The Congressional move to ban the video-blog app, Tik Tok, is benefiting from the cash donations of its competitors and fueled by the rhetoric of Congressional proponents. The video app is now used by one hundred fifty million users monthly in the United States, according to Reuters. That’s up from one hundred million in 2020.

The stated concerns of supporters of the ban include their concern that the app’s owner, ByteDance, is a China based developer of consumer applications. The main contention expressed is the threat to U.S. national security based on the fear that data and the app might be controlled by the Chinese government for the purpose of espionage and propaganda through access to TikTok data bases. These are well founded fears that ByteDance has addressed by their “Texas” proposal to move servers and oversight to the United States to be run by Americans under U.S. government supervision.

Meanwhile, TikTok competitors like Meta with its apps, Facebook and Instagram, has spent millions to lobby Congress to ban TikTok in order to capture billions of advertising revenue lost to this major competitor. That is cheaper than competing with a dynamic app that has gained popularity among many Americans, especially the highly sought-after 18-34 years old consumer and voting demographic. This from the company that just agreed to pay $725 million dollars to settle a class action suit for Meta’s role in sharing user data with foreign based Cambridge Analytical and others that used the data to interfere in the U.S. 2016 presidential election.

U.S. Representative, Jamaal Bowman told MSNBC host, Jen Psaki, “In my opinion, TikTok is just a better product.” Bowman is outspoken in his opposition to the proposed ban. The irony of so many politicians, Democrat and Republican, who advocate for the virtues of capitalism while diving in to punish a successful competitor is laughable and concerning. Their contention that they want to forestall “communist China” influence over U.S. democracy and its citizens smacks of selective advocacy. Where is the outrage and legislation to punish Facebook and its facilitating Russian interference in the 2016 election? Why ignore the dangers of social media shared on multiple platforms not based in China? And why restrict an application that provides direct communication between individuals exercising their first ammendment rights in the most prolific and effective software available today?

Additionally, TikTok creators and users represent the views of the newly emerging electorate of voters aged 18-34 referred to as Gen Z and millennials who are displaying their activism and voting preference in favor of progressive ideals. They represent a challenge to the rightwing politicians who would deprive America of democracy and equality for all.

Taking out TikTok would be an attempt to break the legs of this idealistic threat to their authoritarian aims of voter suppression and theocratic rule. If you’re a proponent of the ban who has not experienced the app’s broad content and captivating creators, I recommend that you install the app, browse for an hour, then remove the app. Now you will have more information to consider in continuing your support of a ban.

Since the introduction of TikTok I refused to use the app for fear of China access to my data. Eventually, I followed the above advice and tried it. I have benefited from using TikTok in ways that no other media provides. Presenters vary from beginners to sophisticated journalists and propagandists. I get to choose who is credible just like with any other social media platforms. The difference is user friendly access to a video app that is like no other in today’s marketplace. I am exposed to information and reporting that goes far beyond the mainstream media’s “pack mentality” where they all chase the same few stories in order to gain market share.

A personal example is my access to reporting on the ground in Ukraine where I have access to multiple sources neglected by the mainstream media. Tik Tok owner ByteDance proposes to locate U.S. users’ data and its servers in the U.S. under the auspices of American company Oracle with oversight by American regulators. That is more oversight than any other social media app is subjected to. Why do legislatures insist on an outright ban only for TikTok? Why don’t they enact legislation to protect national security and privacy on all platforms that pose similar risks? Including privacy from U.S. government entities.

One alternative proposal to banning TikTok is to force the sale of TikTok to an American owner. Which company do you suppose they would approve for the purchase? How about letting Meta buy an app that is far more interesting than Facebook? Then Meta could dominate the social media landscape without developing a new app to compete. After all, isn’t monopoly the ultimate goal of capitalism?
#TikTok #bytedance #freespeech #mainstreammedia #capitalism #tiktokban  

The free enterprise system, cherished by many Americans as the engine that drives a successful national economy, is threatened by capitalism. The ultimate outcome of unbridled capitalism is monopoly.

Monopolies squeeze out competition to totally control segments of the market place. The result is neither in the best interest of democracy, a strong economy or the American people. While corporations and entrepreneurs have always sought to eliminate competition and to dominate their chosen markets, government and public opinion have served to moderate the influence of self-interested businesses by establishing regulations that level the field for fair competition.

Regulations and laws have also served to guide society toward the common good rather than the good of common corporate comrades. When the Hunt brothers attempted a coup of the silver market in the late nineteen seventies by trying to own options on all the silver worldwide (some estimates put their total ownership of privately held silver at between 35% -77%.) United States regulatory agencies came to the rescue, albeit with panicked regulation that had far reaching effects in financial markets worldwide besides the silver commodities market. ….

Since the rise of Reaganism in the early nineteen eighties, American culture has increasingly been pushed toward an egocentric mindset. The Reagan tsunami washed across the American psyche with self gratifying, feel-good jingles. The refreshing simplicity of life with easy answers attracted both the wealthy and the middle class like the fans of Star Wars sequels lining up for the films’ premiers, escaping through fantasy.

They wanted to avoid the realities of America’s tarnished image after Vietnam; they wanted to ignore our overconsumption of natural resources and the accompanying strangle-hold of the oil producing nations; they wanted to feel good, to feel powerful, to be potent. The self examination of the sixties and early seventies gave way to attitudes of non-apologetic selfishness. Greed was rewarded with congratulations. Talk of fairness, sharing or equality was met with sneers and derogatory comments about socialism—as though the American people should not expect to share in the nations natural and labor resources.

Demagogues of the right insisted that industry had the right to pollute and profit with no limit because capitalism was the American way and government should not interfere with the free exercise of whatever the captains of industry deemed necessary to succeed at their endeavors. While Republican politicians crowed about getting elected to quash the “special interests” in Washington, the Republican rightwing fringe simultaneously built the formidable infrastructure of lobbying groups that would become the fourth “branch” of government joining the constitutionally mandated Congress, Supreme Court, and Executive branches. This corridor of lobbying power would later become known as “K” street in the same Washington, D.C. bureaucracy that the right promised its constituency to abolish.

Massive pressure funded by wealthy corporations and individuals was applied by the onslaught of those lobbyists to strip away regulations and laws that functioned for the good of the people of the nation in favor of carte blanche choices for corporations and political donors. While the right delivered on promises of less regulation, the beneficiaries were not their middle class supporters, indeed, not even the moderately wealthy benefited nearly as much as the super rich and international businesses that prospered under the Regan regime.

Even when the presidential reins were turned over to Bill Clinton, we saw his administration approach regulation in much the same way as the previous Regan administration—from the presumption that less regulation of business garnered more prosperity for the country. We saw NAFTA (North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement) touted as opening new markets to America, promoted heavily by the Clintons. In fact, it created an exodus of jobs from the U.S. and continued the further degeneration of the environment moving manufacturing to countries with less political will to control green house gases, purity of water and clean land.

During this same period, leading up to today, we have seen the steady expropriation of the public air waves. We’ve moved from our long tradition of operating our media “in the public interest,” to becoming the mind control and profit tool of monolithic media empires such as Clear Channel Communications and the Murdock Fox enterprises.

Further witness the role of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in advocating for the interests of campaign donors rather than an intelligent, informed public. We have seen increasing monopolistic control of our culture through media moguls like Murdock who dictate points of view while labeling them as “fair and balanced.” Call it double speak, oxymoron, propaganda, lies, however one might refer to the disintegration of the great American tradition of popular control of our public resources.

When our reality is the reality of TV then we know that we have arrived in the era of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s “Running Man.” Media only for entertainment begets a nation of self-absorbed morons whose main concern is whether he will prevail at council or if she scores a love interest from her twenty house guests who compete for her attention.

Meanwhile our economy is being high-jacked by conglomerates like Wal-Mart, Exxon, Citi Bank, Sony, Monsanto, Kraft, Amazon and Tyson Foods. As they target small businesses for extinction and acquire medium sized competitors, they increase their control of chains of production, distribution and employment. These international businesses owe no loyalty to the United States or its citizens. Their allegiance is to the shareholders and foreign “sovereign funds” that own them.

In tandem with their elected officials, major business concerns muscle the congress to stall legislation that will increase their taxes thus preserving more capital to squeeze their smaller competitors out of the market.

Simultaneously, Wal-Mart markets to the same clientele that it taps for sub-standard employment. Much like the newly freed slaves of the south were hired by the plantations and factories for wages that didn’t suffice to live on. Then the employers sold them the basic needs of food and clothing from company stores with inflated prices that subjugated the laborers to debt—the surest way to keep them working and powerless. Does this compare with today when you consider the amount of consumer debt that we have?

Marketing credit cards to young adults who don’t have the means to pay off the debt; sub-prime loans to borrowers who will forfeit their homes back to the banks; financing plans that reap 25% interest rates after an interest free 90 days. Here’s an irony: foreign governments using their new wealth from oil, labor and cheap manufacturing to gobble-up the emerging monopolies in order to secure their country’s access to resources, technology and political influence. Observe the recent moves by the Abu Dhabi and Chinese governments’ major acquisition of shares in Citi Bank, financial group Merrill Lynch selling a 10% stake to Singapore’s government fund, India’s branching into the English auto market, the lack of vigilance by our public servants to protect the public interest now has an even more sinister twist.

Having allowed monopolistic trends to flourish in some obscure view of free market economics the free market has come to free the market of U.S. control. We’ll see more consolidation of energy, food production from farm to table, financial institutions, and communications. The military complex flourishing from expenditures in the Middle East will look to additional opportunities to expand their markets. Do you know what it means when a munitions or military services company expands its market? War—that’s how they earn their money. They fail in the absence of war. They succeed when there is fear, hate, greed and corruption. They pay senators to earmark their products. If you think that Duke Cunningham was a misnomer, call upon common sense and listen to yourself.

You are smart; you understand how human nature works; you realize how critical money is to the political life of every politician regardless of party affiliation; you know that the hunger for money and power is insatiable. Americans must stand up to defend their country and culture from the real security threat—capitalistic monopoly. The focus should not be against raw capitalism, or against free enterprise, especially not against government regulation.

Rather, efforts must focus on taking control of our institutions and represent our self interest as a society: breakup the communications monopolies; take control of our energy resources; encourage small business, small farms and alternative energy sources; regulate tighter banking controls, banish private funding of campaigns, control lobbyists, restrict foreign control of critical infrastructure.