept talking over him, answering her own question with "Yes. Yes. Yes." I detest these theatrics, and Cammack really piled it on.
Also, and I realize that this is completely subjective, her face and constant finger-wagging annoyed me. This lady did not need to be here. She needed to be in a McDonalds somewhere chomping on a cheeseburger and demanding to see the Manager.
Gus Bilirakis of Florida (what is it with Florida?!) is another deserved inclusion in this section. He spoke with a slur and I was almost convinced that he was going to slip into a coma at some point. Like some others before him, he kept droning on and insisting on "Yes or no?" even as Chew Shou Zi tried to give detailed answers. Not only was this guy insanely annoying, he was useless, which is arguably worse, and came across as supremely sanctimonious as he detailed the case of Chase Naska, a teen suicide.
No Mr Bilirakis, your school shootings are doing a much better job of that.
Bill Johnson of Ohio was a surprise inclusion into this category. The moment he introduced himself as an I.T professional, I was pre-conditioned to receive him positively. Unfortunately, he did himself absolutely no favors with his particular brand of douchebaggery.
Like wow, Johnson really took the term "condescending asshole" to a whole new level there. Chew only appears evasive because your fellow idiots are asking for "yes or no" answers when he's trying to give detailed ones. Something which I'm now sure is deliberate. Well played.
Here's the truth. Johnson is a know-nothing masquerading as a know-something, and I'm sick of his bullshit.
Did this guy say he'd been in I.T most of his life? How in the ever-loving fuck does a shift from a zero to a one, accomplish that much? That could certainly work if it was just a configuration object, but the code to do what he claims, would actually have to exist in the first place. This guy talked about code like he'd never written a line of code in his life. Seeing as it's a Federal crime to lie during Congress (or so they kept reminding us ad nauseam) he could be one of those guys who think they know shit just because they own a tech company or two, and have never been in the metaphorical foxholes like us grunts. I've certainly encountered plenty of those.
Even assuming this was true, what could be gained from asking this? Would the CEO of a tech company necessarily know this? The CEO, not the CTO. And even if he could answer the question, how many others at the hearing or the audience would understand? This was performative politics, nothing more. At some point Chew was even seen smiling as if to say, wow, this guy. I think Bill Johnson would benefit greatly from observing Jay Obernolte from the "Good" section. Take note, Mr Johnson - this is what a real tech professional should sound like. This is what you might sound like with some genuine expertise and a lot less hot air.
I wanted badly to like Earl "Buddy" Carter of Georgia. With his thick accent and his jovial demeanor, he exuded a certain Southern charm. But to be fair to the others, he unequivocally belongs in this section due to some of the astonishingly clownish things he uttered.
For example, he was questioning why the American version of TikTok had dangerous challenges while Douyin didn't.
And when Chew said no, he wasn't sure if Douyin did, Carter went:
Chew had already mentioned that Douyin is used in China, and TikTok is used outside of China. They're not competitors because they have to exist mutually exclusive of each other. They do not operate in the same market segment. This would be like calling Weibo a competitor of Facebook. There was no reason for Chew to be checking Douyin out at all. Was Carter taking the piss, or just dense?
There's also that back-and-forth where Carter badgered Chew about pupil dilation or some shit like that, but at that point, I was convinced I was listening to the ravings of someone either drunk or stupid. Perhaps both.
Chew was starting to explain how TikTok determines the age of their users.
And Carter was like,
What's creepy about going through a public profile?! Can I suggest that Carter hire an entire audit team to check the stuff that comes out of his mouth? Because this guy is a bona fide liability.
Entertainment value aside, Carter was a complete waste of the time spent listening to his drivel. I'm firmly convinced that while he's a likeable guy due to the informal and buddy-buddy way he talks, someone like him does not belong in Congress, for the same reasons someone like me does not.
Around the four hour mark of this hearing, we got some more posturing from Debbie Lesko of Arizona.
I'm frankly perplexed that anyone thought this was anything but irrelevant. Would it have mattered if Chew had said yes? Would it have mattered if he said he believes in Santa Claus or Jesus Christ? I know what Lesko was trying to prove, but Chew was not going talk shit about any government, never mind the Chinese government. Hell, there was so much shit he could have said about the USA government (and a lot of it would absolutely be relevant in this hearing), but he held back!
Aside from that, Lesko also performed the tactic that many of these politicians seem so fond of - interrupting, talking over, and badgering. So performative. So puerile. In other words, she earned her place in this section.
I have no words to describe what a tool August Pfluger of Texas was during his time.
Like, this has to take the prize for useless questions. Aside from that, he was argumentative and full-on spoiling for a fight. And at the end of the exchange, he had this to say in reference to Project Texas.
Guy probably thought this was a mic drop. If I could roll my eyes any harder, they'd be doing a Neymar Jr. I even saw Chew Shou Zi crack a smile at this. Pfluger, if you're under the impression that you're witty, no, you really aren't. If it's any consolation, you are pretty comical. Unfortunately for you, American Congress is not the place. Or maybe it is, I can't tell anymore at this point.
Morgan Griffith of Virginia. Whoo boy, this guy. Originally, I was feeling charitable and put him in the "Bad" section, but as his five minutes wore on, his theatrics got worse and worse. He kept badgering Chew Shou Zi to tell him the political affiliations of his employees.
Sir, I thought it was illegal to ask your employees what their political affiliations are, being that this is the USA, the land of the free and all that. Dude was grasping so hard, it was just sad.
TikTok is installed on my phone, yes. But I can't remember the last time I used it, much less surrendered an entire hour to it. Sure, a whole bunch of teenagers will lose their favorite toy, and several people who currently make a living off it will have to go out and (gasp!) get jobs. Would it really be so terrible if there were a few (or several) less Social Media influencers in this world? Not from where I sit.
So, no. I really have very little skin in the game, and thus I'm answering this as objectively as humanly possible.
Let's face it - if Tiktok does get banned, people are not going to stop being trash on Social Media. They're just going to flock to other platforms and be trash there. Maybe that was the entire point of the exercise, eh? I mean, if the concern was data getting mined and sold, the problem would be a lot bigger than TikTok. If the concern was objectionable content, there's a whole lot of it elsewhere as well. So maybe the real concern is that American-made Social Media platforms just don't want the competition.
Is it possible that China really is using TikTok as a tool for espionage or propaganda? Sure, anything's possible. I may even go so far as to say it's probable. Is a TikTok ban going to help? I'd say that ship has sailed, wouldn't you?
Secondly, I understand that my comments may be hurtful and sound unprofessional. I suspect the American politicians who got roasted here will sleep just fine; I'm neither an American citizen and have no voting rights, nor do I have millions of Followers that I can influence in the USA. In other words, like a lot of people, I'm a complete non-entity with an opinion, or several.
Lastly, this was my first time watching American Congress. Not impressed.
Tags
See also
Welcome to the absurdity that is known as American Congress.
Many of these esteemed gentlemen and ladies who made up the panel, are, for want of a better term, hysterical children. There were several points during the hearing where I alternated between cringing, groaning, or losing my will to live. For hours, they battered Chew Shou Zi with accusations, sarcasm and outright hostility. Some of them just seemed to like the sound of their own voice a wee bit too much, asking questions but not giving TikTok's CEO any space to answer.
But hey, it wasn't entirely bad. Roughly half of these Representatives actually didn't come off like flaming idiots, though it's possibly relative to the ones that did. Let's go over the positives.
The Good
The first entry in this section, of course, goes to Chew Shou Zi. In the span of several hours, he worked the hardest. He was clear, eloquent, and for the most part, articulate. He endured the thankless task facing off against an obviously combative Congress. There were times he stumbled, and I think he resorted way too much to his go-to phrase "I'll get back to you", but this was forgivable because just watching the entire thing was exhausting enough. Imagine having to actually be in his seat.Chew Shou Zi
Though he was unfailingly polite, sometimes he did push back.
"With a lot of respect, American social companies don’t have a good track record with data privacy and user security. I mean, look at Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, just one example."
And now, some of the members of the panel that I think asked reasonably intelligent questions, or at least didn't conduct themselves like brats. Yes, surprising as it may sound, not all of them made me wonder how they have a job at all.
Frank Pallone
Frank Pallone of New Jersey, went right after the opening statement by Cathy McMorris Rodgers. He pointed out addictive algorithms of big tech, nothing I feel can or should be argued against. He also said that he was focusing his attention not only on TikTok, but on Social Media as a whole with regard to data privacy concerns. That's fair, and I certainly respected that.
Even when he was asking questions, even when some of those questions veered into the combative, he managed to do so in a manner I consider both professional and dignified.
Anna Eshoo
Anna Eshoo of California wasn't especially good. But while she started out with genuine questions regarding the CCP, she seemed unwilling to accept Chew's answers, at one point describing his answer as "presposterous". I'm tempted to say, no lady, you're presposterous, but in all fairness, she didn't do enough to not be in this section. Besides, she actually had the sense to keep quiet and let the CEO answer her questions about TikTok's algorithms in detail, which tells me she was actually interested in the answer rather than simply talking for the sake of talking.
John Sarbanes
John Sarbanes of Maryland was a breath of fresh air, coming right after the dumpster fire that was Bill Johnson (in the "Ugly" section). He conducted himself with dignity and brought up the issues of addictive algorithms used in TikTok, and he said it in a way I didn't strongly disagree with. He appeared open to a compromise for the company to dial down these algorithms, though perhaps skeptical of Chew's willingness to do so. Even when he did interrupt, it wasn't done as a power move or intimidation tactic, and was only because he was running out of time and needed to ask more questions.
Jay Obernolte
Jay Obernolte of California came in as a software engineer and raised several questions that I found of interest, such as a size of the code base, code reviews and software configuration management systems. In particular, he also took the trouble to point out possible flaws in TikTok's proposed Project Texas, and did so without being a prick about it. The conversation between him and Chew was natural, flowed, and a sheer pleasure to listen to.
He even came back for an encore after the break, and posed another question.
"How could looking at the algorithm confirm that it's free from foreign influence? Because the algorithm is just a neural net architecture with inputs and outputs and weights and how to train that."
I swear, this guy knows what he's talking about, and he explained it way better than I ever could have. Hats off! I don't think it's a coincidence that the other Representatives yielded their time to him so he could come back and ask Chew more questions. His questions were thought-provoking and he was actually interested in the answers and could respond thoughtfully to them!
John Curtis
John Curtis of Utah tried to be affable, to his credit. He recognized that Chew was caught up in giving detailed answers, so he continually exhorted, in his very friendly manner, Chew Shou Zi to go back "up to thirty thousand feet" and give a general picture instead. There was something I don't quite trust about this guy. He gave me the vibe of being the "good cop" in the "Good Cop, Bad Cop" routine. My personal feelings aside, I should at least give him props for trying. He's not in here just for his bedside manner. Also, his point about the difference between "a publisher and a distributor" was quite engaging.
Kim Schrier
Kim Schrier of Washington is a pediatrician and she conveyed her concerns very well. Her point about addictive behavior like smoking as really on the nose and felt like a personal attack (heh heh).
"We're seeing eating disorders in elementary age kids now. And I need you to expedite that process as much as possible because parents out there are worried, and I'm worried as a pediatrician, parents can't take themselves off of these platforms. Kids, there's no way they're gonna take themselves off. And we need you to do your part. It may affect your bottom line, but it could save this generation."
She came across as genuinely concerned and sincere as opposed to just posturing. Maybe that makes her a really good politician, if ya know what I mean.
Dan Crenshaw
Dan Crenshaw of Texas was the last to speak. I didn't want to like this discount Nick Fury, but he did finish the hearing in bold fashion. He even exhibited a healthy level of self-awareness!
"I wanna say this to all the teenagers out there and the TikTok influencers who think we're just old and out of touch and don't know what we're talking about, trying to take away your favorite app. You may not care that your data's being accessed now, but it will be one day when you do care about it."
And while his words may have been strong, he didn't steam-roller the conversation like some of his colleagues did, or play to the gallery. This is borderline, really, but I think he belongs in this section.
Here are the rest. Some were reasonably polite. They accepted answers calmly without excessive judgement and acknowledged that Chew was answering to the best of his ability. Some raised interesting questions or perspectives. Some miraculously did both.
Most importantly, they let him speak. This is a low bar to clear, but by default, they belong in this section.
Michael Burgess of Texas
Diana DeGette of Colorado
Doris Matsui of California
Kat Castor of Florida
Yvette Clarke of New York
Debbie Dingell of Michigan
Nanette Barragán of California
Lisa Blunt Rochester of Delaware
Darren Soto of Florida
Lori Trahan of Massachusetts
Ann Kuster of New Hampshire
Lizzie Fletcher of Texas
Scott Peters of California
Mariannette Miller-Meeks of Iowa
Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota
This does not mean that I agree with everything they said. It just means that by my estimation, and I could be grossly off-base here, they conducted themselves properly.
I will also say that contrary to how much of the internet, in particular TikTok users (surprise, surprise) have portrayed this committee as a bunch of buffoons, many of them didn't really say anything I consider objectionable. They gave Chew Shou Zi an honest shot even if their attitude was sometimes a little prickly. Some of them were even friendly (some, like John Curtis, overly so).
The next section focuses on the congressmen and congresswomen who could have done better. Some of them had a good idea but flubbed the implementation. These are the ones that didn't exactly cover themselves in glory. They were bad, yes, though not to excruciating levels - that's for the "Ugly" section.
I'm not going to hit below the belt and base this on pronounciation, even though it was painful to hear them mangle Chew Shou Zi's name, or the names of Douyin, or Zhang Fuping, or even TikTok. Let's give a little grace. Despite the USA's reputation as a melting pot of cultures and races, roughly 80% of Americans speak only English, and some don't even speak it that well. Thus, expecting them not to slip up is grossly unfair.
Besides, we have more substantial things to focus on.
The Bad
Cathy McMorris Rodgers
The Chair, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, definitely qualifies for this one. Right off the bat, she set the tone for some heavy-handed hypocrisy with this...
"I do want to remind the guest in the audience that the chair is obliged under the house rules and the rules of the committee to maintain order and preserve decorum in the committee room. I know that we have deep feelings on these issues and that we all may not agree on everything, but I ask that we abide by these rules and be respectful of our audience members, our viewers, and our witnesses."
...and then this.
"Your platform should be banned. I expect today you'll say anything to avoid this outcome. Like you are 100% responsible for what TikTok does, that you suddenly endorse a national data privacy standard. That Project Texas is more than a marketing scheme, that TikTok doesn't harm our innocent children, or that your ties to the Chinese Communist Party through ByteDance is just a myth. We aren't buying it."
That was not only disrespectful to the witness, more importantly, it was unprofessional. Talk about playing to the gallery. I'd expected better from American Congress. Maybe I shouldn't have.
"Can you say with 100% certainty, that ByteDance, the CCP cannot use your company or its divisions making content to promote pro CCP messages for an act of aggression against Taiwan?"
"The question is, are you 100% certain that they cannot use your company to promote such messages?"
"I wanted to hear you say with 100% certainty that neither ByteDance nor TikTok employees can target other Americans with similar surveillance techniques as you did with the journalists."
You don't need to have technical know-how to understand that in any system run or used by human beings or by algorithms created by human beings, "100% certainty" is a statistical impossibility. Thus, answering a question like this basically forces the answerer to lie or say "no". This was not stupid; it was malicious. The only reason why this lady is not in the "Ugly" section is because I acknowledge that unlike many of the speakers, she had an tricky job to do as Chair, and thus I'm going to cut her a little slack.
Bob Latta
Bob Latta of Ohio started out OK, but at some point he got ridiculous, repeatedly pushing "yes or no" despite the complexity of the questions he posed, kept interrupting like a petulant child. He gave me the impression that he was entirely superfluous to this hearing. Like, what value did he really provide to the hearing? He seemed to have already made up his mind; why was he even here?
"It's impossible for me to conclude that the video is anything different than the type of propaganda the CCP requires Chinese companies to push on its citizens..."
Sir, it's impossible for me to conclude that you're anything but a waste of the last five minutes. I'm gonna move on.
Richard Hudson
Sad to say, Richard Hudson of North Carolina belongs in this section even though most of the internet might opine that he belongs in the "Ugly" section. The clips of him asking Chew Shou Zi about whether TikTok can connect to his WiFi have gone viral and he's been the target of much derision.
But here's the thing - while his question might have come off as
To be fair, that segment aside, he was serious as a heart attack and didn't resort to theatrics. This was professional, no matter what you think of the WiFi question. I don't think he deserves to be in this section with the likes of, say, Bob Latta; alas, there are only three categories.
Brett Guthrie
Brett Guthrie of Kentucky is included here not because of his behavior. He conducted himself properly. By my standards anyway, which sadly seem to be higher than those of American Congress. However, he slipped up by constantly harping on how different the content is between China (Douyin) and the USA (TikTok). Even when Chew Shou Zi tried to let him off the hook by gently suggesting that this was a less meaningful comparison than against other Social Media platforms in the USA, he insisted on walking right into it.
"What's the difference? I'm sorry, I'm out of time, but what's the difference in China? And here?"
And Chew finally just let him have it.
"Let me give you an example, Congressman. In my home country, Singapore, there is almost no illegal drug content because Singapore has very strict drug laws."
Wow, the sheer shade. Brett Guthrie moved on pretty quickly from that one. Yeah, you better run.
Mr Guthrie, content on Social Media is a reflection of the laws of the land. If drug content is not present in China and Singapore, that is because these countries have no tolerance for that content. It's not that TikTok needs to do better (although they certainly do), but that America herself needs to do better.
Tim Walberg
Tim Walberg of Michigan's main questions were about data access by the CCP. It was hard to follow this conversation. This dude was giving off the impression he barely understood English, much less tech or business. Waste of five minutes, moving on.
Gary Palmer
Gary Palmer of Alabama. Tried to shut down Chew multiple times with the tired old "yes or no", and failed quite amusingly. Blustery, pompous and a real windbag. I would have put him in the "Ugly" section, but he didn't merit even that much recognition.
Greg Pence
Greg Pence of Indiana did the whole "old man shaking his fist at technology" routine and frankly it was funny AF.
"...this is the 32nd hearing we have held about privacy and big tech. Each hearing I've been part of, we've heard the same stories about our constituents' experience, and the same promises for big tech to do better."
Did this dude just whine about doing his job on National Television? The only thing this tells me is that if so many hearings have gone by and nothing has been done, some people just aren't doing their jobs. If this was supposed to convince me that it's all TikTok's fault, it sure wasn't very successful.
Troy Balderson
Troy Balderson of Ohio was not especially pugnacious, and I do feel a little bad about having to put him in this section with some of these losers, but some things he said bothered me strongly on a logical level.
"Can you explain to parents back in my congressional district why it should be their burden and not to set up that guardian parental controls for their children so that they do not view content, which is encourages eating disorders or committing suicide?"
Now, I'm not a parent. Partially because I recognize that it's a lot of work. But this should be a no-brainer - Social Media is not anyone's parent, let alone TikTok. Therefore it is not the job of Social Media to filter objectionable content from the young. It is the job of parents.
Russ Fulcher
Russ Fulcher of Idaho just made a five-minute speech and asked zero questions. Like, seriously, dude.
"And the whatever is what bothers me. And I'll use myself as an example again, if for whatever reason I became a target in this, I became somebody you didn't like. And I know that'd be hard to believe cuz you gotta like me. But let's say you didn't or a company didn't, or for whatever reason I became an app, app target, that artificial intelligence algorithm could be shared or spread selectively to a targeted audience that with negative information that maybe they has been paired up with that knowledge and that app to make me look really, really bad."
Tried to slip a joke in there somewhere. I appreciate that. What I didn't appreciate was that five-minute speech he could have given literally anywhere else but a hearing that was set up to elicit information from Chew Shou Zi. Fail!
The following are those who were both combative and useless. A potent combination, though not quite enough to bump them to the "Ugly" section.
Neal Dunn of Florida.
John Joyce of Pennsylvania.
Raul Ruiz of California
The following are reluctant additions into this section. They tended to be inflammatory though not over-the-top rude. Again, I didn't necessarily disagree with anything they said; that's not why they're here. They're mostly here because I don't think they raised any interesting points. At worst, their presence did not strike me as being particularly useful.
Paul Tonko of New York
Tony Cárdenas of California
Marc Veasey of Texas
Randy Weber of Texas
Angie Craig of Minnesota
Rick Allen of Georgia
Diana Harshbarger of Tenessee
Jeff Duncan of South Carolina
Now do bear in mind that these aren't always outright condemnations. Some of them were just very middle-of-the-road and it didn't feel fair to place them in the "Good" or "Ugly" section. As such, I've generally tried to be very restrained in my criticism. I haven't started getting savage yet.
Now we go onto the ugly! Not literally ugly, even though some of these faces won't be winning beauty pageants anytime soon. No, this section is reserved for the truly astounding levels of either ignorance or bad behavior.
The Ugly
Kat Cammack
Kat Cammack of Florida is the quintessential occupant of this section. There have been other members of Congress, such as Richard Hudson, that were, in my opinion, unfairly raked over the coals of Social Media. Cammack was not one of them. She was belligerent beyond the point of necessity, interrupted constantly, and as she kept talking, I wondered - who the fuck let this Karen in here?!
There was also this segment where she threw out accusations and as Chew Shou Zi tried to answer, she kept talking over him, answering her own question with "Yes. Yes. Yes." I detest these theatrics, and Cammack really piled it on.
"You damn well know that you cannot protect the data and security of this committee or the 150 million users of your app because it is an extension of the CCP."
Also, and I realize that this is completely subjective, her face and constant finger-wagging annoyed me. This lady did not need to be here. She needed to be in a McDonalds somewhere chomping on a cheeseburger and demanding to see the Manager.
Gus Bilirakis
Gus Bilirakis of Florida (what is it with Florida?!) is another deserved inclusion in this section. He spoke with a slur and I was almost convinced that he was going to slip into a coma at some point. Like some others before him, he kept droning on and insisting on "Yes or no?" even as Chew Shou Zi tried to give detailed answers. Not only was this guy insanely annoying, he was useless, which is arguably worse, and came across as supremely sanctimonious as he detailed the case of Chase Naska, a teen suicide.
"Your technology is literally leading to death."
No Mr Bilirakis, your school shootings are doing a much better job of that.
Bill Johnson
Bill Johnson of Ohio was a surprise inclusion into this category. The moment he introduced himself as an I.T professional, I was pre-conditioned to receive him positively. Unfortunately, he did himself absolutely no favors with his particular brand of douchebaggery.
"You've been evasive in many of your answers. I'm going to talk to you in some language that maybe you'll better understand - ones and zeros."
Like wow, Johnson really took the term "condescending asshole" to a whole new level there. Chew only appears evasive because your fellow idiots are asking for "yes or no" answers when he's trying to give detailed ones. Something which I'm now sure is deliberate. Well played.
"Here's the truth. In a million lines of code, the smallest shift from a zero to a one on just one of thousands of versions of TikTok on the market, will unlock explicit CCP censorship and access to American data."
Here's the truth. Johnson is a know-nothing masquerading as a know-something, and I'm sick of his bullshit.
Did this guy say he'd been in I.T most of his life? How in the ever-loving fuck does a shift from a zero to a one, accomplish that much? That could certainly work if it was just a configuration object, but the code to do what he claims, would actually have to exist in the first place. This guy talked about code like he'd never written a line of code in his life. Seeing as it's a Federal crime to lie during Congress (or so they kept reminding us ad nauseam) he could be one of those guys who think they know shit just because they own a tech company or two, and have never been in the metaphorical foxholes like us grunts. I've certainly encountered plenty of those.
"...can byte code be manipulated? We’ve talked a lot about source code. What about the byte code? The ones and zeros that actually execute on the device?"
Even assuming this was true, what could be gained from asking this? Would the CEO of a tech company necessarily know this? The CEO, not the CTO. And even if he could answer the question, how many others at the hearing or the audience would understand? This was performative politics, nothing more. At some point Chew was even seen smiling as if to say, wow, this guy. I think Bill Johnson would benefit greatly from observing Jay Obernolte from the "Good" section. Take note, Mr Johnson - this is what a real tech professional should sound like. This is what you might sound like with some genuine expertise and a lot less hot air.
Earl Carter
I wanted badly to like Earl "Buddy" Carter of Georgia. With his thick accent and his jovial demeanor, he exuded a certain Southern charm. But to be fair to the others, he unequivocally belongs in this section due to some of the astonishingly clownish things he uttered.
For example, he was questioning why the American version of TikTok had dangerous challenges while Douyin didn't.
"Do you know whether they have these kind of challenges like this over in China? Because it's my understanding they don't,"
And when Chew said no, he wasn't sure if Douyin did, Carter went:
"And, and you don't look at any of your other competitors or look at anything similar to yours."
Chew had already mentioned that Douyin is used in China, and TikTok is used outside of China. They're not competitors because they have to exist mutually exclusive of each other. They do not operate in the same market segment. This would be like calling Weibo a competitor of Facebook. There was no reason for Chew to be checking Douyin out at all. Was Carter taking the piss, or just dense?
There's also that back-and-forth where Carter badgered Chew about pupil dilation or some shit like that, but at that point, I was convinced I was listening to the ravings of someone either drunk or stupid. Perhaps both.
Chew was starting to explain how TikTok determines the age of their users.
"We rely on age gating as our key age assurance. Age gating, which is when you ask the user what age they are, we have also developed some tools where we look at the public profile to go through the videos that the post..."
And Carter was like,
"Well that's creepy. Tell me more about that."
What's creepy about going through a public profile?! Can I suggest that Carter hire an entire audit team to check the stuff that comes out of his mouth? Because this guy is a bona fide liability.
Entertainment value aside, Carter was a complete waste of the time spent listening to his drivel. I'm firmly convinced that while he's a likeable guy due to the informal and buddy-buddy way he talks, someone like him does not belong in Congress, for the same reasons someone like me does not.
Debbie Lesko
Around the four hour mark of this hearing, we got some more posturing from Debbie Lesko of Arizona.
"Mr. Chew, do you agree that the Chinese government has persecuted the Uyghur population?"
I'm frankly perplexed that anyone thought this was anything but irrelevant. Would it have mattered if Chew had said yes? Would it have mattered if he said he believes in Santa Claus or Jesus Christ? I know what Lesko was trying to prove, but Chew was not going talk shit about any government, never mind the Chinese government. Hell, there was so much shit he could have said about the USA government (and a lot of it would absolutely be relevant in this hearing), but he held back!
Aside from that, Lesko also performed the tactic that many of these politicians seem so fond of - interrupting, talking over, and badgering. So performative. So puerile. In other words, she earned her place in this section.
August Pfluger
I have no words to describe what a tool August Pfluger of Texas was during his time.
"Does TikTok support genocide?"
Like, this has to take the prize for useless questions. Aside from that, he was argumentative and full-on spoiling for a fight. And at the end of the exchange, he had this to say in reference to Project Texas.
"Please rename your project. Texas is not the appropriate name. We stand for freedom and transparency, and we don't want your project."
Guy probably thought this was a mic drop. If I could roll my eyes any harder, they'd be doing a Neymar Jr. I even saw Chew Shou Zi crack a smile at this. Pfluger, if you're under the impression that you're witty, no, you really aren't. If it's any consolation, you are pretty comical. Unfortunately for you, American Congress is not the place. Or maybe it is, I can't tell anymore at this point.
Morgan Griffith
Morgan Griffith of Virginia. Whoo boy, this guy. Originally, I was feeling charitable and put him in the "Bad" section, but as his five minutes wore on, his theatrics got worse and worse. He kept badgering Chew Shou Zi to tell him the political affiliations of his employees.
Sir, I thought it was illegal to ask your employees what their political affiliations are, being that this is the USA, the land of the free and all that. Dude was grasping so hard, it was just sad.
Will TikTok be banned?
That's not a question I feel equipped to answer. A better question would be: do I give a shit? No, I really don't.TikTok is installed on my phone, yes. But I can't remember the last time I used it, much less surrendered an entire hour to it. Sure, a whole bunch of teenagers will lose their favorite toy, and several people who currently make a living off it will have to go out and (gasp!) get jobs. Would it really be so terrible if there were a few (or several) less Social Media influencers in this world? Not from where I sit.
So, no. I really have very little skin in the game, and thus I'm answering this as objectively as humanly possible.
Let's face it - if Tiktok does get banned, people are not going to stop being trash on Social Media. They're just going to flock to other platforms and be trash there. Maybe that was the entire point of the exercise, eh? I mean, if the concern was data getting mined and sold, the problem would be a lot bigger than TikTok. If the concern was objectionable content, there's a whole lot of it elsewhere as well. So maybe the real concern is that American-made Social Media platforms just don't want the competition.
Is it possible that China really is using TikTok as a tool for espionage or propaganda? Sure, anything's possible. I may even go so far as to say it's probable. Is a TikTok ban going to help? I'd say that ship has sailed, wouldn't you?
Finally...
Firstly, some acknowledgements are in order. I referenced this link extensively so I could copy-paste rather than manually transcribe. Though there were parts where the transcript was off, it's nevertheless saved me a lot of labor and it's much appreciated.Secondly, I understand that my comments may be hurtful and sound unprofessional. I suspect the American politicians who got roasted here will sleep just fine; I'm neither an American citizen and have no voting rights, nor do I have millions of Followers that I can influence in the USA. In other words, like a lot of people, I'm a complete non-entity with an opinion, or several.
Lastly, this was my first time watching American Congress. Not impressed.
What a Shoudown!
