Connect with us

Published

on

TikTok Music has launched on Wednesday in Australia, Singapore and Mexico to a small group of users.

Jaap Arriens | Nurphoto | Getty Images

When Joe Biden joined TikTok on the eve of the Super Bowl last month, political scientist Maggie Macdonald was struck by what she called the “meta” nature of the president’s first post.

In the video, Biden poked fun at a conspiracy theory that he rigged the Super Bowl — in favor of the Kansas City Chiefs — to somehow help his reelection efforts.

“Yeah, I’m old, but I’m on TikTok, and I’m on this super online place talking about this super online concept,” Macdonald, an assistant political science professor at the University of Kentucky, said of the messaging and tone of Biden’s video.

While Biden’s debut on the wildly popular social media app came in a playful manner, his use of TikTok in this year’s reelection campaign is at the heart of a heated debate in Washington, D.C., about whether the service should even exist in the U.S. The app, owned by China’s ByteDance, is viewed as both an invaluable tool in trying to reach masses of young potential voters who are unplugged from mainstream media and an easy way, allegedly, for the Chinese government to spy on American consumers.

Members of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party introduced a bill this week that would require ByteDance to divest TikTok or face a U.S. ban, following earlier federal and state-led efforts that never came to fruition. On Thursday, the committee voted 50-0 to send the bill to the House floor.  

Shortly after the committee advanced the bill, Rep. Troy Balderson, R-Ohio, called TikTok “a surveillance tool used by the Chinese Communist Party to spy on Americans and harvest highly personal data.”

TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew has denied in Senate hearings any ties between the app and the CCP. In a statement to CNBC on Thursday, TikTok said, “The government is attempting to strip 170 million Americans of their Constitutional right to free expression,” an act that “will damage millions of businesses, deny artists an audience, and destroy the livelihoods of countless creators across the country.”

TikTok’s CEO Shou Zi Chew testifies during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on online child sexual exploitation, at the U.S. Capitol, in Washington, U.S., January 31, 2024. 

Nathan Howard | Reuters

Since Biden’s playful intro post, his campaign’s TikTok account has notched over 222,000 followers and over 2.4 million likes. With eight months until the general election and a likely rematch of the 2020 contest, Biden narrowly trails Republican challenger Donald Trump in most national polls in what’s expected to be a tight battle to the end.

Biden’s age has shown up as a persistent concern in polling data, so experts say reaching out to younger audiences is key in trying to win over undecided young voters, and mobilize a traditional Democratic constituency whose members sometimes stay home on Election Day.

“It’s really important for him to have a presence, and for him to interact directly with voters, not just through creators and influencers,” said Aaron Earls, CEO of social media influencer firm Activate HQ, which specializes in political campaigns. “The turnout in 2020 was really significant with that younger audience and, everyone’s suggesting that maybe there will be a similar turnout with the younger audience again.”

During the State of the Union address Thursday evening, Biden’s campaign posted clips of the speech on TikTok, a sign that the president plans to stick with the app despite swirling concerns in Washington. But it’s a particularly convoluted matter for Biden because, should the bill pass the full House and the Senate, it would hit the president’s desk.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters on Thursday that, “This bill is important, we welcome this step.” She said the administration plans to “meet the American people where they are,” adding that, “It doesn’t mean that we’re not going to try to figure out how to protect our national security.”

Biden said on Friday that he will sign the bill if Congress passes it.

The Biden campaign didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

TikTok is trying to generate support from users following the House’s action on Thursday. On the app, users were greeted with a screenshot warning them that Congress was “planning a total ban of TikTok.” Multiple staffers and lawmakers told CNBC their offices were flooded with calls, mostly from kids.

TikTok goes to Washington

U.S. political campaigns more broadly are trying to figure out how best to utilize TikTok.

In recent cycles, Facebook has been the social media app of choice for campaigns because of its ability to narrowly target users with fundraising ads and informational posts. However, Apple’s 2021 iOS privacy update made it much harder to target audiences, raising the cost of ad campaigns across Meta’s platforms.

Additionally, Facebook has skewed older over the years, with younger groups gravitating to TikTok. The challenge for campaigns is that TikTok says it doesn’t allow for political ads or “content such as a video from a politician asking for donations, or a political party directing people to a donation page on their website.”

To date, major campaigns have relied on high-profile TikTok influencers to help rally support for specific issues. Last April, for instance, the White House said it was enlisting a squad of volunteer TikTok and Instagram influencers to help spread awareness of the Biden campaign.

Earls says it’s a strategy that’s long been employed in politics. TikTok just presents a new medium.

“That has historically been a tactic that’s happened since the Kennedy days, but just more in traditional media,” Earls said. “Like you’re going to get an endorsement from Marilyn Monroe or Joe DiMaggio or whatever.”

Political groups are scouring TikTok for influencers with positions that resonate with would-be voters, and are targeting certain swing states that could be critical in deciding an election. During the 2022 midterm elections, the Democratic National Committee and communications groups like Climate Power enlisted the help of TikTok and influencers to discuss issues like abortion rights and to mobilize voters.

Biden campaign joins TikTok

Even with its growing popularity, TikTok remains a niche tool in politics.

Anupam Chander, a Georgetown University Law Center professor, released a study with some colleagues last year showing that fewer than 10% of members of the U.S. Congress have a “TikTok account from which they post content,” most likely because of the app’s connection to China. In total, the report said, 34 House members and seven senators had an official TikTok account.

Among major politicians using TikTok, an overwhelming majority are Democrats, the study showed. Some of Republicans’ resistance could tie back to Trump’s vow — which was ultimately unsuccessful — to ban TikTok during his administration.

Reaching ‘young Americans where they are’

One of the few high-profile Republicans now on the app is former presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, who said during a primary debate that “part of how we win elections is reaching the next generation of young Americans where they are.”

As to whether Trump will use TikTok in his campaign, Earls said he wouldn’t be surprised to see it. The decision, he said, likely has less to do with China and is more about Trump’s connection to his own social media platform, Truth Social, where he posts with frequency.

“We’ve seen him do whatever it takes to win an election including trying to stop the peaceful transition of power,” Earls said. “He will do what he thinks will help him win so I suspect we’ll see his campaign join TikTok in the coming months depending upon how things develop with his ability to monetize Truth Social.”

The Trump campaign didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Anish Mohanty, communications director for Gen-Z for Change, said his nonprofit advocacy group was originally called TikTok for Biden when it formed in 2020 as part of an effort “to defeat Donald Trump.” The group changed its name the following year, and now taps its network of hundreds of TikTok social media influencers to advocate for multiple progressive issues related to climate change, universal health care and for Biden to call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.

Given the many challenges Biden faces with younger groups, his mere presence on TikTok isn’t enough to win votes, Mohanty said, particularly if the president’s campaign is “just using it to post cringy memes about Trump.”

“Young people care about issues, that’s why young people are so unhappy with Biden over action on climate change, over the situation in Gaza,” Mohanty said. “Just because Biden is posting on TikTok, that’s not what’s going to pull young people over.”

Still, Macdonald sees a big opportunity for Biden.

“If you want to reach younger people who are very apathetic, they’re on TikTok,” said the University of Kentucky professor. “You have an incentive to reach them on TikTok, and it does seem that the Republican Party as a unit is just not doing it.”

WATCH: Denying a platform isn’t denying free speech.

Denying a platform isn't denying free speech: Fmr. Senator Heidi Heitkamp on possible TikTok ban

Continue Reading

Technology

How Elon Musk’s plan to slash government agencies and regulation may benefit his empire

Published

on

By

How Elon Musk’s plan to slash government agencies and regulation may benefit his empire

Elon Musk’s business empire is sprawling. It includes electric vehicle maker Tesla, social media company X, artificial intelligence startup xAI, computer interface company Neuralink, tunneling venture Boring Company and aerospace firm SpaceX. 

Some of his ventures already benefit tremendously from federal contracts. SpaceX has received more than $19 billion from contracts with the federal government, according to research from FedScout. Under a second Trump presidency, more lucrative contracts could come its way. SpaceX is on track to take in billions of dollars annually from prime contracts with the federal government for years to come, according to FedScout CEO Geoff Orazem.

Musk, who has frequently blamed the government for stifling innovation, could also push for less regulation of his businesses. Earlier this month, Musk and former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy were tapped by Trump to lead a government efficiency group called the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.

In a recent commentary piece in the Wall Street Journal, Musk and Ramaswamy wrote that DOGE will “pursue three major kinds of reform: regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions and cost savings.” They went on to say that many existing federal regulations were never passed by Congress and should therefore be nullified, which President-elect Trump could accomplish through executive action. Musk and Ramaswamy also championed the large-scale auditing of agencies, calling out the Pentagon for failing its seventh consecutive audit. 

“The number one way Elon Musk and his companies would benefit from a Trump administration is through deregulation and defanging, you know, giving fewer resources to federal agencies tasked with oversight of him and his businesses,” says CNBC technology reporter Lora Kolodny.

To learn how else Elon Musk and his companies may benefit from having the ear of the president-elect watch the video.

Continue Reading

Technology

Why X’s new terms of service are driving some users to leave Elon Musk’s platform

Published

on

By

Why X's new terms of service are driving some users to leave Elon Musk's platform

Elon Musk attends the America First Policy Institute gala at Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, Nov. 14, 2024.

Carlos Barria | Reuters

X’s new terms of service, which took effect Nov. 15, are driving some users off Elon Musk’s microblogging platform. 

The new terms include expansive permissions requiring users to allow the company to use their data to train X’s artificial intelligence models while also making users liable for as much as $15,000 in damages if they use the platform too much. 

The terms are prompting some longtime users of the service, both celebrities and everyday people, to post that they are taking their content to other platforms. 

“With the recent and upcoming changes to the terms of service — and the return of volatile figures — I find myself at a crossroads, facing a direction I can no longer fully support,” actress Gabrielle Union posted on X the same day the new terms took effect, while announcing she would be leaving the platform.

“I’m going to start winding down my Twitter account,” a user with the handle @mplsFietser said in a post. “The changes to the terms of service are the final nail in the coffin for me.”

It’s unclear just how many users have left X due specifically to the company’s new terms of service, but since the start of November, many social media users have flocked to Bluesky, a microblogging startup whose origins stem from Twitter, the former name for X. Some users with new Bluesky accounts have posted that they moved to the service due to Musk and his support for President-elect Donald Trump.

Bluesky’s U.S. mobile app downloads have skyrocketed 651% since the start of November, according to estimates from Sensor Tower. In the same period, X and Meta’s Threads are up 20% and 42%, respectively. 

X and Threads have much larger monthly user bases. Although Musk said in May that X has 600 million monthly users, market intelligence firm Sensor Tower estimates X had 318 million monthly users as of October. That same month, Meta said Threads had nearly 275 million monthly users. Bluesky told CNBC on Thursday it had reached 21 million total users this week.

Here are some of the noteworthy changes in X’s new service terms and how they compare with those of rivals Bluesky and Threads.

Artificial intelligence training

X has come under heightened scrutiny because of its new terms, which say that any content on the service can be used royalty-free to train the company’s artificial intelligence large language models, including its Grok chatbot.

“You agree that this license includes the right for us to (i) provide, promote, and improve the Services, including, for example, for use with and training of our machine learning and artificial intelligence models, whether generative or another type,” X’s terms say.

Additionally, any “user interactions, inputs and results” shared with Grok can be used for what it calls “training and fine-tuning purposes,” according to the Grok section of the X app and website. This specific function, though, can be turned off manually. 

X’s terms do not specify whether users’ private messages can be used to train its AI models, and the company did not respond to a request for comment.

“You should only provide Content that you are comfortable sharing with others,” read a portion of X’s terms of service agreement.

Though X’s new terms may be expansive, Meta’s policies aren’t that different. 

The maker of Threads uses “information shared on Meta’s Products and services” to get its training data, according to the company’s Privacy Center. This includes “posts or photos and their captions.” There is also no direct way for users outside of the European Union to opt out of Meta’s AI training. Meta keeps training data “for as long as we need it on a case-by-case basis to ensure an AI model is operating appropriately, safely and efficiently,” according to its Privacy Center. 

Under Meta’s policy, private messages with friends or family aren’t used to train AI unless one of the users in a chat chooses to share it with the models, which can include Meta AI and AI Studio.

Bluesky, which has seen a user growth surge since Election Day, doesn’t do any generative AI training. 

“We do not use any of your content to train generative AI, and have no intention of doing so,” Bluesky said in a post on its platform Friday, confirming the same to CNBC as well.

Liquidated damages

Bluesky CEO: Our platform is 'radically different' from anything else in social media

Continue Reading

Technology

The Pentagon’s battle inside the U.S. for control of a new Cyber Force

Published

on

By

The Pentagon's battle inside the U.S. for control of a new Cyber Force

A recent Chinese cyber-espionage attack inside the nation’s major telecom networks that may have reached as high as the communications of President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect J.D. Vance was designated this week by one U.S. senator as “far and away the most serious telecom hack in our history.”

The U.S. has yet to figure out the full scope of what China accomplished, and whether or not its spies are still inside U.S. communication networks.

“The barn door is still wide open, or mostly open,” Senator Mark Warner of Virginia and chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee told the New York Times on Thursday.

The revelations highlight the rising cyberthreats tied to geopolitics and nation-state actor rivals of the U.S., but inside the federal government, there’s disagreement on how to fight back, with some advocates calling for the creation of an independent federal U.S. Cyber Force. In September, the Department of Defense formally appealed to Congress, urging lawmakers to reject that approach.

Among one of the most prominent voices advocating for the new branch is the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a national security think tank, but the issue extends far beyond any single group. In June, defense committees in both the House and Senate approved measures calling for independent evaluations of the feasibility to create a separate cyber branch, as part of the annual defense policy deliberations.

Drawing on insights from more than 75 active-duty and retired military officers experienced in cyber operations, the FDD’s 40-page report highlights what it says are chronic structural issues within the U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), including fragmented recruitment and training practices across the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.

“America’s cyber force generation system is clearly broken,” the FDD wrote, citing comments made in 2023 by then-leader of U.S. Cyber Command, Army General Paul Nakasone, who took over the role in 2018 and described current U.S. military cyber organization as unsustainable: “All options are on the table, except the status quo,” Nakasone had said.

Concern with Congress and a changing White House

The FDD analysis points to “deep concerns” that have existed within Congress for a decade — among members of both parties — about the military being able to staff up to successfully defend cyberspace. Talent shortages, inconsistent training, and misaligned missions, are undermining CYBERCOM’s capacity to respond effectively to complex cyber threats, it says. Creating a dedicated branch, proponents argue, would better position the U.S. in cyberspace. The Pentagon, however, warns that such a move could disrupt coordination, increase fragmentation, and ultimately weaken U.S. cyber readiness.

As the Pentagon doubles down on its resistance to establishment of a separate U.S. Cyber Force, the incoming Trump administration could play a significant role in shaping whether America leans toward a centralized cyber strategy or reinforces the current integrated framework that emphasizes cross-branch coordination.

Known for his assertive national security measures, Trump’s 2018 National Cyber Strategy emphasized embedding cyber capabilities across all elements of national power and focusing on cross-departmental coordination and public-private partnerships rather than creating a standalone cyber entity. At that time, the Trump’s administration emphasized centralizing civilian cybersecurity efforts under the Department of Homeland Security while tasking the Department of Defense with addressing more complex, defense-specific cyber threats. Trump’s pick for Secretary of Homeland Security, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, has talked up her, and her state’s, focus on cybersecurity.

Former Trump officials believe that a second Trump administration will take an aggressive stance on national security, fill gaps at the Energy Department, and reduce regulatory burdens on the private sector. They anticipate a stronger focus on offensive cyber operations, tailored threat vulnerability protection, and greater coordination between state and local governments. Changes will be coming at the top of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which was created during Trump’s first term and where current director Jen Easterly has announced she will leave once Trump is inaugurated.

Cyber Command 2.0 and the U.S. military

John Cohen, executive director of the Program for Countering Hybrid Threats at the Center for Internet Security, is among those who share the Pentagon’s concerns. “We can no longer afford to operate in stovepipes,” Cohen said, warning that a separate cyber branch could worsen existing silos and further isolate cyber operations from other critical military efforts.

Cohen emphasized that adversaries like China and Russia employ cyber tactics as part of broader, integrated strategies that include economic, physical, and psychological components. To counter such threats, he argued, the U.S. needs a cohesive approach across its military branches. “Confronting that requires our military to adapt to the changing battlespace in a consistent way,” he said.

In 2018, CYBERCOM certified its Cyber Mission Force teams as fully staffed, but concerns have been expressed by the FDD and others that personnel were shifted between teams to meet staffing goals — a move they say masked deeper structural problems. Nakasone has called for a CYBERCOM 2.0, saying in comments early this year “How do we think about training differently? How do we think about personnel differently?” and adding that a major issue has been the approach to military staffing within the command.

Austin Berglas, a former head of the FBI’s cyber program in New York who worked on consolidation efforts inside the Bureau, believes a separate cyber force could enhance U.S. capabilities by centralizing resources and priorities. “When I first took over the [FBI] cyber program … the assets were scattered,” said Berglas, who is now the global head of professional services at supply chain cyber defense company BlueVoyant. Centralization brought focus and efficiency to the FBI’s cyber efforts, he said, and it’s a model he believes would benefit the military’s cyber efforts as well. “Cyber is a different beast,” Berglas said, emphasizing the need for specialized training, advancement, and resource allocation that isn’t diluted by competing military priorities.

Berglas also pointed to the ongoing “cyber arms race” with adversaries like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. He warned that without a dedicated force, the U.S. risks falling behind as these nations expand their offensive cyber capabilities and exploit vulnerabilities across critical infrastructure.

Nakasone said in his comments earlier this year that a lot has changed since 2013 when U.S. Cyber Command began building out its Cyber Mission Force to combat issues like counterterrorism and financial cybercrime coming from Iran. “Completely different world in which we live in today,” he said, citing the threats from China and Russia.

Brandon Wales, a former executive director of the CISA, said there is the need to bolster U.S. cyber capabilities, but he cautions against major structural changes during a period of heightened global threats.

“A reorganization of this scale is obviously going to be disruptive and will take time,” said Wales, who is now vice president of cybersecurity strategy at SentinelOne.

He cited China’s preparations for a potential conflict over Taiwan as a reason the U.S. military needs to maintain readiness. Rather than creating a new branch, Wales supports initiatives like Cyber Command 2.0 and its aim to enhance coordination and capabilities within the existing structure. “Large reorganizations should always be the last resort because of how disruptive they are,” he said.

Wales says it’s important to ensure any structural changes do not undermine integration across military branches and recognize that coordination across existing branches is critical to addressing the complex, multidomain threats posed by U.S. adversaries. “You should not always assume that centralization solves all of your problems,” he said. “We need to enhance our capabilities, both defensively and offensively. This isn’t about one solution; it’s about ensuring we can quickly see, stop, disrupt, and prevent threats from hitting our critical infrastructure and systems,” he added.

Continue Reading

Trending