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

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Business

Scott Bessent, Trump’s Billionaire Treasury Pick, Will Shed Assets to Avoid Conflicts

Published

on

Scott Bessent, Trump’s Billionaire Treasury Pick, Will Shed Assets to Avoid Conflicts

Scott Bessent, the billionaire hedge fund manager whom President-elect Donald J. Trump picked to be his Treasury secretary, plans to divest from dozens of funds, trusts and investments in preparation to become the nation’s top economic policymaker.

Those plans were released on Saturday along with the publication of an ethics agreement and financial disclosures that Mr. Bessent submitted ahead of his Senate confirmation hearing next Thursday.

The documents show the extent of the wealth of Mr. Bessent, whose assets and investments appear to be worth in excess of $700 million. Mr. Bessent was formerly the top investor for the billionaire liberal philanthropist George Soros and has been a major Republican donor and adviser to Mr. Trump.

If confirmed as Treasury secretary, Mr. Bessent, 62, will steer Mr. Trump’s economic agenda of cutting taxes, rolling back regulations and imposing tariffs as he seeks to renegotiate trade deals. He will also play a central role in the Trump administration’s expected embrace of cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin.

Although Mr. Trump won the election by appealing to working-class voters who have been dogged by high prices, he has turned to wealthy Wall Street investors such as Mr. Bessent and Howard Lutnick, a billionaire banker whom he tapped to be commerce secretary, to lead his economic team. Linda McMahon, another billionaire, has been picked as education secretary, and Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, is leading an unofficial agency known as the Department of Government Efficiency.

Advertisement

In a letter to the Treasury Department’s ethics office, Mr. Bessent outlined the steps he would take to “avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interest in the event that I am confirmed for the position of secretary of the Department of Treasury.”

Mr. Bessent said he would shutter Key Square Capital Management, the investment firm that he founded, and resign from his Bessent-Freeman Family Foundation and from Rockefeller University, where he has been chairman of the investment committee.

The financial disclosure form, which provides ranges for the value of his assets, reveals that Mr. Bessent owns as much as $25 million of farmland in North Dakota, which earns an income from soybean and corn production. He also owns a property in the Bahamas that is worth as much as $25 million. Last November, Mr. Bessent put his historic pink mansion in Charleston, S.C., on the market for $22.5 million.

Mr. Bessent is selling several investments that could pose potential conflicts of interest including a Bitcoin exchange-traded fund; an account that trades the renminbi, China’s currency; and his stake in All Seasons, a conservative publisher. He also has a margin loan, or line of credit, with Goldman Sachs of more than $50 million.

As an investor, Mr. Bessent has long wagered on the rising strength of the dollar and has betted against, or “shorted,” the renminbi, according to a person familiar with Mr. Bessent’s strategy who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss his portfolio. Mr. Bessent gained notoriety in the 1990s by betting against the British pound and earning his firm, Soros Fund Management, $1 billion. He also made a high-profile bet against the Japanese yen.

Advertisement

Mr. Bessent, who will be overseeing the U.S. Treasury market, holds over $100 million in Treasury bills.

Cabinet officials are required to divest certain holdings and investments to avoid the potential for conflicts of interest. Although this can be an onerous process, it has some potential tax benefits.

The tax code contains a provision that allows securities to be sold and the capital gains tax on such sales deferred if the full proceeds are used to buy Treasury securities and certain money-market funds. The tax continues to be deferred until the securities or money-market funds are sold.

Even while adhering to the ethics guidelines, questions about conflicts of interest can still emerge.

Mr. Trump’s Treasury secretary during his first term, Steven Mnuchin, divested from his Hollywood film production company after joining the administration. However, as he was negotiating a trade deal in 2018 with China — an important market for the U.S. film industry — ethics watchdogs raised questions about whether Mr. Mnuchin had conflicts because he had sold his interest in the company to his wife.

Advertisement

Mr. Bessent was chosen for the Treasury after an internal tussle among Mr. Trump’s aides over the job. Mr. Lutnick, Mr. Trump’s transition team co-chair and the chief executive of Cantor Fitzgerald, made a late pitch to secure the Treasury secretary role for himself before Mr. Trump picked him to be Commerce secretary.

During that fight, which spilled into view, critics of Mr. Bessent circulated documents disparaging his performance as a hedge fund manager.

Mr. Bessent’s most recent hedge fund, Key Square Capital, launched to much fanfare in 2016, garnering $4.5 billion in investor money, including $2 billion from Mr. Soros, but manages much less now. A fund he ran in the early 2000s had a similarly unremarkable performance.

Continue Reading

Business

As wildfires rage, private firefighters join the fight for the fortunate few

Published

on

As wildfires rage, private firefighters join the fight for the fortunate few

When devastating wildfires erupted across Los Angeles County this week, David Torgerson’s team of firefighters went to work.

The thousands of city, county and state firefighters dispatched to battle the blazes went wherever they were needed. The crews from Torgerson’s Wildfire Defense Systems, however, set out for particular addresses. Armed with hoses, fire-blocking gel and their own water supply, the Montana-based outfit contracts with insurance companies to defend the homes of customers who buy policies that include their services.

It’s a win-win if the private firefighters succeed in saving a home, said Torgerson, the company’s founder and executive chairman. The homeowner keeps their home and the insurance company doesn’t have to make a hefty payout to rebuild.

“It makes good sense,” he said. “It’s always better if the homes and businesses don’t burn.”

Torgerson’s operation, which has been contracting with insurance companies since 2008 and employs hundreds of firefighters, engineers and other staff, highlights a lesser-known component of fighting wildfires in the U.S. Along with the more than 7,500 publicly funded firefighters and emergency personnel dispatched to the current conflagrations, which have burned more than 30,000 acres and destroyed more than 9,000 structures, a smaller force of for-hire professionals is on the fire lines for insurance companies, wealthy individual property owners or government agencies in need of additional hands.

Advertisement

Their presence isn’t without controversy. Private firefighters hired by homeowners directly have drawn criticism for heightening class divides during disasters. This week, a Pacific Palisades homeowner received backlash for putting a call out on X, the social media site formerly named Twitter, for help finding private firefighters who could save his home.

“Does anyone have access to private firefighters to protect our home in Pacific Palisades? Need to act fast here. All neighbors houses burning,” he wrote in the since-deleted post. “Will pay any amount.”

“The epitome of nerve and tone deaf!” someone replied.

In 2018, Kim Kardashian and Kanye West credited private firefighters for saving their $60-million home in the Santa Monica mountains during a wildfire. But those who serve wealthy clients make up only a small fraction of nonpublic firefighters, according to Torgerson.

“Contract firefighters who are hired by the government are the vast majority,” he said. The federal government has been hiring private firefighters since the 1980s to support its own forces. According to the National Wildfire Suppression Assn., there are about 250 private sector fire response companies under federal contract, adding about 10,000 firefighters to U.S. efforts.

Advertisement

Some private firefighting companies, including Wildfire Defense Systems, are known as Qualified Insurance Resources and are paid by insurance companies to protect the homes of their customers. Wildfire Defense Systems refers to its on-the-ground forces as private sector wildfire personnel.

Wildfire Defense Systems only works with the insurance industry, but other privately held firefighting companies contract with industrial clients such as petrochemical facilities and utility providers. Wildfire Defense Systems declined to disclose company revenue or what it charges for its services.

Allied Disaster Defense, a company that has sent personnel to the fires in Los Angeles, offers services to both property owners and insurance companies. Its website says its services will “enhance the insurability of properties” and “contribute to reduced claims.”

The website also has a page dedicated to services for private clients, which include emergency response and assistance with insurance claims for “high net-worth and celebrity” customers. The company does not list prices for its services and has nondisclosure agreements with its private clients.

Several other private firefighting companies are based in California, including Mt. Adams Wildfire, which contracts with government agencies, and UrbnTek, which serves Los Angeles, Orange County and San Diego among other areas. Along with spraying fire retardant on trees and brush to stop an advancing fire, the company offers “a double layer of protection by wrapping a structure with our fire blanket system.”

Advertisement

Torgerson, a civil engineer with 34 years in emergency services, said he has been struck by the speed of the current wildfires. While typically it takes two to 10 minutes for a fire to sweep through a home, he said, the Palisades fire is traveling at higher speeds.

“It’s moving so fast, it’ll likely take one to two minutes for these fires to pass over the properties,” he said.

He said his company responded to all 62 of the wildfires that threatened structures in California in 2024 and didn’t lose a property.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

As Delta Reports Profits, Airlines Are Optimistic About 2025

Published

on

As Delta Reports Profits, Airlines Are Optimistic About 2025

This year just got started, but it is already shaping up nicely for U.S. airlines.

After several setbacks, the industry ended 2024 in a fairly strong position because of healthy demand for tickets and the ability of several airlines to control costs and raise fares, experts said. Barring any big problems, airlines — especially the largest ones — should enjoy a great year, analysts said.

“I think it’s going to be pretty blue skies,” said Tom Fitzgerald, an airline industry analyst for the investment bank TD Cowen.

In recent weeks, many major airlines upgraded forecasts for the all-important last three months of the year. And on Friday, Delta Air Lines said it collected more than $15.5 billion in revenue in the fourth quarter of 2024, a record.

“As we move into 2025, we expect strong demand for travel to continue,” Delta’s chief executive, Ed Bastian, said in a statement. That put the airline on track to “deliver the best financial year in Delta’s 100-year history,” he said.

Advertisement

The airline also beat analysts’ profit estimates and said it expected earnings per share, a measure of profitability, to rise more than 10 percent this year.

Delta’s upbeat report offers a preview of what are expected to be similarly rosy updates from other carriers that will report earnings in the next few weeks. That should come as welcome news to an industry that has been stifled by various challenges even as demand for travel has rocketed back after the pandemic.

“For the last five years, it’s felt like every bird in the sky was a black swan,” said Ravi Shanker, an analyst focused on airlines at Morgan Stanley. “But it appears that this industry does have its ducks in a row.”

That is, of course, if everything goes according to plan, which it rarely does. Geopolitics, terrorist attacks, air safety problems and, perhaps most important, an economic downturn could tank demand for travel. Rising costs, particularly for jet fuel, could erode profits. Or the industry could face problems like a supply chain disruption that limits availability of new planes or makes it harder to repair older ones.

Early last year, a panel blew off a Boeing 737 Max during an Alaska Airlines flight, resurfacing concerns about the safety of the manufacturer’s planes, which are used on most flights operated by U.S. airlines, according to Cirium, an aviation data firm.

Advertisement

The incident forced Boeing to slow production and delay deliveries of jets. That disrupted the plans of some airlines that had hoped to carry more passengers. And there was little airlines could do to adjust because the world’s largest jet manufacturer, Airbus, didn’t have the capacity to pick up the slack — both it and Boeing have long order backlogs. In addition, some Airbus planes were afflicted by an engine problem that has forced carriers to pull the jets out of service for inspections.

There was other tumult, too. Spirit Airlines filed for bankruptcy. A brief technology outage wreaked havoc on many airlines, disrupting travel and resulting in thousands of canceled flights in the heart of the busy summer season. And during the summer, smaller airlines flooded popular domestic routes with seats, squeezing profits during what is normally the most lucrative time of year.

But the industry’s financial position started improving when airlines reduced the number of flights and seats. While that was bad for travelers, it lifted fares and profits for airlines.

“You’re in a demand-over-supply imbalance, which gives the industry pricing power,” said Andrew Didora, an analyst at the Bank of America.

At the same time, airlines have been trying to improve their businesses. American Airlines overhauled a sales strategy that had frustrated corporate customers, helping it win back some travelers. Southwest Airlines made changes aimed at lowering costs and increasing profits after a push by the hedge fund Elliott Management. And JetBlue Airways unveiled a strategy with similar aims, after a less contentious battle with the investor Carl C. Icahn.

Advertisement

Those improvements and industry trends, along with the stabilization of fuel, labor and other costs, have created the conditions for what could be a banner 2025. “All of this is the best setup we’ve had in decades,” Mr. Shanker said.

That won’t materialize right away, though. Travel demand tends to be subdued in the winter. But business trips pick up somewhat, driven by events like this week’s Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.

The positive outlook for 2025 is probably strongest for the largest U.S. airlines — Delta, United and American. All three are well positioned to take advantage of buoyant trends, including steadily rebounding business travel and customers who are eager to spend more on better seats and international flights.

But some smaller airlines may do well, too. JetBlue, Alaska Airlines and others have been adding more premium seats, which should help lift profits.

While he is optimistic overall, Mr. Shanker acknowledged that the industry was vulnerable to a host of potential problems.

Advertisement

“I mean, this time last year you were talking about doors falling off planes,” he said. “So who knows what might happen.”

Continue Reading

Trending