Opinion - TikTok can shape America's next generation and Beijing knows it
There is admittedly no 'smoking gun,' but TikTok represents a highly plausible vector of intelligence collection. ByteDance, TikTok's parent firm, claims it is committed to U.S. national security, but is legally bound to cooperate with the Chinese Communist Party.
The People's Republic of China almost certainly uses TikTok, at a minimum, as a collection platform to monitor public opinion. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. and TikTok agreed in January 2023 to maintain all U.S. data within the U.S., but there are concerning reports of leaks.
With 170 million U.S. users, TikTok provides Beijing with real-time, granular insight into American public opinion. That real-time data collection would prove enormously useful, for instance, in assessing U.S. willingness to fight in a hypothetical conflict over Taiwan.
But the challenge from TikTok with America's youth is not just collection, but influence. Early evidence suggests this is already underway.
A Rutgers study found TikTok suppressed unfavorable accounts of sensitive topics, including Tibet, Tiananmen Square, Uyghur rights and Xinjiang. 'Heavy' users expressed elevated positive attitudes toward China's human rights record and greater interest in traveling to China.
Given that the company's black box algorithm thwarts independent verification, we likely have seen only the tip of the iceberg of Beijing's efforts to sway the U.S. public.
The algorithm could convulse U.S. domestic politics by sowing discord and highlighting divisions, an outcome that serves Beijing's interest in undermining U.S. cohesion and painting D.C. as an unreliable partner.
Indeed, rather than bolstering one candidate or another, TikTok may act as an anti-incumbent tool.
In the 2024 election, TikTok contributed to President Biden's low approval ratings, according to one Democratic strategist. In that election, President Trump's support among 18-29-year-olds, which disproportionately comprises TikTok's user base, rose by seven points from 2020.
And yet, by April, only three months into office, Trump's support among young people has declined markedly — by up to 27 points.
While there are admittedly many variables at play, TikTok can amplify alienation and short-term sentiment swings. Whatever one's politics, it's dangerous for China to retain levers that can subtly shape American public opinion, especially by amplifying dissatisfaction.
It's worth noting that as Beijing uses tools to manipulate the U.S. public, especially its youth, it's taking meaningful steps to protect its own young people.
Douyin, the version of TikTok used in China and also owned by ByteDance, is required by authorities to enforce a 'youth mode,' limiting users under 14 to app usage for just 40 minutes a day. It also locks them out between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. daily.
The contrast is stark: China exports attention-fracturing content while shielding its own youth from it.
China's use of TikTok may allow it to influence mass and elite opinion. And in fact, TikTok may be uniquely effective at influencing elite views, by enabling microtargeting.
Given TikTok's effectiveness and deniability, as well as Beijing's determination to supplant the United States, Chinese security services are likely tweaking TikTok's algorithms to micro-target key users.
Chinese security services can directly shape TikTok's algorithm — rather than merely exploit one built by others — giving it a deniable, end-to-end influence over what users see.
Crucially, any elite-focused information operation via TikTok would be even more difficult to detect in the unclassified domain than efforts to shape mass public opinion because of how narrow and precise the targeting would be.
For far too long, U.S. leaders on both sides of the aisle have failed to take action against the platform.
And the reported decision by President Trump to tell U.S. companies they can ignore the law barring American companies from engaging with TikTok represents a new and immediate danger to U.S. national and economic security.
At a minimum, it is imperative to ensure the U.S. is not allowing companies or individuals to engage with TikTok so long as its algorithm is controlled by a Beijing-linked company.
But U.S. policymakers need to go even further and consider, for example, more ambitious measures such as national limits on short-video screen time for minors.
The status quo is incomprehensible and dangerous: Young Americans are being asked to unwittingly face off against an algorithm that may be a tool of Chinese intelligence services.
Allowing this dynamic to persist risks eroding the cognitive, civic and strategic foundations of American leadership.
Jonathan Panikoff is a senior fellow in the Atlantic Council's GeoEconomics Center and the former director of the Investment Security Group, overseeing the intelligence community's CFIUS efforts at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Joseph Webster is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and editor of the independent China-Russia Report.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNET
8 minutes ago
- CNET
We Love This Garmin Instinct 2 Solar Smartwatch and It's Now a Massive $136 Off at Walmart
It's back-to-school season and for many, this is a great time to reset and refocus on academic and personal goals. If you're into fitness and want to keep better track of your step count, then you know that Apple and Samsung dominate the smartwatch sector. Though these tech companies make great wearable pieces, Garmin is also behind some pretty neat smartwatches. Right now we've spotted the Garmin Instinct 2 Solar smartwatch for just $264 at Walmart, which saves you a massive $136. If you prefer Amazon, you an score the same watch for $264 with Amazon Prime. Though there's no set deadline for either of these deals, we suggest acting fast if you're interested. The Garmin Instinct 2 Solar smartwatch has a 45mm case and its watch band adjusts from 5.3 inches to up to 9.1 inches. The watch features multiple apps that track your step count, VO2 max and other sports activities so you can get an accurate picture of your progress. The Garmin Instinct 2 smartwatch includes a 3-axis compass and navigation programs, such as GPS, GLONASS and Galileo, which offer advanced readings that let you confidently trek in challenging environments. You can also sync this watch with a compatible smartphone and get notifications. Hey, did you know? CNET Deals texts are free, easy and save you money. The Garmin Instinct 2 is renowned for its solar charging capacity and long battery life of up to 54 hours. Keep in mind that you need a clear sky for at least 3 hours for a solar charge, but this is still a great watch for days-long hiking or outdoor adventures. Its power manager helps you track battery life, and your purchase includes a charging cable for when solar charging is unavailable. Looking for more wearable tech but not sure if this deal is for you? Check out our list of the best smartwatch so you can find one that works for you. Why this deal matters The Garmin Instinct 2 Solar smartwatch offers a battery life of 54 hours, solar charging capacity and loads of apps that will help you track your fitness statistics. It's a massive $136 off at Walmart for a limited time and makes a great alternative to Apple or Samsung smartwatches if you've been looking for one. Now is also a great time to save on this smartwatch and potentially avoid price hikes due to tariffs.
Fox News
9 minutes ago
- Fox News
DHS official calls out NJ gov over sanctuary city policies: 'He must answer for this'
DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin sounds off over sanctuary city policies and reacts to the Los Angeles mayor lauding a ruling restricting ICE.
Forbes
9 minutes ago
- Forbes
Office Hellscapes And AI Process Mapping
Why are human workplaces so disorganized? In some ways, it's a question people have been asking themselves ever since the first cubicle dwellers rose up from the primordial swamp - whenever that was. We know that larger systems tend to be disordered, especially if they're administrated by humans. Just go read Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, and it might remind you of the modern office – people and products and materials strewn about a gigantic footprint, with very little centralized control. You get the same kind of idea reading the most recent piece by Ethan Mollick on the site where he posts his essays, One Useful Thing. I always follow his posts, interested in his emerging take on the technologies that are so new to all of us. Mollick has MIT ties, and an excellent track record looking at the AI revolution from a fresh perspective. The Office Dilemma Human wothis most recent piece, he talks about process mapping and how AI can help people to sort through the disorganization of a business. Think of a company with 100 or more employees, and probably a dozen locations. The first thing you tend to find is that sense of disorder. Mollick talks about a 'Garbage Can' principle, which posits that most businesses are a collection of disparate processes thrown into a large, disorganized bin. To me, you could use the analogy of what programmers used to call 'DLL hell' in the earlier days of the Internet. DLLs are digital libraries. Their application was often chaotic and disordered. There were dependencies that would flummox even the most seasoned engineers, because things were complicated and chaotic. That's what a large company is often like. Everyone for Themselves Mollick also pointed to some numbers that I've seen in various studies, and presented at conferences where we've talked about AI over the past year. His number was 43% – the number of employees who are using AI in the workplace. But as Mollick points out, and as I've heard before, most of them are using AI in personal ways. The use of the tools is not ordered across an organization – it's piecemeal. It's people using an AI tool like you would use a hammer, or a saw, or a drill, or a lathe --- largely in an unsupervised way. However, in general, it seems AI is largely catching on, especially when it comes to product development. You have resources like this one from the Texas Workforce Commission, referencing thousands of AI jobs. So even if there's not much centralized AI in the boardroom, there is abundant AI in business processes. It's just that those processes may or may not be unified. The Bitter Lesson Then Mollick references something called the 'Bitter lesson' that's attributed to Robert Sutton in 2019. It's the idea that AI will prove to be cognitively superior to humans without a lot of poking and prodding – but given enough time and compute, the system will find its own way to solve problems. That phrase, problem solving, is what people have been saying is the unique province of humans. It's the idea that AI can do the data-crunching, but people are still doing the creative problem-solving. Well, that bastion of human ingenuity doesn't seem that safe anymore. Mollick references the early days of chess machine evolution, where eventually Deep Blue beat Kasparov. He notes that there are two ways to go about this – you can program in innumerable chess rules, and have the system sort through them and apply them, or you can just show the system thousands of chess games, and it will make those connections on its own. Back to Machine Learning Principles Reading through this, I was reminded of the early days of machine learning, where people talked a good bit about supervised versus unsupervised learning. We often used the analogy of fruit in a digital software program enhanced with machine learning properties. Supervised learning would be labeling each fruit with its own tag – banana – apple - or grapes. The program would then learn to correlate between its training data and new real-world data. That comparison would be its main method. And that comparison isn't hugely cognitive. It follows the tradition of deterministic programming. The unsupervised version would be simply to tell the program that bananas are yellow and long, that grapes are purple or green and have clusters, and the apples are red or green and round. Then the system goes out, looks at the pictures and applies that logic. The interesting thing here is taking that analogy to the bitter lesson. Is AI more powerful if it simply analyzes reams of training data without applied logic? Or is it more powerful if it can actually distinguish between various kinds of outcomes based on requested logical processes? Which came first: the chicken or the egg? The theory of the bitter lesson seems to be that the system can actually do better through supervised learning. But that supervision doesn't necessarily have to be human oversight. The machine gets a practically infinite set of training data, and makes all of its own conclusions. That's contrasted to an approach where people tell the machine what to do, and it learns based on those suggestions. Back in the era of supervised versus unsupervised learning, the unsupervised learning seemed more powerful. It seemed more resource-intensive. But AI might finally show us up just by doing things in a more efficient way – if I can use one more analogy, it's the traditional idea of the Laplace demon, an invention of the physicist Pierre-Simon Laplace who suggested that if you know enough data points, you can predict the future. In other words, brute force programming is king. We learned a lot of this in the big data age, before we learned to use LLMs, and now we're seeing the big data age on steroids. In Conclusion I also found a very interesting take at the end of Mollick's essay where he talks about businesses going down one or the other avenue of progress. Sure enough, he suggested that these companies are playing chess with each other – that one of these chess teams consists of companies using AI to be logical, and that another chess team consists of businesses using it for brute force programming and classification. If all of this is a little hard to follow, it's because we're pretty securely in the realm of AI philosophy here. It makes you think about not just whether AI is going to win out over human workers, but how it's going to do it. I forgot to mention the exponential graph that Mollick includes showing that we're closer to AGI then most people would imagine. Let's look back at the end of this year and see how this plays out.
