Australia Faces Choice Between Chinese-Owned TikTok and Trump Billionaire Supporters

Is it a China-owned TikTok, or is it managed by a consortium of billionaires backed by Trump?

This is the question Australia is being prompted to contemplate.

The Trump administration stated that the agreement proposed by TikTok to continue its U.S. operations would involve Americans, transferring control to a U.S. firm with seven board members. Donald Trump has indicated that a group of U.S. companies, including Oracle’s Larry Ellison and Fox Corporation’s Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, are part of this deal.

TikTok is owned by the Chinese entity ByteDance. In 2024, the U.S. Congress enacted a law to prohibit social media apps unless sold to a U.S. company, citing privacy and national security issues. The Trump administration has repeatedly extended this ban while negotiations continue between the U.S. and China.


According to White House press secretary Karolyn Leavitt, TikTok’s own algorithm will be “managed by the U.S.”

Liberal Senator James Patterson commented that Australia should transition to the U.S. version of the app as the deal advances.

“If there were a safe version of TikTok in the U.S., it would be unfortunate for the Australian version to remain under the control of foreign authoritarian governments,” he remarked to Murdoch. Sky News.

Tom Sulston, policy director for Digital Rights Watch, highlighted that the issue lies not in ownership, but rather in pervasive user surveillance, describing the transition to U.S. control of TikTok as “puzzling.”

“Ownership isn’t the main concern. The issue is the continuous invasive monitoring of users. U.S.-owned TikTok users do not enjoy greater privacy than those using the Chinese version, as there is a lack of effective regulation of social media firms,” he stated.

“TikTok users remain under extensive surveillance while online, which is utilized for profiling by both them and the National Information Services.”

Sky Predabeck, a fellow at the Australian Institute; emphasized the need for a Royal Commission and expressed her concerns about TikTok’s influence on media representation and public discourse.

“If the Murdochs own TikTok, this would give a new level of power over media, especially since TikTok plays a crucial role in public discussions and elections,” she explained.

Sulston argued that TikTok’s algorithm would likely remain just as opaque under U.S. control, as Meta and other platforms utilize their algorithms with almost no transparency.

“These companies depend on secret algorithms that exploit industrial-level surveillance of users to suggest content and advertisements.”

Dr. Dana McKay, Associate Dean of Interaction, Technology and Information at RMIT University, proposed that Australia should develop its own local version of TikTok for better data and security management.

However, McKay cautioned that ownership changes might lead to an app version that fails to meet user expectations. The core appeal of TikTok is its algorithm, and there is uncertainty about whether the data used for recommendations would be transferred to the U.S. during the transaction.

Skip past newsletter promotions

“Currently, Oracle is in the process of reconstructing the algorithm, but there may be a significant drop in user experience until sufficient data is gathered on viewing habits,” McKay added. “This could take days or weeks, depending on how much data the existing algorithm relies on.”

Will this deter users or drive them to another application? Sulston referenced News Corp’s previous unsuccessful venture into social media with MySpace.


In 2005, News Corp invested USD 580 million during a boom in online social networking. MySpace was valued at USD 12 billion at its peak, but then Facebook emerged, offering better navigation and features.

By June 2008, Australians were visiting Facebook more than MySpace, a trend that didn’t occur in the U.S. until 2009.

Frustrated, Rupert Murdoch sold MySpace in 2011 for USD 35 million.

“News Corp sold MySpace for significantly less than its original purchase of around USD 5 billion. Perhaps this will be another misstep,” Sulston noted.

The federal government maintains its stance on TikTok, which is banned on government devices, and indicates ongoing oversight of U.S. developments during the transaction process.

Both News Corp and TikTok were approached for comment.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Silicon Valley Trump supporters rally behind the decline of democracy | John Norton

I
yeah How does democracy end?In his elegant book, The Restoration of Liberal Democracy, published after Trump’s 2016 election, David Runciman made a startling point: the liberal democracies we take for granted will not last forever, but they will not fail in the ways we’ve seen them in the past: without revolution, military coup, or breakdown of social order. Moving forward through failure In an unexpected way. The implication was that people who compare it to what happened in Germany in the 1930s are mistaken.

Until a few weeks ago, that seemed like wise advice. But then something changed: key sectors of Silicon Valley, a Democratic stronghold for decades, began to support Trump. In 2016, contrarian billionaire and PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel was the only prominent Silicon Valley figure to endorse Trump, which merely confirmed the fact that he was a Silicon Valley legal outcast. But in recent weeks, many of Silicon Valley’s bigwigs (Elon Musk, Marc Andreessen, and David Sachs, to name just three) have revealed themselves as Trump supporters and donors. Musk has set up a pro-Republican political action committee (super PAC) and is donating to it. On June 6, venture capitalist Sachs hosted a $300,000-a-person fundraising dinner at Trump’s San Francisco mansion.

Why the sudden interest in politics? It’s probably a combination of several factors. First, Biden’s billionaire tax plan (and his administration’s antitrust litigation enthusiasm). Second, Trump’s newfound enthusiasm for cryptocurrency. Third, Biden has raised far more money for his campaign. And finally, and most importantly, Trump’s momentum was beginning to look unstoppable even before Biden dropped out.

The last two factors are reminiscent of the 1930s. In 1932, the Nazi Party was in serious financial trouble, and when Hitler became chancellor the following year, he personally appealed to business leaders for help. Funds were raised from 17 different business groups, with the largest donation coming from
IG Farben and Deutsche Bank
At the time, these donations must have seemed like a shrewd gamble to the businessmen who donated them. But as historian Adam Tooze wrote in his landmark book on the period, it also meant that German businessmen “were willing to cooperate in the destruction of German political pluralism.” In return, according to Tooze, German business owners and managers were given unprecedented powers to control their employees, collective bargaining was abolished, and wages were frozen at relatively low levels. Corporate profits and business investment grew rapidly. Fascism had been good for business, but it wasn’t anymore.

I wonder if these thoughts were going through the minds of the tech titans enjoying a $300,000 dinner in San Francisco that June night. My guess is no, they’re not. Silicon Valley residents don’t care much about history because they’re in the business of creating the future, so there’s nothing to learn from the past.

That’s a pity, because history has some lessons for them. The German businessmen who decided to support Hitler in 1933 may not have known exactly what he was up to for Germany, and probably knew nothing about the plans for the “Final Solution.” But David Sachs’ dinner guests have no such excuse.
Project 2025
President Trump’s second term plans are available online in a 900-page document.

It’s an interesting read. It has four core objectives: protecting children and families, dismantling the administrative state, defending borders, and restoring “God-given” individual liberties. But essentially,
A huge expansion of presidential powers There are many hysterical proposals, including putting the Department of Justice under Presidential control, replacing nonpartisan civil servants with loyalist ones, rolling back environmental laws, mass deportations, and removing “sexual orientation and gender identity, diversity, equity and inclusion, gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender sensitivity, abortion, reproductive health and reproductive rights” from all federal rules, agency regulations, contracts, grants and laws.

The rationale for Project 2025 was a concern that Trump had no idea how to use his new powers when he came to power in 2016, and that he certainly will not do so next time. As public concern about the document has grown, he has tried to distance himself from it. This may be because he thinks he won’t need a plan if elected. Speaking recently at a Christian convention in Florida, he said: “Go out and vote, this time. You don’t have to vote anymore. Four more years and we’ll take care of it. We’ll all be sorted out. My beautiful Christian people, you don’t have to vote anymore.”

The lesson? Be careful what you wish for. Copycats, Silicon Valley.

Skip Newsletter Promotions

What I’m Reading


Where to start?
Tim Harford said:
How do we fix Britain? Here’s how” in Financial Times.

False balance
There’s a thoughtful Substack by historian Timothy Snyder.
Two-sidednessThe harmful delusions of mainstream media.

In the Ether
In a skeptical blog post in Molly White’s newsletter, Citation Needed, she writes:
When cryptocurrency policy becomes an election issue.

Source: www.theguardian.com