Connect with us

Business

Column: What would banning TikTok accomplish? Answer: Virtually nothing

Published

on

Column: What would banning TikTok accomplish? Answer: Virtually nothing

In just the last few days, a couple of developments involving TikTok have arisen to illustrate the right and wrong way to think about the rapidly expanding social media platform.

The first was a devastating exposé that independent journalist Jonathan M. Katz posted there of a misleading story Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) told during her official GOP response to President Biden’s State of the Union address.

In his TikTok on March 8, the day after the speech, Katz expertly demolished Britt’s claim to have interviewed an immigrant who told of having been sold out as a sex slave and Britt’s attempt to tie the story to Biden’s immigration policy — never mind that the subject’s travails took place 20 years ago, in Mexico, and had nothing to do with immigration policy.

It’s a great business and I’m going to put together a group to buy TikTok.

— Ex-Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin

Advertisement

In doing do, Katz also exposed the laziness of our own political press corps, which had to scurry to follow his lead. This was social media at its best — concise, visual and effective.

The second occurrence was the House vote Wednesday to effectively ban TikTok. The measure, which passed by a lopsided, bipartisan vote of 352 to 65, requires TikTok’s Beijing-based owner, ByteDance, to divest the platform’s U.S. operations within six months or face a nationwide ban.

The rationales put forth for the ban are varied and almost uniformly questionable. Its advocates cite the threat of Chinese government breaches of users’ privacy, its potential use as a conduit of Chinese anti-democratic propaganda into the U.S., its purportedly deleterious effect on its youthful users — one critic likened it to “opium.”

The campaign to ban TikTok deserves close scrutiny, covering such issues as who’s really behind it and why this platform is taking more heat from lawmakers than all other social media platforms put together.

Advertisement

The House’s headlong plunge into TikTok-banning smacks of what the fictional panjandrums of “Yes Minister” labeled “politicians’ logic”: “Something must be done; this is something; therefore, we must do it.” The thing that something must be done about is clipping the wings of the Beijing regime.

Whether targeting TikTok will advance that purpose is doubtful in the extreme. As Sir Arnold Robinson and Sir Humphrey Appleby of that classic British political farce understood, this is all about theater.

Let’s start with the huge majority of the House vote, which brought 197 Republicans together with 155 Democrats in favor. The “no” vote, however, was also bipartisan, with 50 Democrats and 15 Republicans opposed.

Capitol Hill observers chuckled over how the issue brought together the strangest of strange bedfellows, with Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) voting on the same side (the “no” side) possibly for the first and last time from now to the end of recorded time. The ban’s prospects in the Senate are uncertain, though President Biden has said he’d sign it if it passed.

Donald Trump, who used to advocate a ban and even tried to implement a ban while he was president, more recently reversed himself, notably after a meeting with GOP megadonor Jeff Yass, who owns 15% of ByteDance. That stake is worth about $40 billion, based on the parent company’s putative value of $268 billion as of year-end 2023. (Trump said the subject of TikTok didn’t come up during their encounter.)

Advertisement

Interestingly, a figure who slithered out of the woodwork as a potential buyer of TikTok if ByteDance does divest is Steven T. Mnuchin, who was Trump’s Treasury secretary. He posed less as a savior of TikTok’s users from the sinister designs of Chinese overlords than an investor spotting the main chance on the horizon. More on him in a moment.

First, let’s turn to who’s pulling the strings on a TikTok ban. One evident culprit is Meta, which owns the social media platforms Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.

Meta paid for an extensive publicity campaign aimed at eroding TikTok’s reputation by playing up its supposed threats to the health and welfare of young users, the Washington Post reported in 2022.

Meta’s concern isn’t hard to understand: TikTok has become more popular than any of its platforms. Social media marketing surveys indicate that the average monthly time spent on Facebook this year has been around 15.4 hours; on Instagram it’s 16.5 hours and on WhatsApp it’s 16.75 hours. On TikTok, it’s 27.9 hours.

Even worse from Meta’s standpoint, TikTok’s user base has been skewing younger than Instagram’s, its most direct competitor, and much younger than Facebook, which has been trending toward older users.

Advertisement

As for the suggestions that TikTok is somehow uniquely injurious to youthful users, represents a unique threat to users’ privacy, or presents a national security issue, one can only think this is some sort of a gag.

The worst serial violator of users’ privacy is arguably Meta. The company drew a record $5-billion fine from the Federal Trade Commission in 2019, when it was known as Facebook. That fine arose from Facebook’s violations of a settlement the company had reached with the government in 2012 over its previous privacy violations, as well as a habit of deceiving users into thinking their privacy was secure.

The FTC isn’t done with Meta yet; as recently as Tuesday, the agency obtained a ruling from a federal appeals court allowing it to continue investigating the company’s privacy practices, including allegations that it deceives parents about policies designed to protect children from online contacts with potential abusers.

Spreading anti-democratic propaganda? Facebook’s connections with the data firm Cambridge Analytica, which facilitated the spread of political propaganda in the presidential election and Brexit vote in 2016, have been thoroughly documented. (That’s not to excuse the Chinese regime’s appetite for censorship, or its mistreatment of ethnic minorities such as the Uyghurs.)

Anyone inclined to wring their hands over TikTok’s role in sullying public discourse and internet safety in this country must acknowledge the role of all the leading social media platforms — not only Meta but X and YouTube.

Advertisement

All have fallen down on the job of policing disinformation, racism, antisemitism and other forms of hate speech on their sites. X bathes in all this as examples of “free speech,” as the platform’s owner, Elon Musk, brags. All have undertaken layoffs that eviscerated their “trust and safety” teams, allowing untrustworthy and dangerous content to inundate their users.

That brings us to Mnuchin. He surfaced Thursday on CNBC and the financial press with an announcement that he was putting together an investment consortium to take TikTok off ByteDance’s hands, if the divestment becomes mandated. “It’s a great business and I’m going to put together a group to buy TikTok,” he said.

Would that make TikTok any safer for its users or democracy? Why would anyone think so? The last takeover of a social media company by a prominent individual was Musk’s acquisition of Twitter, now renamed X. From the standpoint of users or anyone interested in a civil, reliable, safe public space, that deal has been disastrous. Under Musk’s leadership, Twitter has become a sub-functional hellscape of filth that has evolved into a megaphone for its owner to pump conspiracy theories and hate speech out onto the internet.

But the ban-TikTok campaign really isn’t about any of that. As Jason Koebler of 404Media observes, a TikTok ban would “have the effect of further entrenching and empowering gigantic, monopolistic American social media companies that have nearly all of the same problems that TikTok does.”

He’s right. At its heart, TikTok today is no different from the other platforms, and it won’t become different no matter who owns it. All of them share the same business model, which is to deceive their users into thinking they’re getting a valuable service for free, when in fact the users are simply raw material to be sold to advertisers and political manipulators, en masse.

Advertisement

Business

Paramount extends tender offer deadline to woo Warner shareholders as proxy fight heats up

Published

on

Paramount extends tender offer deadline to woo Warner shareholders as proxy fight heats up

David Ellison is not abandoning his quest to build a new Hollywood juggernaut.

Ellison-controlled Paramount disclosed Thursday in a regulatory filing that it was extending the deadline of its tender offer for Warner Bros. Discovery stock. The firm had previously asked Warner stockholders to sell their shares to Paramount for $30 apiece by Wednesday.

The new deadline is Feb. 20.

Paramount faces an uphill battle in its pursuit of its larger entertainment industry rival. Investors so far have pledged 168.5 million of Warner’s shares to Paramount, according to Thursday’s filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Warner, in a statement, said the response represented only about 7% of its investors.

Advertisement

Paramount also filed proxy materials, saying it would challenge an alternative bid by Netflix at an upcoming special meeting of Warner shareholders to vote on the company’s sale. Warner’s board has not yet set the meeting date but has suggested the pivotal vote could occur by April — pushing the pitched battle for the company into spring.

Warner’s board unanimously agreed on Dec. 4 to sell much of the company to Netflix for $27.75 a share. Before that can happen, Warner must spin off CNN and other basic cable channels into a new publicly traded company called Discovery Global.

The multistep process is giving Paramount a wide window to make its case to Warner shareholders.

Warner Bros. Discovery, in a statement, was dismissive of Paramount’s efforts.

“Once again, Paramount continues to make the same offer our Board has repeatedly and unanimously rejected in favor of a superior merger agreement with Netflix,” Warner Bros. Discovery said in a statement. “It’s also clear our shareholders agree, with more than 93% also rejecting Paramount’s inferior scheme. We are confident in our ability to achieve regulatory approval for the Netflix merger.”

Advertisement

Paramount has sued Warner Bros. and its chief executive, David Zaslav, in a Delaware court, but the judge turned down Paramount’s request to expedite the legal proceedings to help Paramount make its case to Warner shareholders.

Paramount hopes that, over time, the proxy battle will be more fruitful. It plans to ask Warner shareholders to vote against the Netflix deal at the special meeting. Paramount has also said it would put forth its own slate of directors to be elected during Warner’s annual meeting with shareholders.

“The consideration payable to WBD shareholders in the Netflix transaction falls well short of Paramount’s $30 per share all-cash offer,” Paramount said in Thursday’s announcement.

Billionaire Larry Ellison and his family took control of Paramount in August, determined to become major players in Hollywood.

The following month, the Ellisons began an audacious pursuit of Warner Bros. Discovery. Their goal is to combine two century-old film studios and vibrant television production capabilities and marry such popular TV networks as HBO, CBS, Comedy Central, HGTV and TBS.

Advertisement

Netflix was the surprise suitor after Warner opened the auction to other bidders in late October.

Paramount launched its hostile takeover last month after failing to gain traction with Warner’s board, which remains steadfast in its support for Netflix’s $72-billion proposed purchase of HBO, HBO Max, television production and the Warner Bros. film studio, which led the Hollywood pack in the prestigious Oscar nominations, which were announced Thursday.

Earlier this week, Netflix converted its $27.75-a-share bid to an all-cash offer in hopes of defusing some of Paramount’s criticisms of its deal.

Paramount, which enjoys support from President Trump, has been stressing that Netflix’s regulatory path is uncertain.

Both sides plan to make their case to U.S. and European regulators.

Advertisement

Unlike Netflix, Paramount wants to buy all of Warner Bros. Discovery, including CNN and other basic cable channels. The value of the proposed cable channel company, Discovery Global, factors into the ultimate value that shareholders would receive if the Netflix bid prevails.

Warner’s cable channel spin-off is expected to be completed this summer. The value of the channels is in doubt, giving Paramount ammunition to claim that its $30-a-share tender offer for the entire company was more lucrative than Netflix’s offer for Warner’s studios and HBO.

Continue Reading

Business

This L.A. startup uses SpaceX tech to cool data centers with less power and no water

Published

on

This L.A. startup uses SpaceX tech to cool data centers with less power and no water

As the artificial intelligence industry heats up, Karman Industries is trying to cool it down.

The Signal Hill startup says it has developed a cooling system that uses SpaceX rocket engine technology to rein in the environmental impact of data centers, chilling them with less space, less power and no water.

It recently raised $20 million and expects to start building its first compressors in Long Beach later this year.

“Our high-level thesis is we could build the best compressor out there using the latest and greatest technology,” said David Tearse, chief executive of Karman. “We want to reduce that electrical consumption of cooling so that you have the most efficient way to cool these chips.”

The high-end, expensive chips that power AI can slow down or shut off when they overheat. They can reach more than 200 degrees, but need to be below 150 degrees to work best.

Advertisement

Cooling warehouses packed with tens of thousands of them can require fields full of equipment and huge quantities of water.

Karman has developed a cooling system similar to the heat pumps in the average home, except its pumps use liquid carbon dioxide as refrigerant, which is circulated using rocket engine technology rather than fans. The company’s efficient pumps can reduce the space required for data center cooling equipment by 80%.

Over the years, data centers have used fans and air conditioning to blow cold air on the chips. Bigger facilities pass cold liquid through tubes near the chips to absorb the heat. This hot liquid is sent outside to a cooling yard, where sprawling networks of pipes use as much water as a city of 50,000 people to remove the heat.

A 50 megawatt data center also uses enough electricity to power a mid-sized city.

As AI has super-sized data centers, adding more and more chips, they have needed increasing amounts of space and power for cooling.

Advertisement

“It’s kind of a losing battle, especially when you keep densifying your chips,” said Tearse.

Cooling systems account for up to 40% of a data center’s power consumption and an average midsized data center consumes more than 35,000 gallons of water per day.

Nearly 100 gigawatts of new data center capacity will be added by 2030 and energy constraints have become the biggest barrier for expansion. U.S. data centers will consume about 8% of all electricity in the country by 2030, according to the International Energy Agency.

Communities across the U.S. have begun protesting data center construction, fearing that the power and water needs could strain infrastructure and boost costs to consumers. The cooling systems are projected to use up to 33 billion gallons of water by 2028 per year.

Big tech companies and venture capital investors are spending billions of dollars to replace old-school technologies with energy-efficient solutions. Microsoft announced a new data center design that uses zero water for cooling. It recently vowed to ensure its data centers don’t increase the electricity costs or deny water to nearby communities.

Advertisement

The data center-cooling market is projected to grow from about $11 billion in 2025 to nearly $25 billion by 2032.

To serve this seemingly insatiable market, Karman has developed a rotating compressor that spins at 30,000 revolutions per minute — nearly 10 times faster than traditional compressors — to move heat.

“Three or four years ago, it was very challenging to do just because the motors didn’t exist. Automotive components are getting up to those speeds,” said Chiranjeev Kalra, co-founder and chief technology officer of Karman.

About a third of Karman’s 23-person team came from SpaceX or Rocket Lab, and they co-opted technologies from aerospace engineering and electric vehicles to design the mechanics for the high-speed motors.

The system uses a special type of carbon dioxide under high pressure to transfer heat from the data center to the outside air. Depending on the conditions, it can do the same amount of cooling using less than half the energy.

Advertisement

Karman’s heat pump can either reject heat to air, or route it into extra cooling, or even power generation.

One of the potentially biggest selling points for the systems is that they don’t require water, which will enable data centers in spots where water is scarce.

In really hot places such as Texas and Arizona, cooling systems struggle, either using excessive water to cool or having to throttle the chips to stop them from overheating.

Karman’s latest funding round brings the total money raised to more than $30 million. Major participants included Riot Venture, Sunflower Capital, Space VC, Wonder Ventures, and former Intel and VMware CEO Pat Gelsinger.

Karman said it will begin customer deliveries in the summer of 2026 from its Los Angeles manufacturing facility that is designed to make 100 units per year. The plan is to eventually quadruple capacity.

Advertisement

If successful, Karman could dent the market share of Trane Technologies and Schneider Electric, the leaders in heat rejection systems.

Continue Reading

Business

‘Call a Republican’: Viral phone booth connects California liberals, conservative Texans

Published

on

‘Call a Republican’: Viral phone booth connects California liberals, conservative Texans

A rather peculiar red phone booth appeared outside a San Francisco tattoo parlor this week, urging residents in one of America’s most liberal cities to “call a Republican.”

Its counterpart, a blue phone booth, sits outside a bookshop in the staunchly conservative town of Abilene, Texas, where it encourages locals to “call a Democrat.”

Together, the phone booths form a social experiment: When someone picks up the line in San Francisco, it rings in Texas, and vice versa, cultivating a unique opportunity for passersby to chat with a stranger who holds a vastly different outlook on politics and life.

The initiative, dubbed the Party Line project, is the brainchild of Matter Neuroscience, a mental health startup focused on researching the science behind happiness and creating tools to battle major depressive disorders.

The “Call a Democrat” pay phone sits outside of Seven and One Books in Abilene, Texas.

Advertisement

(Logan Ivey / Matter Neuroscience)

Neuroscientists know that fighting with people who hold different views leads to the release of cortisol in the brain, which increases stress, Matter co-founder Ben Goldhirsh explained. On the other hand, engaging in non-hateful, human-to-human conversation activates happiness-boosting neurotransmitters such as dopamine and cannabinoids, he said.

“We wanted to see what would happen when people had the chance to connect with people directly — would they choose to argue and fight, or would they choose to find common ground?” Goldhirsh said. “[Would they choose] the release of cortisol or the release of cannabinoids?”

Much to researchers’ delight, the vast majority of callers have chosen to seek common ground. The project launched lateSunday afternoon, and by Thursday evening researchers had recorded more than 150 conversations and voicemails.

Advertisement

So far the topics callers have discussed have run the gamut, including hobbies, culture and world events, Goldhirsh said. Many callers are rejecting the dichotomy of Republican and Democratic labels and are finding they have similar concerns about the state of the nation and economy.

In one recording, Steve — a San Francisco man who identifies as a liberal — asks, “Are you a Republican?” to a mother of four in Abilene.

She quickly responds “Yes, I am,” but then a moment later says, “Well, no, hmm, ummm, [I’m] probably an independent I would say as I’ve gotten older.”

Steve then asks her if she sees the world as being as crazy as he does, to which she says, “I do. It’s really worse and worse every day.”

“See? We have so much in common!” he responds.

Advertisement

This type of dialogue doesn’t surprise UCLA political science professor Chris Tausanovitch, who wrote a book on the polarization in American politics.

He said that while people often assume they won’t get along with a member of the opposite political party, the average American holds more moderate political views than their elected representatives.

“A lot of the dislike of the other party arises because we don’t like the public stances of whichever party we’re not aligned with,” he said. “If you’re a Democrat, you associate Republicans with the stances of people like Donald Trump, but it turns out that most people are not as extreme as the stereotype of their political party would suggest.”

Addressing the problem of polarization in politics will require significant effort from both parties, Tausanovitch said, but experiments like the phone booth are a fantastic way to get people talking across the aisle.

“There’s a good feeling from talking to another human and realizing they’re human,” he said, “and you actually can learn that there’s a tendency for people not to be as different as you assume that they are in terms of real policy and beliefs.”

Advertisement

From a mental health expert’s perspective, Goldhirsh said he was not surprised that the majority of the conversations have been positive, inquisitive and often led to heartwarming discoveries of shared interests and experiences.

“People are complex, nuanced individuals,” Goldhirsh said, “and really enjoy engaging as such and do it with a real sort of kindness and curiosity when given that chance.”

In one dialogue shared on Matter Neuroscience’s Instagram, Shane, a correctional officer in Texas, chats with Chris, who works at sandwich shop and DJ studio in San Francisco.

Shane opens up about the good and bad aspects of his job, sharing the horror of watching an inmate be murdered and the fulfillment he recently found chatting with inmates about the Bible.

The pair quickly find common ground — Shane’s brother is called Chris and Chris’ mother lives in San Antonio.

Advertisement

“I love this experiment here,” Shane says at the end of the conversation. “We’re already connected, dude,” Chris adds.

The San Francisco phone booth is set up outside of Black Serum Tattoo studio in the Mission District. Owner Brucius von Xylander said he agreed to let Matter Neuroscience set up the phone outside of his studio because he thought it would be a great medium for people across the political spectrum to engage in civil discourse.

“It seemed like a good idea to me, because it’s fun connecting with a stranger somewhere knowing that they might talk about something that is hard to speak about on social media or elsewhere,” Von Xylander said.

Von Xylander said the response to the phone had been overwhelmingly positive both online and in person.

Meanwhile, some 1,600 miles away in Abilene, the owner of Seven and One Books, Arlene Kasselman, also has been delighted with the response to the phone outside her store.

Advertisement

When she first saw the bright blue phone with the “Call a Democrat” sign, she was a little nervous about how the conversations would go. But so far they have been amazing, she said, as people discuss baking, basketball, politics and more.

From her perspective, the goal is to see what it looks like to “not just be a keyboard warrior in the comments section, but to view people as human.”

“We are certainly biologically more similar than dissimilar,” she added. “So how can we reach across the aisle?”

In our increasingly polarized society, Kasselman said she’s excited to facilitate an experience in which people can have positive interactions with strangers from different backgrounds.

Tausanovitch believes meaningful conversations across party lines, in which people connect over shared interests, can wake voters up to the price they are paying because of our extreme political climate. He said everyone suffers when parties are more focused on winning an election than they are on working together on policies that benefit all Americans.

Advertisement

“This kind of thing can help people see that [polarization] is a race to the bottom and a problem that is worthy of being addressed directly,” he said.

Goldhirsh also is delighted with the initial response and said Matter Neuroscience had been flooded with requests to bring the phone booths to other parts of America. For example, Los Angeles rapper the Game sent a message saying the team should install phones in Bloods and Crips territories, allowing members of the enemy gangs to converse.

“We’re going to continue pushing for dialogue,” Goldhirsh said, “because connecting on common ground is better for happiness than, you know, finding joy in the cortisol of the fight-or-flight experience.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending