Fresh Air - The Looming TikTok Ban

Episode Date: December 18, 2024

A new law gives TikTok a January 19 deadline to sell to a non-Chinese company or face a nationwide ban. Law professor Alan Rozenshtein delves into what this means and whether President-Elect Trump could intervene.David Bianculli reflects on the year in TV.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Ho ho ho, Santa here coming to you from the North Pole. We're the elves in our podcast division of just completed work on this season's best gift for public radio lovers. NPR Plus. Give the gift of sponsored free listening and even bonus episodes from your favorite NPR podcasts, all while supporting public media. Learn more at plus.npr.org. This is Fresh Air. I'm Tanya Mosley. TikTok is in a race against time, a last ditch effort to save itself from being banned in the U.S. on January 19th.

The CEO of ByteDance, the company that owns the popular social platform, met with President -elect Donald Trump on Monday, just hours after asking the Supreme Court to take up the case and block the ban temporarily. This morning, the court agreed to take up the appeal and hear oral arguments on January 10th before deciding whether to put the ban on hold. Now at issue is who owns TikTok. Lawmakers say the platform is a national security risk because it gives China unfettered access to our data and our attention.

Last April, Congress passed a law that mandates TikTok either be sold to a non-Chinese company or be banned. TikTok challenged that law, arguing that a ban infringes on America's First Amendment rights to free speech. Each month, about 170 million of us spend time on TikTok. And for those who aren't on it, yes, it's a place to watch silly pranks and dance challenges, but it's also a cultural phenomenon.

According to Pew Research, 60% of adults under 30 get their news from TikTok, and millions also use it to generate income by creating content and selling products. Our guest today, Associate Professor Alan Rosenstein, has closely tracked TikTok's legal battles. He's been thinking about the ramifications of a ban and recently penned an article for the Atlantic asking, what if free speech actually means banning TikTok?

Our interview was recorded yesterday. Rosenstein is a law professor at the University of Minnesota Law School and a senior editor and research director at Lawfare. Alan Rosenstein, welcome to Fresh Air. Thanks for having me. So there are so many legal moving parts to this case. Let's start with the Supreme Court. What happens now that TikTok has asked the court to intervene? So the first thing the court has to decide is what to do. TikTok has asked the court to, in the meantime, pause the law

so that it doesn't go into effect on January 19th. It made that application to Chief Justice John Roberts, who is in charge of hearing these emergency motions from the DC Circuit, which is where TikTok lost the case earlier this year. And so it's likely that the Chief Justice will circulate that to his colleagues, and they will decide whether or not to pause the law.

Ultimately, they'll have to decide whether to take the case itself, to hear TikTok's appeal. And if they do that, then we probably won't know an answer ultimately until some time in the summer. Lylea Kaye Is there any indication that the Supreme Court might look at this case differently than Congress and the lower courts? Michael Hickman I don't think so. I mean, obviously, it's very difficult to predict, and we really won't know until there's the briefing and then the oral argument and then really the decision. But I take the decision of the DC Circuit as a pretty good barometer for what the Supreme

Court is going to do. The DC Circuit panel was three very distinguished, very well-respected judges. It was a cross-ideological panel. So you had a judge appointed by Barack Obama, a judge appointed by Donald Trump, and then a judge appointed all the way back by Ronald Reagan. And these three judges ruled quite comprehensively against TikTok on basically all of the important issues. And so while the Supreme Court certainly is not going to defer to the DC circuit, it's going to take the DC circuit's view under consideration. And I think it's going to both use that as a signal in terms of what the right answer is, but also I just think knowing what these three judges thought about the case just gives us a sense of what judges generally will.

And I have trouble thinking that TikTok is going to get a much better reception at the Supreme Court than it did at the DC Circuit. Certainly I don't think there are five votes on the Supreme Court to strike this law down. You know, this is uncharted territory for Americans. I don't think that, you know, on a mass scale, we've ever experienced a ban, something that's so popular, the potential for it to be taken away. App stores like Apple have already been put on notice that they could be fine for hosting TikTok after January 19th. I want to talk a little bit about some of the scenarios if the January 19th ban stays in effect. People are just wondering what does that mean? Does TikTok

just go away then? So it's not entirely clear what happens. The law works by, although it targets TikTok, it applies to, as you pointed out, app stores like Apple and Google and also cloud service providers like Oracle. These are the actual servers on which TikTok runs in the United States, and that's provided by companies like Oracle. And so the ban applies to these kinds of companies. And so on January 19th, it becomes illegal for Apple to distribute the TikTok app on the app store, and it becomes illegal for Apple to distribute the TikTok app on the App Store. And it becomes illegal for Oracle,

which is TikTok's US cloud service provider, to provide services to TikTok. So what happens on January 19th? It could be that TikTok just goes dark in the United States, and you just cannot access it. I think more likely what's going to happen is that if TikTok thinks that the ban is really going to go into effect, it will move its infrastructure

outside of the United States to physical servers that are not in the United States. Now, that's actually a very tricky thing to do. TikTok is quite large, and so, you know, moving to a different cloud service writer is not a trivial thing, but they can probably make something work. And so, on January 19th,

it actually might be a seamless transition in the sense that if you already have TikTok on your phone, you may still be able to access it. But it might be quite a bit slower, because now you're no longer accessing it in the United States. And also, your app will not upgrade over time. So as TikTok rolls out new features, as it finds bug fixes, your app is just going to stay. And so, you know, I think that for the first day, week, month or two, it may be that TikTok

users don't actually experience much, if at all, of a disruption. But the farther we get into the ban, the worse the TikTok experience is going to be. And I think the big worry for TikTok is that at some point, that experience will degrade sufficiently that TikTok users will decide, hey, maybe I should look at one of the competitors, like Instagram Reels or YouTube Shorts. I want to remind people that President-elect Trump actually got the ball rolling on all of this back in 2020. Can you remind us what he was pushing for back then

when he was talking about imposing sanctions on TikTok and banning it back then? Yeah, it's quite a wild story. So before he was against the TikTok ban, President Trump was very much for the TikTok ban and, in fact, tried to ban TikTok and WeChat, which is another Chinese-owned communications platform. And he tried to do that under his own authority.

Basically, Congress has, over the last 50 years, given the president really sweeping economic emergency powers to impose sanctions and other kinds of economic measures in the interests of national security and foreign policy. And so using those powers, Trump actually tried to ban TikTok. Now those bans, those attempted bans were challenged in court and Trump actually lost all of those. But the reason he lost was because the court said that the statute that he was trying to use didn't give him that authority because the statute actually had an explicit carve

out for communications platforms. So generally the courts, with a few small exceptions, didn't reach the issue that is central to this case, which is what happens if Congress unambiguously tries to ban TikTok? Can it do that under the Constitution? So that's why those cases turned out the way they did and why, although previous bans of TikTok have failed in the courts, at least before this one, that really wasn't an indication of what was going to happen with this case, because this case was done under a totally separate law.

As you mentioned, President-elect Trump now is for TikTok. He's been talking quite a bit about how TikTok has been instrumental in him winning the presidential election. I want to actually play a clip from his latest interview with NBC's Kristen Welker, where she references the ruling you mentioned earlier by the federal court last week that upholds

the ban. And she asked Trump where he stands on the issue. Let's listen. This week, a federal court upheld a law that could result in TikTok being banned. You said you're going to rescue TikTok when you get into office. Are you going to take steps to protect it? Yeah, as you know, I used TikTok very successfully in my campaign. I have a man named TikTok.

Jackie was very effective, obviously, because I won youth by 30 percent. All Republicans lose youth. I don't know why. Maybe it's changing. And last time we were down 30 percent with youth. This time we're up 35% with youth. And I use TikTok, so I can't really, you know, I can't totally hate it.

It was very effective. But I will say this, if you do do that, something else is gonna come along and take its place. And maybe that's not fair. What they do, and really what the judge actually said was that you can't have Chinese companies, in other words, they have the right to ban it if you can prove that the Chinese companies own it. That's what the judge.

So are you going to try to protect TikTok just very quick once you're in office? I'm going to try and make it so that other companies don't become an even bigger monopoly. Okay. Because that's what happens. That was President-elect Trump talking with NBC's Kristen Welker. Alan, Trump says several things here that I want to talk through. But I want to also know, first, what power does he

have at this moment that could determine the fate of TikTok? So the thing to keep in mind about this law is that, again, although it targets TikTok, the way it's enforced is not against TikTok directly, but against the app stores and the cloud service providers. And the reason that's important is because these are private companies, and they generally have the right to not do business with whomever they don't want to do business with. You can't force Apple to distribute the TikTok app.

You can't force Oracle to provide cloud services to TikTok. And this is important because if Trump wants to help TikTok, and from that clip, it's not actually obvious that he does. But if he wants to help TikTok, the people he has to convince are the executives at Apple and Oracle. He has to convince the general counsel of Apple that when Apple CEO Tim Cook asks,

well, should we continue to distribute the app, the general counsel says, yeah, I think that's okay. And so that's the audience. And so with that in mind, there are a couple of things he can do. One thing he could do, and this would be the most direct and most effective thing, would be to get Congress to repeal the law. Because if the law is repealed, then the law is repealed. Then there's no issue. The problem there is that it's going

to be very hard to do that. The law was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. I mean, it was essentially as bipartisan as anything gets in contemporary Washington. And although, of course, Trump has a really strong hold on the Republican Party, and maybe some Democrats don't love the idea of banning TikTok with the curing from their constituents.

I am skeptical that Trump can get the votes, right? That even Trump has the political juice to get this thing done. And I think it really have to be one of the main things he spends his political capital on in his first hundred days. I'm just not convinced he wants to do that. So the second thing he could do is he could just declare that the government is not going to enforce the law. So the law is enforced through primarily penalties on these companies. The Attorney General goes and sues Apple and

Oracle for violating the law up to $5,000 per user. And as you mentioned before, there are 170 million American users of TikTok. So that adds up to a lot of money very quickly. So he could direct the attorney general who will run the DOJ not to enforce the law. Absolutely, right? And that is within his power. And no one could really challenge that decision.

The problem is that Trump is very mercurial. He changes his mind frequently. He often seems to be basically acting based on whoever was the last person he talked to. So, just because he directs the attorney general not to enforce the law, that doesn't make the law go away. Apple and Oracle would still be in a position of violating the law. And again, if you're the general counsel of Apple, and certainly if I was, I would feel very uncomfortable telling my CEO to go ahead with an action that could potentially open my company up to billions of dollars in liability based on some truth social post that Trump made directing future Attorney General Pam Bondi not to enforce the law. So I don't think that's going to be good

enough. So the third thing Trump can do, and this is, I think, if he wants to help TikTok, this is probably how he's going to do it, is to just declare that the law no longer applies. And the reason he can do that is because the law bans TikTok unless ByteDance, TikTok's Chinese owner, performs what the law calls a qualified divestiture, basically a qualified sale.

And then the law also defines what a qualified divestiture is. And it says, qualified divestiture is when the president determines, after an interagency process, that, and then there's a bunch of language about what's supposed to actually happen. TikTok is no longer owned by ByteDance. TikTok is no longer owned or controlled by a Chinese entity, and so on and so forth. But if you just focus on the first few words of that

definition, the president determines, well, that does give the president some power. Now, one way you can read that is to say that the president gets some amount of discretion, maybe a little bit of discretion, maybe a lot of discretion to determine what counts as a qualified divestiture. And it's not clear who would be able to challenge that kind of determination, specifically who would be able to challenge if Trump just declared that ByteDance has performed a qualified divestiture. And so there's a scenario in which ByteDance could move some papers around, shift some assets from one corporation to another corporation, do some fancy legal work.

And that would give Trump enough basically cover to declare that TikTok is no longer controlled by ByteDance. The question ultimately, however, is, is that going to be enough for the apples and oracles of the world to continue to do business with TikTok? And we just don't know the answer to that question. You gave three scenarios, but then there's the fourth scenario that I guess is kind of the unlikely scenario is that the president could push for sale to an American company. But that has already been on the table for quite some time. And I found that interesting that Congress was mandating that because China has a law that blocks Chinese technology from being sold to an American buyer and the algorithm is

The beating heart of tick-tock So how feasible would it ever be that this company without the algorithm is sold to an American company? What it would it still have value if that scenario were to happen? It's a great question. I think it would definitely have value. The question is how much value. So there's no question that TikTok became very popular because it had a better algorithm, right? ByteDance built a better mousetrap than the American social media companies when it came to short form video and the market rewarded them as the market ought to. At this point, it's actually not clear to me how much of the value of TikTok is in the algorithm and let's say how much better that algorithm is to the other

comparable algorithms because of course Meta's TikTok competitor has its own algorithm. Google's TikTok competitor has its own algorithm. And all these algorithms, they're pretty similar. At this point, to make a good algorithm, you need a big company with a lot of data and a ton of compute and a lot of good machine learning engineers, which Meta and Google all have. So I suspect that even if TikTok's algorithm is the best, it's not orders of magnitude better in the way that it might have been when TikTok first started.

And so what I think- Can I give you an example though? I like, I just have to say, so I did a Google search after TikTok appealed to the Supreme Court yesterday and I typed in what happens now that ByteDance has asked the Supreme Court to intervene and a few articles came up. I read them all, but I didn't get the answer to my question. And then I decided to go on TikTok and I typed that question into the TikTok search engine. And there I got a slew of videos explaining exactly what I was asking for. Now, whether it was accurate, I mean, of course that is another topic. But I think this is an example of why this platform is so attractive to users as a search

engine and a place to get news. I mean, clearly, this is telling me that I need to get on TikTok if I'm a law professor and there's a demand for these kinds of answers. No, again, there are many things that might be going on here. One, it might be that the algorithm is better. But the other thing that might be happening, and I think this is maybe more relevant to your original question, is the content on TikTok might be better, algorithm is better. But the other thing that might be happening, and I think this is maybe more relevant to your original question, is the content on TikTok might be better.

Which is to say, there may be more people on TikTok and they're quote unquote better people in the sense of creating content. But that is different than the algorithm and that can be sold. So what there is no Chinese law against is ByteDance selling TikTok without the algorithm. And that itself might be valuable enough.

Now it's not going to be as valuable as TikTok with the full algorithm, but it might still be quite valuable. And one could imagine a situation in which a US company buys TikTok, which is say it buys all its users, it buys all the content, it buys the network itself, minus the algorithm, and then replaces the algorithm with something else. Now it won't be as good, but it probably will be good enough to keep the people on TikTok on TikTok. And because the algorithm is really based on the data, at some point that new owner

will have enough data to recreate something like the algorithm. But I would say that the deeper issue here is, yes, there is a law in China that prohibits the sale of the algorithm because it prohibits the export of Chinese technology. But we have to be realistic here. What's going to determine whether ByteDance sells TikTok is not Chinese law, but the Chinese government. Right? We take for granted in the United States and in liberal democracies that a private

company is a private company and that although it has to comply with the laws of the jurisdiction, it's still a private company. That's just not the case in China. It doesn't matter what the laws in China say. At the end of the day, China is an authoritarian police state in which the Chinese government and specifically Xi Jinping, the head of China, decides all the important issues. So if Xi Jinping wants ByteDance to sell TikTok, ByteDance will sell TikTok. If Xi Jinping does not want it to, with or without the algorithm, ByteDance will not sell TikTok.

But it's not a question fundamentally of Chinese law. It's a question of geopolitics. And so, you know, I think what what Trump can do most productively if he wants to is not try to get a U.S. buyer, right? There are plenty of U.S. buyers lining up to do this. The problem was never getting a U.S. buyer. It's doing whatever diplomacy is necessary to do with Xi Jinping in order if, you know, the law is upheld for this transaction to go through. And the question is, both one of desire on Trump's part, does he want to use his political capital in this way, especially since he likes to be seen as very tough on China and he's potentially preparing a whole trade war and

tariff war with China? And then the other question is capacity. Can Trump do this? Can Trump do this kind of diplomacy? Let's take a short break. If you're just joining us, I'm talking with law professor Alan Rosenstein about the impending ban of the social media app TikTok. We'll continue our conversation after a short break. This is Fresh Air. Hi, it's Tanya Mosely. Before we get back to the show, the end of year is coming up and our Fresh Air team is looking back at all the fantastic interviews and reviews we've been able to bring you in 2024 because of your support. We had so many delightful, introspective, sometimes emotional, sometimes funny, always

deeply human conversations with St. Vincent, Al Pacino, Bridget Everett, Pharrell Williams, Jeremy Strong, Ina Garten, and so many others. People you know well, and hopefully new people you learned about for the first time on our show. We're able to do this because of your support, to your local station, or by joining NPR+. NPR plus has grown a lot this year, and we want to say thank you, an extra special thank you, to those supporters. You know who you are and we see you. If you don't know what we're

talking about, NPR Plus is a great way to support independent public media. When you sign up for a simple reoccurring donation, you support our mission to create a more informed public and get special perks for more than 25 NPR podcasts, including sponsor-free listening, weekly bonus episodes from our Fresh Air Archives, and even exclusive and discounted items from the NPR Shop and NPR Wine Club. When you donate today, you join a community of supporters united in our curiosity about the world and respect for hearing out different perspectives. Join us on the plus side today at plus.npr.org. Thanks.

I'm Jesse Thorne. 2024 is almost over. But before it's gone, come laugh with us at the best standup comedy of the year on Bullseye. We'll hear from Tignitar, O'Kyle Canane, Kimberly Clark, Lori Kilmartin, and many, many more. You might even hear your next favorite standup. That's on Bullseye for MaximumFun.org and NPR. This is Fresh Air, I'm Tanya Mosley. And today we're talking to Alan Rosenstein, an associate professor of law at the University of Minnesota Law School and a senior editor at Lawfare.

Our interview was recorded yesterday. He's been writing for the Atlantic about the threat Congress says TikTok poses to national security and the decision to ban it. Last April, President Biden signed into law a bill requiring TikTok owned by the Chinese company ByteDance to be sold to a non-Chinese company. This morning, the Supreme Court agreed to take up an appeal from TikTok, and the court is scheduled

to hear oral arguments on January 10th. You know, the big question for many people is what evidence does the government have that the Chinese government might be using our data in nefarious ways? Because we know that all of the tech companies have so much information about us. The difference is that this is a Chinese company. What evidence does our government have or has given? They seem to have been pretty tight-lipped on what information they have that could be of concern. So a couple of points here. So the first is, you're right, some of the evidence is classified.

We won't know that ever. So the government, during the debates in Congress about the law, delivered a set of classified briefings to the House and the Senate. Some of these, at least, were very powerful. There was one famous example where I think the briefing was given to the House and a bunch of representatives walked into that briefing and they talked to journalists beforehand saying how skeptical they were of the law. And then they walk out of that briefing saying that they supported the law 100%.

So clearly, the government, the intelligence agencies, and the FBI told Congress something. Similarly, during the litigation at the DC Circuit, the government submitted classified information that was only available to the judges and not to the litigants, to TikTok, and obviously not to the public. TikTok was very upset about this and wrote a brief asking

the judges not to use this evidence. Notably, in the opinion, the judges explicitly said that they were not using that evidence, not because they objected to it, but because they didn't need to, that they were comfortable upholding the law based purely on what was in the public record, which I think is notable. So what's in the public record? What do we know? On the one hand, what we don't have, and the government has never pretended actually to its credit, what we don't have is smoking gun evidence. We don't have evidence of the Chinese government telling ByteDance to either collect US person data from TikTok and give it to the Chinese government or to modify the algorithm

so as to boost some pro-Chinese content. And these are the two concerns, data privacy and content manipulation. These are the two concerns that Congress cited when passing the law. So we don't have a smoking gun. But what we do have, I think, is everything short of that, right? We have a gun, it's on the table, it's loaded and it's pointed at us. And what I mean by that is we know, and there's years of evidence about this, that China has both the means and the motivations to carry this kind of behavior out.

Trump makes this point in that interview with Welker from NBC that others have also made, and that's that all of these tech companies also have unfettered access to our data. John Oliver pointed this out on his show last week tonight. Let's listen. JOHN OLIVER The condescension of just trust us can get really frustrating, especially when it's expressed like this. I think it's important to recognize we're actually doing this to protect the privacy of Americans. People feel like they're taking their rights away.

But it's actually protecting their privacy. But is it, though? Because is it in a world where Instagram knows your location, Uber knows your childhood fears, and DoorDash has a detailed 3D rendering of your small intestine its executives use as a screensaver. Claiming you're protecting Americans' privacy by banning TikTok.

Feels like claiming you're fighting climate change by banning the Kia Sorento. Sure, I mean, it's technically not nothing, but it is, in a larger sense, basically nothing. One of the reasons this story is difficult to navigate is there is so much we don't know, and coming from two sides I don't remotely trust. Because you're either taking the word

of a multinational tech company that profits off your data, or the U.S. government, which seems more than happy to turn a blind eye whenever American companies do the exact same thing. That was John Oliver on Last Week Tonight saying the thing that most people actually feel that at this point, if you're on these apps American owned or not, they already have your data. And then there is the question of trust.

When the government's not really telling us what they know, they're just saying, trust us that this is a threat to you. It really poses like a real issue for Americans when they're thinking about the potential for this app being banned. Yeah. Look, none of this is great. I want to emphasize this is not a good outcome. This is just a bad, this is just a less bad outcome in the eyes of the government and at least in my estimation based on what I understand. But reasonable people very much can disagree here. I want to emphasize that. It's just a less bad outcome than the other outcomes. With respect to John Oliver's point about data privacy,

I would say the following. It is a mistake, and I don't think the government has justified this law in this way. If it has, it's been a mistake. The law is not justified as a general data privacy law. It is a data privacy law about the specific threat that China poses to the data privacy of Americans. That's different than a generalized data privacy concern. Now, we can have that, that's a very separate conversation, which we can have about is it a good thing that, you know, door dash, as John Oliver says, has a picture of your small intestine, right? I don't love that either.

But that's not the concern at issue here. The concern here is not just that someone has your data, right? The problem is that the Chinese government has your data, and the Chinese government is differently situated towards us and American interests than a for-profit American company is. Now, should we have comprehensive data privacy legislation? Quite possibly. But that's just a separate conversation from the conversation here, which is about national security and data privacy, which is why even if you're against this law overall, I don't think you can just say, oh, well, TikTok is no different than any other data-hungry company. It's very different because it ultimately answers

to Xi Jinping. And last time I checked, that's just not true of Mark Zuckerberg. Let's take a short break. If you're just joining us, I'm talking with law professor Alan Rosenstein about the impending ban of the social media app TikTok. We'll continue our conversation after a short break. This is Fresh Air.

This is Fresh Air and today we're talking to Alan Rosenstein, an associate professor of law at the University of Minnesota Law School and a senior editor at Lawfare. He's been writing for the Atlantic about the threat Congress says TikTok poses on national security, and what a decision to ban it could mean for our First Amendment rights. For the average American, they may have a hard time understanding when we say that TikTok could be a threat to national security. If you're just a regular old content creator

in middle America, or you're someone who just like still look at TikTok before you go to bed each night. What are some of the concerns that you have? And you're already on all the apps already and all the apps already have your information. What are some of your concerns about what China could do with our data? I know that propaganda has also come up in many instances as far as TikTok scope and influence in our country, but what are some like real ways that they could be a threat?

Yeah. So when it comes to the data, if you're just a normie American watching cat videos on TikTok, there's not a huge data concern. It's more for the millions of Americans that do have potentially sensitive positions in the government where they're viewing history might tell Chinese intelligence agencies something useful about them now. It is true that other Platforms have a lot of information about them, but those are other platforms and they're not controlled by the Chinese Now it's also true that those platforms can sell that data to third party data brokers and so the information can get to the Chinese government one way or the other. But it's actually notable, and this has, I think, been underreported, that simultaneously with the passage of the TikTok law, Congress also passed a law

prohibiting the sale, including from data brokers, of information on Americans to countries like China. So Congress actually did try to tighten up the kind of leaky data pipeline. But it remains true that this law will not solve the data privacy problem, even with respect to China. But it's very rare that any piece of legislation can comprehensively solve an entire problem. The question is, can it make a meaningful difference in that problem? And is that marginal improvement worth the cost to free speech? That's the data privacy issue.

On the content manipulation issue, I think the concern there is that, you know, let's say the United States and China get into a shooting war over Taiwan, right? Do we want a situation in which over Taiwan, right? Do we want a situation in which China then modifies the algorithm so that 170 million Americans, including many young Americans, many of whom get the bulk, if not virtually all of their news from TikTok, and people aren't reading the New York Times as much. They're tragically not listening to NPR as much, right, as much as I wish they would. I mean, a lot of them are just getting their news on TikTok. Do you want to wake up that morning and have their news feeds flooded with anti-American, anti-Taiwanese, pro-Chinese propaganda? You mentioned how the concern over data privacy is not necessarily with ordinary people's data, but users who have positions in the US government.

We've heard of the government banning the use of certain apps before. Why couldn't lawmakers just ban government employees from using TikTok instead of a full-on ban? So the government can ban the use of TikTok on government devices. And in fact, there are some states that have done this. I don't think that really poses many First Amendment problems. Of course, if the government tried to ban anyone working for the government from using TikTok, I mean, that's a lot of people.

And that would actually raise its own First Amendment concerns. That would be quite similar to the concerns raised by the law more generally. And there's also a concern that even if you keep government users from using TikTok, if the family members of those users are using TikTok, a smart intelligence agency like the Chinese has can still glean a lot of information. And then when you take that and then you add the content manipulation concern, it just becomes a lot cleaner to ban the whole app. You talked about a scenario where TikTok could take US user data and put them on

different servers and there was this project that they announced some time ago called Project Texas in partnership with Oracle where they said they would house US user data on US servers. How would that work? I guess the bigger question is, is it even possible for ByteDance to separate American user data? I'm curious how that would work. So Project Texas was this very elaborate and as far as I can tell quite well thought out and in good faith attempt to assuage some of the national security concerns because for years before this law was passed, TikTok was in negotiations with a government entity called CFIUS, the Committee on Foreign Investment

in the United States, which deals with these national security issues when foreign entities invest in the United States and have a large US presence. And as part of that, they came up with this elaborate plan that they called Project Texas, which, as you point out, would create sort of a special US-only Oracle cloud in which the US data would be held and in actually which the algorithm would be held and that there'd

be all these rules and procedures to separate TikTok from ByteDance and that there'd even be a board partially appointed by the US government that would oversee this. And so, you know, it's hard to know all the details of that, and it's particularly hard to know how that would have actually played out in practice. The TikTok's position was that that would have assuaged all or nearly all of the government's concerns,

and therefore something like a ban is unnecessary, especially given the First Amendment cost of that ban. The government's position, and this was something that Congress agreed with and also that the court agreed with, was that there would still be too much of a residual risk because at the end of the day, unless you have an actual divestment, you still have TikTok being controlled by ByteDance. You still have the algorithm, even if it's in some sense held in the United States, it's still getting, it's still being updated from China itself.

And we know that because of the whole problem that ByteDance is pointing out with the sale is that the Chinese won't let the algorithm fully exit the United States. And that even if you have a good system, it has to be monitored, right? You have to make sure there's no cheating involved. That's very hard to do, right? That would involve the government in this ongoing process of looking at this. And if what you're concerned about is in a real moment of international emergency, right? Again, the example I think of always is the US and China get into a shooting war with

Taiwan. That no amount of procedures and corporate barriers will prevent the Chinese government from exercising control if it really wants to, short of an actual separation in which the Chinese government doesn't even have the capability of control. But it's ultimately a judgment call of how much risk are you willing to tolerate? Congress was not willing to tolerate essentially any risk, and the courts were not willing to overturn that judgment from Congress. How important is the U.S. and the lifeblood of TikTok? I think it's interesting that TikTok is not even available to people in China.

I think TikTok, I don't have the exact numbers of how the 170 million American users stack up to the global TikTok user base. I think it's very important. I mean, America is a massive market, always, but it's also such a culturally central market, right? I mean, if you want to be on a global platform and that platform does not have the United States, it's kind of not a global platform. So while I suspect TikTok will, even if it's banned in the United States, even if it loses its presence in the United States, it will still continue to exist, it'll certainly be weakened. And the network effects of TikTok, and this is the idea that social media platforms gain their value to their users in part because other users are using them.

Those network effects will take a huge hit and will put TikTok not just in the United States but also globally at a pretty profound competitive disadvantage relative to other competitors like Instagram Reels, like YouTube Shorts that will include, in addition to other countries, the very important, the culturally very important user base of Americans. Allen Rosenstein, thank you so much for this conversation. Thanks for having me. Allen Rosenstein is an associate professor of law at the University of Minnesota Law School and senior editor at Lawfare.

Our interview was recorded yesterday. And this morning, the Supreme Court announced it will take up TikTok's appeal to the law banning it, and we'll hear oral arguments on January 10th. This is Fresh Air. says it's almost impossible to summarize the year in television, given how many programs were produced and presented in 2024 by so many different networks and streaming services. But he thinks he's found a way, and here it is. I watch more television than anyone I know. And even I can't pretend to have seen enough to compile a comprehensive end-of-year top ten list.

What I can do is run through a list of the best things I've seen and why I like them so much. And also to note a trend or two that seem unique to the current year. If you're looking for great TV to binge over the holidays, consider this a quick guide. One show that may not make many 2024 top 10 lists because of its last second arrival

is the return of The Squid Game. Season one of this South Korean drama series premiered on Netflix three years ago and was a surprise but well-deserved hit. Season two doesn't drop until the day after Christmas, but I've previewed it and it's a worthy successor. It expands the focus, the perspectives, even the number of games, and is as brutal,

yet as beautifully photographed and intensely acted as the original. And speaking of beautifully photographed, let's give a nod to another Netflix series, Ripley, the most stunningly shot TV series I saw in 2024. The best non-fiction shows I saw all year, Beetle 64 on Disney+, and Leonardo da Vinci on PBS. The best talk shows, HBO's Last Week Tonight with John Oliver,

and Netflix's John Mulaney Presents Everybody's in L.A. The best scripted drama and comedy shows? Many were returning series with strong outings in 2024. The best scripted drama and comedy shows? Many were returning series with strong outings in 2024. The latest season of FX's Fargo with Juno Temple and John Hamm was stunning, surprising and impossible to forget. My favorite series of the year. Season two of Netflix's The Diplomat, starring Keri Russell as our country's British ambassador,

built to a point where it was almost too tense to watch and ended with a cliffhanger guaranteed to make season three even more of a thrill ride. The latest season of Hulu's The Bear, about workers in and around a newly launched high-end Chicago restaurant, disappointed some, but not me. I ate it all up, especially the final episode.

And on the lighter side, the 2024 season of another Hulu series, Only Murders in the Building, was a comedy triumph, giving Meryl Streep an unexpectedly rich role to play and play with on TV. And the latest season of Max's Hacks gave Jean Smart the same thing. She's wonderful. And that show's cliffhanger ending promises another great season to come there, too. Two series ended in 2024 with noteworthy finales. HBO's Curb Your Enthusiasm, the long-running Larry David comedy, went out with much attention and fanfare.

The Paramount Plus series Evil went out with very little. Both were very intelligent entertaining shows that I watched and looked forward to every week until they ended. So farewell and thanks to Curb and Evil. And hello to a lot of new shows that really made strong first impressions. If you like dramas about intrigue involving politicians or spies, 2024 was a banner year. Black Doves on Netflix had Keira Knightley as a very clandestine spy, and she and it were really good.

The Madness starring Coleman Domingo as a TV pundit accused of murder, and On the Run, a sort of updated version of The Fugitive, also is on Netflix and is even better than Black Doves. And best of all is The Agency, a new spy series on Showtime and Paramount Plus that stars Michael Fassbender, Jeffrey Wright, and Richard Gere. It's rolling out weekly at the moment and is another of the great shows I've seen this year. HBO's The Penguin surprised me very pleasantly with

its plot and intensity and with its impressive leading performances by Colin Farrell and Kristen Milioti. Netflix's Nobody Wants This, a sort of 21st century Bridget Loves Bernie was surprising too. Funny and tender and romantic in all the right measures. Also deserving of mention and definitely worth watching, FX's remake of the mini-series Shogun, Netflix's A Man on the Inside starring Ted Danson in yet another excellent TV series, and Agatha All Along, the imaginative, very musical Disney Plus sequel to WandaVision. Watch enough of these great shows, as I did, and you'll notice some recurring patterns. Some of the same actors popped up in very

different places. Jamie Lee Curtis returned as the unstable mother on the bear, but she also played a ruthless hit woman in prime video as the sticky. Jodie Turner Smith, whom I singled out for her great acting in Bad Monkey as the Dragon Queen, shows up as the female lead in the agency and is amazing again in a completely different type of role. And Tracy Ullman, who was so funny as Larry David's unwanted living girlfriend on Curb Your Enthusiasm,

also showed up at the end of Black Doves, playing a very serious, potentially lethal adversary to Kieran Knightley's undercover spy. And for Ullman, a drastically impressively different type of role. I'm glad this worked out for everyone. Worked out for everyone? Well, we all got what we wanted, didn't we? Happy Christmas! Merry Christmas. of role. Another trend I noticed was how many shows in 2024 featured actors of a certain age, in business, isn't it, unfortunately? I hope you remember that if we ever run into each other again. Another trend I noticed was how many shows in 2024 featured actors of a certain age, not just in toss away or clownish roles,

but in meaty parts that these veteran performers elevate even higher. I've mentioned some already from Richard Gere to Meryl Streep, but I saw more on TV in 2024 than in any year in decades. These include some of the best performances in some of the year's best shows. Martin Short and Steve Martin in Only Murders. Helen Hunt and Christopher Lloyd in Hacks. Sally Struthers in A Man on the Inside. Margot Martindale in The Sticky.

I'm happy to see them all working and thriving, even in a year when the TV terrain has been tougher to navigate. Not only for those working in the medium, but those of us watching it. I'm also happy to have seen so many good and great shows in 2024, even if I know I've missed many more.

To sum up, I'll present one final TV clip. It comes near the end of my favorite show of the year, Noah Hawley's Fargo. A mysterious and lethal killer visits a suburban home intending to kill the family within, but is greeted instead with disarming kindness. The father hands him a cold bottle of orange soda, then clicks it against his own.

The killer replies with a short and simple phrase, but it's a phrase that captures perfectly my overall attitude towards television in the year 2024. A man is grateful. David Bianculli is a professor of television studies at Rowan University. Tomorrow on Fresh Air, filmmaker and writer Miranda July talks about her novel novel All Four's,

which is on many best of the year book lists. It's about a 45-year-old married woman, her erotic affair, sexual fluidity, beginning paraminopause, and the related fears of losing her libido and getting older. I hope you can join us. To keep up with what's on the show and get highlights of our interviews, follow us on Instagram at NPR Fresh Air. Fresh Air's executive producer is Danny Miller. Our technical director and engineer is Audrey Bentham.

Our senior producer today is Sam Brigger. Our interviews and reviews are produced and edited by Phyllis Myers, Anne-Marie Baldonado, Lauren Krenzel, Theresa Madden, Monique Nazareth, Thea Challener, Susan Nyakundi, and Anna Bauman. Our digital media producer is Molly C.B. Nesbur. Roberta Shorrock directs the show. With Terry Gross, I'm Tanya Moseley.