“Stand-up is like you’re a cabinetmaker, and everybody needs a guy who’s good with wood. There’s trees everywhere, but to make a nice table, it’s not so easy. So, the metaphor is that if you have good craft and craftsmanship, you’re kind of impervious to the whims of the industry. Audiences are now flocking to stand-up because it’s something you can’t fake. It’s like platform diving. You could say you’re a platform diver, but in two seconds we can see if you are or you aren’t. That’s what people like about stand-up. They can trust it.”
Last week, the Chinese government ordered Apple to remove several widely used messaging apps—WhatsApp, Threads, Signal, and Telegram—from its app store. According to the Wall Street Journal, these apps have about three billion users globally, and have been downloaded more than a hundred and seventy million times in China since 2017. In a statement, Apple said that it was told to remove the apps because of “national security concerns,” adding that it is “obligated to follow the laws in the countries where we operate, even when we disagree.” Although new downloads are now blocked, some reports said that Chinese users who had already installed the apps were still able to use them, though doing so requires the use of a virtual private network, or VPN, in order to get around the country’s “Great Firewall.”
Beyond Apple’s allusion to “national security,” why exactly the apps were removed is unclear. An anonymous source told the Journal that the Chinese Cyberspace Administration asked Apple to remove WhatsApp and Threads because both are home to content that includes “problematic mentions” of Xi Jinping, China’s president. The New York Times also quoted a source as saying that the apps were removed because they platformed “inflammatory” content about Xi and violated China’s cybersecurity laws. An Apple spokesperson, however, told the Journal that the apps were not removed because of content about Xi. A spokesperson for the Chinese embassy in the US didn’t say why the apps were targeted, but told the Washington Postthat foreign companies must obey Chinese laws aimed at maintaining an “orderly” internet.
Some China experts have their own theories as to why the apps were ordered removed. As the Post noted, the move came just a few days after the US Congress resurrected a bill aimed at forcing ByteDance, the Chinese owner of TikTok, to either sell the app or be banned from the US (the Senate passed the bill on Tuesday, and President Biden signed it into law yesterday)—timing that suggests possible retaliation on China’s part. Dan Wang, a visiting China scholar at Yale Law School, told the Post that the removal of WhatsApp is largely symbolic since the platform is already banned in China—but that the Chinese government’s playbook is to reply in-kind to “every American provocation,” a dynamic that might only accelerate should the US successfully impose its TikTok ban. (I wrote last week about the prospects for this, which depend on more than simply passing legislation.)
Note: this post was originally published as the daily newsletter for the Columbia Journalism Review, where I am the chief digital writer
For almost four years, Congress has been talking about banning TikTok. Early last month, talk seemed suddenly to turn into action: the House of Representatives brought forward a new bill—the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act— that would force Bytedance, the China-based owner of TikTok, to either sell the company or see the app banned in the US. In his Platformer newsletter, Casey Newton described the legislative push as “fast-moving.” The Wall Street Journal described it as “hurtling towards a vote.”
The House quickly did vote, 352-65, to pass the sale-or-ban law. But then the fast-moving effort seemed to stop hurtling and get stuck in quicksand. What happened? In a word, the Senate. Although some senators have said that they support the ban and want it passed, there appears to be a lack of consensus in the chamber. As Newton noted in an update to his previous post, Chuck Schumer, the Senate majority leader, mentioned the possibility of a TikTok bill recently, but only in the context of a letter identifying a long list of other priorities, including online safety legislation for children and a child tax credit. Mitch McConnell, the minority leader, has called on his colleagues to take action on TikTok, saying the matter requires “urgent attention.” But many of his colleagues don’t seem convinced that urgent action, or in fact any action, is necessary.
Maria Cantwell—a Democrat who chairs the Senate Commerce Committee, which would have to approve any Senate version of the House bill—said recently that she doesn’t think the current legislation can withstand a legal challenge. (Senator Rand Paul, a Republican, also expressed concern that it would be struck down by the courts.) Cantwell has also said that the legislation is flawed because the executive branch of government should get to decide whether something constitutes a security threat, rather than Congress doing so. Cantwell has proposed alternative legislation that would set up a process allowing the White House to make such decisions. But Punchbowl News points out that her bill doesn’t have a Republican co-sponsor, and so its prospects seem limited.
Note: this post was originally published as the daily newsletter for the Columbia Journalism Review, where I am the chief digital writer
