nastasya: tiktok is the world's fastest growing social media app, but the u.s. and some western governments say it allows china access to private data and is a security threat. the company and the chinese government both deny this. so, who should we believe? this is "inside story." ♪ hello there, and welcome to the program. i'm nastasya tay. now, tiktok, the chinese owned video sharing app, has won huge popularity globally, with over a

billion active users. but it's also become another battleground between the u.s. and china. washington says tiktok is effectively a spying tool. we will discuss the arguments with our guests in just a few moments. meanwhile, though, the company's chief executive appeared before a congressional committee to answer questions, members of congress spent five and a half hours grilling shou zi chew, accusing tiktok of being controlled by china and a danger to teenagers. before the questioning began, he explained just how popular the app has become. >> two years ago, i became the ceo of tiktok. today, we have more than a billion monthly active users around the world, including over 150 million in the united states. our app is a place where people can be creative and curious, and where close to five million american businesses, mostly small businesses, go to find new customers and to fuel their growth. now, tiktok itself is not available in mainland china. we're headquartered in los angeles and in singapore, and we

have 7,000 employees in the u.s. today. still, we have heard important concerns about the potential for unwanted foreign access to u.s. data and potential manipulation of the tiktok u.s. ecosystem. our approach has never been to dismiss or trivialize any of these concerns. we have addressed them with real action. nastasya: well, far from being awed by tiktok's popularity, members of congress launched a barrage of accusations against the app. here's some of what the chair of that committee had to say. >> tiktok collects nearly every data point imaginable, from people's location, to what they type and copy, who they talk to, biometric data, and more. even if they've never been on tiktok, your trackers are embedded in sites across the web. tiktok surveils us all, and the chinese communist party is able to use this as a tool to manipulate america as a whole.

nastasya: the chinese government reacted on friday to that debate in washington the day before and accused the united states of unfairly suppressing tiktok. >> the chinese government attaches great importance to protect data privacy and security in accordance with the law. it has never and will not require companies or individuals to collect or provide data information and intelligence from foreign countries for the chinese government. the u.s. government has not provided any evidence so far to prove that tiktok threatens u.s. national security, but it has repeatedly presumed guilt and unreasonably suppressed the company. the u.s. should earnestly respect the principles of market economy and fair competition and provide an open, fair, just environment for companies from all countries to invest and operate in the u.s. nastasya: well, among the 150 million active users in the united states, their support for tiktok, with some even saying that a ban would stop them doing business. >> the conversation i'm seeing

now is the concern that i really feel, which is i am a business owner, i have 15 team members, i have a book and a podcast, and we are a financial education company. we work to educate women about how to save money and pay off debt, and we have 2.3 million followers on tiktok. it is by far our biggest audience. and if tiktok were to be banned, that would mean severe repercussions for me and literally thousands and thousands of united states-based businesses that employ united states citizens. ♪ nastasya: let's bring in our guests now. in beijing, we have einar tangen. he's a senior fellow at the taihe institute, that's an independent think tank based in china. in new york, we have sarah kreps. she is the founder and director of the technology policy institute at cornell university. and in dublin, adrian weckler, technology editor at the irish independent and also the host of the big tech show podcast. a warm welcome to each of you. and now, before we get into the

politics of this, which is obviously very charged, i do want to break down a couple of the big issues here that the u.s. has taken with tiktok. firstly, data collection and influencing opinion. adrian, i'll start with you. i want to understand what sort of data we're talking about here. this is obviously a huge number of users, something like one in three americans. how far does that data collection go? >> well, it's like every other social media platform, that means your location, your name, what you do, what you're interested in, maybe what you buy, including trackers that might follow you around the rest of your phone or the rest of the internet. so, like other internet websites and social media platforms, we are talking about a very, very complete picture of your life. nastasya: adrian, is there any big difference here when it comes to other social media apps and tiktok? does tiktok have some kind of special way of getting more information than say meta or instagram? >> no, there isn't a material

difference between those social media platforms. where the controversy here arises in who might potentially have access or maybe influence the users there. the one in three in america for example who use tiktok, with meta, google, twitter, instagram, facebook, and all of the rest, there is an understanding, maybe even a grudging acceptance that western governments, the u.s. government in particular sometimes accesses that data for its own means, maybe even sometimes influences it. it's where the controversy is with tiktok is the extent to which if at all the chinese government accesses that data in a secretive way or might secretively influence users . nastasya: so there is a law in china that requires private companies based in china to give data over to the chinese government, should the chinese government request it. now, i know mr. chew said multiple times in that congressional hearing that they

haven't been asked for any data nor have they handed over any data. but einar, let me throw this one to you. there are understandably concerns around security risks there. >> yes, and vice versa, the u.s. has the same ability to sometimes go through a court and sometimes not as the many leaks have exposed the fact is the spies on everybody. -- the fact is the u.s. spies on everybody. so this idea that somehow they're shocked, shocked that china might get, this is laughable. but let's go beyond that. there is no proof. in the united states, i'm a lawyer. i can tell you that generally before you have a hanging, you generally have a trial. and there's an ability to say who accuses me and what am i accused of and show me some proof. in this particular case, there's none. this is a political lynching, and it's being done simply to distract voters out there. you know, we have a $3.5 trillion debt crisis.

we have bank failures, inflation, low growth, political polarization, gun deaths, racism, global warming, foreign policy of broken countries, treaties and international institutions. we've made a hypocrisy of tidying the rule of law, international order, while undermining the wto. breaking the climate accord agreements that we went into in kyoto and also paris. this idea is just nonsense. nastasya: i want to stick specifically to what we're talking about in terms of tiktok. i know that there are broader disagreements here between the u.s. and china. now i want to bring in sarah. just picking up on something that einar alluded to there, if this data sharing law in china is such a huge concern that presumably would be a basis for banning any or all chinese private companies from operating in the u.s. >> right, yeah, so i think there

are a couple of -- i mean, so many important issues here. one of the issues is not just whether this access is happening right now, but i think one of -- i don't think we've talked much about so far is the backdrop of the u.s.-china relationship right now, which is very fraught. and what i think we need to see is a data point in a broader picture. so we know as of october of last year, the u.s. had imposed very stringent export controls on ai technology. the u.s. has done that on semiconductor chips. and this i think is just part of that bigger picture. and it's not just whether chinese engineers, which the ceo kind of didn't refute yesterday. that chinese engineers have access to that data, but it's this question the kind of precautionary principle with respect to kind of any future activity, as well, that the u.s. seems to want to be guarding against. nastasya: i do want to at this

point just to clarify who actually owns tiktok. bytedance, the parent company, confirmed that what 60% of its shares are owned by global investors, 20% by employees, 20% by its founders. now, i understand, in 2021, a chinese owned state enterprise did buy a stake in bytedance. they even now have a seat on the board. i know tiktok has tried to distance themselves from all of this, but let me ask you, adrian, as someone who watches the tech industry, does the chinese government have a stake in or any oversight over tiktok? >> well, it's quite vague. there is talk of a golden share in bytedance and other companies, but the transparency there is quite vague. we do know that, as you pointed out, bytedance is a chinese company, that is the owner of tiktok. now, einar is correct to say that there is no direct evidence of interference, yet, or the

very scant examples. the problem is there is very direct evidence of beijing interfering with big tech companies in china when they stand up to the government. so, bytedance's founder and the ceo and chairman, he was basically forced to stand down last year. we've seen tech giants like alibaba's jack ma, a world global star, effectively disappeared and made to stand down from the company. in this kind of climate, when you talk about ownership and regulation and the info -- and the influence that the chinese state has on a company like bytedance, you cannot ignore the fact that at the moment, it's cracking down on tech companies. and if you were to refuse a request, for example, if there were a secretive request to access data or to influence the algorithm, it's more likely than not, based on the evidence we have with other big tech ceos, that you would face serious personal repercussions in china.

nastasya: einar, i'm going to let you respond to that. >> well, it's nonsense. if i say to you you don't like your mother-in-law, therefore i'm going to arrest you for murder, i mean, you have to do something. >> where's jack ma? where is he right now? >> jack ma right now is in japan the last i heard, he was studying things he was taken down, because he'd gotten too big. he decided that he wanted to and make policy instead of follow it -- in essence he had created such a massive entity that he was taxing people not providing services and that is where things. and they have the same concerns in the u.s. with meta and all the rest of them, that they have grown so large that they are in essence too big to fail kind of, like the banks and things like that. now, you can defend them, these great behemoths and things like that, and their massive amounts of shareholders and funds that hold them, but the fact is, china is very concerned about

the market working, which means that it does not want to have these kind of huge conglomerates run by individuals who decide what the fate of the world should be. the u.s. has elon musk. you're welcome to him. but at this juncture, this idea that you can put -- you can take somebody's property because you suspect that they might do something, well, i would stand to you that that would not stand the test. if somebody wanted to take your house or your job. all right? and right now this is about to take about 5 million people's jobs and the people who work for them. nastasya: i want to get to some of the implications here and focus on one very specific element that was brought up in the congressional hearing. and which also sarah mentioned. you mentioned the beijing engineers there. now, there was an incident which tiktok actually agreed had happened late last year in december of 2022, where a number of engineers in china did track

a usg journalist. -- a u.s. journalist. they used data that they had from tiktok tracking this u.s.-china -- this u.s. journalist, to find out i believe who might be leaking information about tiktok. tiktok is saying that was a bit of a rogue operation. but sarah, that's obviously not going down very well over in the u.s. >> i think what that is is kind of a proof of concept of the way in which this platform or the access and relationship between the platform and individuals in china and the way in which that could be used for influence and manipulation. and that journalist by the way had written a story based on insider sources about bytedance using a news app to push pro-chinese messages. and so, that was a big part of yesterday's hearing as well on capitol hill, which is the way in which this platform could be used to manipulate public

opinion through things like -- another one of the good examples that came up yesterday was the prevalence of misinformation, about elections and how much of that stayed up on tiktok relative to other u.s.-based platforms. nastasya: einar, i'll throw this back to you for a response here. but i do want to point out you said that there wasn't direct evidence of governor influence -- of government influence or intervention. but here we do have direct evidence of a number of people in china using private data to track someone without their knowledge. >> well, nastasya, if you're going to use that standard, now, first off, these were corporate people. this was not the government that was doing it. so if you want to ascribe you know whatever corporations do to the country, there wouldn't be a single u.s. company in the fortune 500 still left standing. because they've all done it. they've all had mistakes and things like that where they've been pursuing their corporate interest, not pursuing the u.s.

government's interest. so that's fallacious. you know, bringing this out and trying to fear monger people into believing that the potential is there, it goes against everything that we say we stand for in america. the rule of law, presumption of innocence, the idea that you have a trial before you're summarily lynched. i mean, this is nonsense. you can say all these things about what you're afraid of. everyone is afraid. the question is, what do we -- how do we go forward already? the u.s. has erected a tech wall on hardware, saying that china shouldn't have access to chips. they shouldn't have access to chip making machines. now they want to extend it to software. where does it stop? how big do these walls have to be before people start being afraid? nastasya: you're talking about trying to find a way forward. i see tiktok is trying to do that, and they've said that they've come up with a plan. they're calling it project texas.

they want to keep u.s. data on u.s. servers maintained by a u.s. company. adrian, i mean, that sounds like a pretty good deal for the u.s., no? >> on one level it is. and there's a similar plan in europe called what they call project clover. partly because the data centers in which the data will be housed are partly here in dublin, in ireland. so it's a nod to us with the clover. but the essential problem is the absolute 180 degrees opposite to what einar was saying. you cannot compare like with like. and there are very, very scant trials in china. if you are the ceo of a tech company, there's a very good chance that you will be put under house arrest, very good chance in the next 12 months, it is because of the current crackdown. so these are very relevant factors. >> where do you get off saying such nonsense? how much time have you spent in china? how much time? >> i've been there a couple of

times. i've been there a couple of times. nastasya: i'm going to ask us to take a little bit of a step back here and focus on the issue at hand. i would like to ask you of the level of influence -- let's take a moment and return to the influence that tiktok has specifically on young people. i was having a look at some of the numbers. the app is used by what 67% of u.s. teens? that's according to pew. now, this was also raised in the hearing. i want to have a listen. >> tiktok also targets our children. the 4u algorithm is a tool for tiktok to own their attention and prey on their innocence. within minutes of creating an account, your algorithm can promote suicide, self-harm, and eating disorders to children. it encourages challenges for them to put their lives in

danger and allows adults to pray on our beautiful, beloved daughters. it's also a portal for drug dealers to sell elicit fentanyl that china has banned, yet is helping mexican cartels produce, send across our border, and poison our children. >> we care about our economy and we sure as heck here about our -- care about our children. we sure do. and that's why you're here today, because two thirds of all the youth in our country are on your app. they spend an average of 95 minutes on your app. the chinese communist party is engaged in psychological warfare through tiktok to deliberately influence u.s. children. nastasya: okay, so obviously, it's a very charged language there, but just taking a step back from the direct accusations at china, and we'll come to those in a minute. but just looking specifically at the issue of influence on social media, that's obviously a big issue for multiple apps, meta,

instagram. sarah, is tiktok worse in some way? >> what was interesting about yesterday is that the ceo kept saying, well, these are industry standards, these are industry standards, and to some extent, that's true. and one of the things i heard yesterday that i hadn't heard for a long time was reference to comprehensive privacy legislation. so it seems as though hopefully that is the case, because these are kind of more pervasive privacy issues. but one of the things i think again that kind of raises questions about kind of a company that is u.s. owned and u.s. headquartered and u.s. values versus china is sort of how that might be used to influence again, and i mentioned the misinformation about the fundamental aspect of democracy like elections, but i found it really interesting when the ceo said that his kids are not on tiktok.

because it is not permitted under the age of 13 in singapore. and i wasn't sure whether he fell into a trap. but by acknowledging that there are other countries around the world that think that this isn't suitable for kids under 13, and then he talked about the user experience for an eight-year-old here in the u.s., and it's very protected. but what he also didn't seem to get is how easy it is to sidestep those age restrictions. so i think there were just a number of these kinds of issues that went unanswered yesterday. nastasya: well, i see the conversation around this issue got particularly heated. i want to play you another excerpt from the hearing yesterday. >> your technology is literally leading to death. mr. chew, yes or no, do you have full responsibility for your algorithms, used by tiktok, to prioritize content to its users? yes or no?

please. >> congressman, i'll just like to if respectfully if you don't mind, i would just like to start by saying it's devastating to hear about the news of yes as a father myself. >> this is yes or no. i'll repeat the question. do you have full responsibility over the algorithms used by tiktok to prioritize content to its users? yes or no, please. >> congressman, we do take these issues very seriously. >> yes or no? >> and we do provide resources for anyone who types in anything that -- >> sir, yes or no? i see you're not willing to answer the question or take any responsibility for your parents companies, the technology, and the harms it creates. it's just very, very sad, very sad. nastasya: now, the tone there struck me as particularly hostile. and we saw many other hostile exchanges throughout the hearing at times. i believe they questioned mr. chew on beijing's treatment of the uyghurs.

-- of the uighurs. i mean, he's singaporean, for a start, and he wanted to focus on tiktok. and he said so. we've seen other tech companies in congressional hearings, but it doesn't feel like it was quite like this. einar, let me ask you about your take on the tone here. >> well, i thought you were playing a retake of the mccarthy hearings. i mean, have you stopped beating your wife? i do agree that there have has to be standards. but they have to be industry wide. industrywide standards. taking tiktok off the board is not going to change if you do not have standards that protect younger children. and that's the real issue here. if you want to go at that, i'm all for it. and i think everybody else is. but this idea that by slamming tiktok, you will solve the problem, that's nonsense. nastasya: well, the chinese government has obviously weighed in. they've opposed the sale. that doesn't seem to help tiktok's assertion of independence here. but they also seem to be arguing that there is an intellectual property component that they don't want to export the algorithm.

adrian, is that fair? >> it's difficult to say that that is fair. i would agree that the tone of the congressional hearing was slightly absurd. it was more one of grandstanding than anything else. we didn't really learn anything new from it. that said, i thought that chew, the ceo of tiktok, did a very bad job in trying to convince people that the app can be safe. and the fact that the chinese government came out hours before his performance to say that they would potentially block the sale of tiktok from bytedance completely undermined the assertion that the company is independent and makes its own decisions. it badly damaged it, his argument about the intellectual property value of the algorithms involved doesn't really stack

up. nastasya: this was a big partisan push. this time a departure from what we saw in 2020, when president trump wanted to ban tiktok then. but the people who were sitting in that congressional hearing aren't tiktok's main demographic, right? sarah, do you think that there might be political consequences in the u.s. especially amongst young people if a ban does go forward? >> no, i don't, because it's one of these rare issues in washington where both parties vociferously agree. at one point, someone said welcome to -- it might have been the same individual we just heard. "welcome to the most bipartisan committee in congress." and there was such consensus on this issue. so if a disgruntled young person is irritated at the political process, they have nowhere to turn, because both parties are in alignment here. but actually, it's interesting, too, that there is a reasonable amount of support even among

users of tiktok, something like 25% of tick-tock users would nonetheless support a ban, the data, the public opinion polling on this is interesting because two-thirds of americans are skeptical of the independence of this app, so it would be very interesting to see what happens -- but on the political side, i think actually congress is fairly inoculated from any low back. but you're absolutely right that it was grandstanding and they are not really the target demographic. so there is a way in which this is a little bit problematic in the sense that they are not the ones affected but they are trying to legislate something that will affect a very different demographic. nastasya: einar, let me give you the last question, can you give me a sense of, from beijing, if a sale were to at any point go forward, what a sale might look like? presumably you need a huge amount of money to buy tiktok. >> absolutely. it's a big thing. they would probably only be buying the u.s. side of it.

i don't know. i have to respond to one issue my friend from ireland has said, he said he was amazed that china would block the sale of something. is he amazed that the u.s. is blocking the sale of computer chip, equipment to china, not only its own but other countries? >> you can't even use the main social media platforms in china. i mean, literally the greatest firewall in the world is in china, and that's not something -- >> and that's not something that i necessarily agree with, but that is something that the country has addressed not through a kangaroo court, but through policy. nastasya: well, it is clearly a very divisive issue, one will continue watching closely here on al jazeera. in the meantime, though, thank you to all of our guests for a very robust discussion today, einar tangen, sarah kreps, and adrian weckler. and thank you, too, for watching. you can see this program again anytime by visiting our website, aljazeera.com. for further discussion, do go to our facebook page. facebook.com/ajinsidestory.

remember to join the conversation on twitter. our handle @ajinsidestory. from me, nastasya tay, and the whole team here in doha, bye for now. @#

... eric campbell: it's a fight to take down the world's biggest strong man. maria pevchikh: the ultimate victory from us would be russia without vladimir putin. eric campbell: and it's led by the man who claims putin tried to kill him. alexei navalny has flown back to a prison cell and branded president putin the world's biggest thief. can navalny defeat putin? can he even survive?