Business
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
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
Business
Troubled Moreno Valley Mall closed for safety violations
The Moreno Valley Mall in Riverside County remained closed Wednesday as owners faced fire safety violations that led the city to shut down most of the vast retail center.
The sprawling indoor regional mall is a centerpiece of Moreno Valley serving customers from Riverside and San Bernardino counties. It was built in 1992 on the former site of Riverside International Raceway, once considered one of the finest automotive racing tracks in the country and a regular draw across Southern California for decades before it closed in 1989.
On Feb. 19, city officials “red-tagged” the mall for the owners’ failure to resolve a multitude of unresolved issues related to its fire protection systems.
The owners said they are “working hard to end this interruption.”
Portions of the two-level, 1.1-million-square-foot mall were deemed unsafe by county and state fire inspectors who recommended the city shut them down “until all live-saving measures are addressed,” the city said in a statement.
Department stores Macy’s and JCPenney are independently owned buildings at the mall with appropriately maintained fire protection systems that are separate from the mall’s systems, allowing them to stay open, the city said.
The16-screen Harkins Theatres movie cineplex is also open.
City Councilwoman Elena Baca-Santa Cruz told the Riverside Press-Enterprise that the mall has “hundreds of violations,” though nine of them are preventing it from reopening.
“For example, there’s no backup generator. If there was a power failure, the whole place will go dark, and that’s a safety violation,” Baca-Santa Cruz said last week.
The owners of the mall, IGP Business Group, did not immediately respond to requests for comment, but owner Matt Ilbak said in a recent Instagram post that a new generator has been installed. The company has upgraded the fire sprinkler system and is working on resolving “all of the city’s issues.”
Other city complaints about IGP’s operation of the mall were outlined in a January letter to Ilbak that cited fire code violations and also complained about “property maintenance violations” that included severely cracked pavement and curbing, as well as dead plants outside. The mall had insufficient exterior lighting, the city said, and graffiti resulting from deferred or neglected maintenance.
In Orange County, Westminster Mall, a once-popular shopping center that has been tarnished by graffiti and vandalism since it closed last year, is on track for demolition soon.
It will be replaced with housing, a hotel and some shops and stores, part of a nationwide trend that is seeing outdated, failed malls in high-traffic locations swapped for mixed-use development that typically includes apartments. The process is often lengthy, leaving empty malls in danger of abuse.
Business
Trump’s plan for rising energy costs: Pump oil, make data centers pay
Energy affordability was in the spotlight during President Trump’s lengthy and at times rambling State of the Union address Tuesday evening as the president promised to bring down electricity prices in an effort to assuage voter concerns about rising costs.
The president announced a new “ratepayer protection pledge” to shield residents from higher electricity costs in areas where energy-thirsty artificial intelligence data centers are being built. Trump said major tech companies will “have the obligation to provide for their own power needs” under the plan, though the details of what the pledge actually entails remain vague.
“We have an old grid — it could never handle the kind of numbers, the amount of electricity that’s needed, so I am telling them they can build their own plant,” the president said. “They’re going to produce their own electricity … while at the same time, lowering prices of electricity for you.”
The announcement comes as polling shows Americans are dissatisfied with the economy and concerned about the cost of living. Experts on both sides of the political spectrum have said the energy affordability issue could translate to poor outcomes for Republicans in the midterm elections this November, as it did in a few key races in New Jersey, Virginia and Georgia last year.
While Trump has focused on ramping up domestic production of oil, gas and coal, residential electric bills have been soaring — jumping from 15.9 cents per kilowatt-hour in January 2025 on average to 17.2 cents at the end of December, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Through one year into his second term as president, Trump has vastly changed the federal landscape when it comes to energy and the environment, reversing many of the efforts made by the Biden administration to prioritize electrification initiatives and investments in renewable energy via the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
Among several changes, Trump’s administration has slashed funding for solar programs, ended federal tax credits for electric vehicles and canceled grants for offshore wind power — even going so far as to try to halt some such projects that were nearing completion along the East Coast.
Trump has also championed fossil fuel production and on Tuesday doubled down on his “drill baby drill” agenda, touting lower gasoline prices, increased production of American oil and new imports of oil from Venezuela.
Many of the president’s efforts are designed to loosen Biden-era regulations that he has said were burdensome, ideologically motivated and expensive for taxpayers.
Trump has taken direct aim at California, which has long been a leader on the environment. Last year, the president moved to block California’s long-held authority to set stricter tailpipe emission standards than the federal government — an ability that helped the state address historical air quality issues and also underpinned its ambitious ban on the sale of new gas-powered cars in 2035.
Trump also slashed $1.2 billion in federal funding for California’s effort to develop clean hydrogen energy while leaving intact funding for similar projects in states that voted for him. In November, his administration announced that it will open the Pacific Coast to oil drilling for the first time in nearly four decades, a move the state vowed to fight.
But perhaps no issue has come across voters’ kitchen tables more than energy affordability.
So far this term, Trump has canceled or delayed enough projects to power more than 14 million homes, according to a tracker from the nonprofit Climate Power. The group’s senior advisor, Jesse Lee, described the president’s data center announcement as a “toothless, empty promise based on backroom deals with his own billionaire donors.”
“Making it worse, Trump is continuing to block clean-energy production across the board — the only sources that can keep up with demand, ensure utility bills don’t keep skyrocketing, and prevent massive new amounts of pollution,” Lee said in a statement.
Earlier this month, Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency repealed the endangerment finding, the U.S. government’s 2009 affirmation that greenhouse gases are harmful to human health and the environment, in what officials described as the single largest act of deregulation in U.S. history. The finding formed the foundation for much of U.S. climate policy. The EPA also loosened guidelines around emissions from coal power plants, including mercury and other dangerous pollutants.
The president’s environmental record so far is “written in rollbacks that put the interests of some corporate polluters above the health of everyday Americans,” read a statement from Marc Boom, senior director of the Environmental Protection Network, a group composed of more than 750 former EPA staff members and appointees.
Further, Trump has worked to undermine climate science in general, often describing global warming as a “hoax” or a “scam.” During his first year in office, he fired hundreds of scientists working to prepare the National Climate Assessment, laid off staffers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and dismantled the National Center for Atmospheric Research, one of the world’s leading climate and weather research institutions, among many other efforts.
In all, the administration has taken or proposed more than 430 actions that threaten the environment, public health and the ability to confront climate change, according to a tracker from the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council.
The opposition’s choice for a rebuttal speaker is indicative of how seriously it is taking the issue of energy affordability: Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger focused heavily on energy affordability during her campaign against Republican Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears last year, including vows to expand solar energy projects and technologies such as fusion, geothermal and hydrogen. Virginia is home to more than a third of all data centers worldwide.
Business
Public Storage is the latest company to leave California for Texas
Public Storage is moving to Texas after more than 50 years in California.
The company shared its plans to move its corporate headquarters from Glendale to Frisco, Texas, a suburb of Dallas, ahead of an earnings call this month. The largest self-storage brand in the U.S. has been based in Southern California since its founding in 1972 in El Cajon. The company operates more than 3,500 self-storage facilities across 40 U.S. states and has more than 5,000 employees.
Company leadership framed the move as a logistical decision rather than a full-on California exodus. The move to Texas, part of a wider overhaul of the company, will help it benefit from the “depth of talent and innovation in that market,” according to a statement.
Incoming Chief Executive H. Thomas Boyle, currently the company’s chief financial and investment officer, said during the fourth-quarter earnings call that the company has long operated in both Glendale and Dallas. Corporate job openings often were posted across both offices, but most new roles over the last several years have been filled in the Texas location, Boyle said.
“It’s about finding the right talent across the country and building the team going forward, and we look forward to strong leadership in both offices,” Boyle said.
The news comes shortly after Senate Bill 709 took effect at the start of the year. The bill was designed to place price caps on California’s self-storage industry but was scaled back to a transparency law requiring disclosures of rent hikes in rental agreements. The California Self Storage Assn., of which Public Storage is a funder, heavily lobbied against the bill.
California has been losing more companies than it’s been gaining since 2014, many to Texas. However, experts and economists have told The Times the corporate departures represent adjustments to California’s $4.1-trillion economy, rather than signs of systemic decline.
Last year the hair care company John Paul Mitchell Systems moved from Southern California to Wilmer, Texas, and the green energy company GAF moved from San José to Georgetown, Texas.
In 2024, Chevron announced plans to move its headquarters from San Ramon to Houston after years of butting heads with politicians in Sacramento over climate and energy policies.
That year, Elon Musk moved the headquarters of SpaceX and X to Texas because of a new state law that prohibits mandating that teachers notify families about student gender identity changes. Three years earlier, Tesla moved its headquarters from Palo Alto to Austin, Texas.
In 2019, financial services company Charles Schwab relocated from San Francisco, where it was founded, to Westlake, Texas.
Other billionaires including Oracle founder Larry Ellison and Palantir founder Peter Thiel have begun distancing themselves from California as a labor-backed coalition gathers signatures in the hopes of putting a one-time 5% tax on state billionaires’ total wealth on the November ballot.
-
Montana6 days ago2026 MHSA Montana Wrestling State Championship Brackets And Results – FloWrestling
-
Oklahoma1 week agoWildfires rage in Oklahoma as thousands urged to evacuate a small city
-
Louisiana3 days agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Technology5 days agoYouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
-
Culture1 week agoTest Your Knowledge of the Authors and Events That Helped Shape the United States
-
Technology5 days agoStellantis is in a crisis of its own making
-
Politics5 days agoOpenAI didn’t contact police despite employees flagging mass shooter’s concerning chatbot interactions: REPORT
-
News5 days agoWorld reacts as US top court limits Trump’s tariff powers