Welcome to the absurdity that is known as American Congress.
Many of these esteemed gentlemen and ladies who made up the panel, are, for want of a better term, hysterical children. There were several points during the hearing where I alternated between cringing, groaning, or losing my will to live. For hours, they battered Chew Shou Zi with accusations, sarcasm and outright hostility. Some of them just seemed to like the sound of their own voice a wee bit too much, asking questions but not giving TikTok's CEO any space to answer.
But hey, it wasn't entirely bad. Roughly half of these Representatives actually didn't come off like flaming idiots, though it's possibly relative to the ones that did. Let's go over the positives.
The Good
The first entry in this section, of course, goes to Chew Shou Zi. In the span of several hours, he worked the hardest. He was clear, eloquent, and for the most part, articulate. He endured the thankless task facing off against an obviously combative Congress. There were times he stumbled, and I think he resorted way too much to his go-to phrase "I'll get back to you", but this was forgivable because just watching the entire thing was exhausting enough. Imagine having to actually be in his seat. |
| Chew Shou Zi |
Though he was unfailingly polite, sometimes he did push back.
"With a lot of respect, American social companies don’t have a good track record with data privacy and user security. I mean, look at Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, just one example."
And now, some of the members of the panel that I think asked reasonably intelligent questions, or at least didn't conduct themselves like brats. Yes, surprising as it may sound, not all of them made me wonder how they have a job at all.
 |
| Frank Pallone |
Frank Pallone of New Jersey, went right after the opening statement by Cathy McMorris Rodgers. He pointed out addictive algorithms of big tech, nothing I feel can or should be argued against. He also said that he was focusing his attention not only on TikTok, but on Social Media as a whole with regard to data privacy concerns. That's fair, and I certainly respected that.
Even when he was asking questions, even when some of those questions veered into the combative, he managed to do so in a manner I consider both professional and dignified.
 |
| Anna Eshoo |
Anna Eshoo of California wasn't especially good. But while she started out with genuine questions regarding the CCP, she seemed unwilling to accept Chew's answers, at one point describing his answer as "presposterous". I'm tempted to say, no lady, you're presposterous, but in all fairness, she didn't do enough to not be in this section. Besides, she actually had the sense to keep quiet and let the CEO answer her questions about TikTok's algorithms in detail, which tells me she was actually interested in the answer rather than simply talking for the sake of talking.
 |
| John Sarbanes |
John Sarbanes of Maryland was a breath of fresh air, coming right after the dumpster fire that was Bill Johnson (in the "Ugly" section). He conducted himself with dignity and brought up the issues of addictive algorithms used in TikTok, and he said it in a way I didn't strongly disagree with. He appeared open to a compromise for the company to dial down these algorithms, though perhaps skeptical of Chew's willingness to do so. Even when he did interrupt, it wasn't done as a power move or intimidation tactic, and was only because he was running out of time and needed to ask more questions.
 |
| Jay Obernolte |
Jay Obernolte of California came in as a software engineer and raised several questions that I found of interest, such as a size of the code base, code reviews and software configuration management systems. In particular, he also took the trouble to point out possible flaws in TikTok's proposed Project Texas, and did so without being a prick about it. The conversation between him and Chew was natural, flowed, and a sheer pleasure to listen to.
He even came back for an encore after the break, and posed another question.
"How could looking at the algorithm confirm that it's free from foreign influence? Because the algorithm is just a neural net architecture with inputs and outputs and weights and how to train that."
I swear, this guy knows what he's talking about, and he explained it way better than I ever could have. Hats off! I don't think it's a coincidence that the other Representatives yielded their time to him so he could come back and ask Chew more questions. His questions were thought-provoking and he was actually interested in the answers and could respond thoughtfully to them!
 |
| John Curtis |
John Curtis of Utah tried to be affable, to his credit. He recognized that Chew was caught up in giving detailed answers, so he continually exhorted, in his very friendly manner, Chew Shou Zi to go back "up to thirty thousand feet" and give a general picture instead. There was something I don't quite trust about this guy. He gave me the vibe of being the "good cop" in the "Good Cop, Bad Cop" routine. My personal feelings aside, I should at least give him props for trying. He's not in here just for his bedside manner. Also, his point about the difference between "a publisher and a distributor" was quite engaging.
 |
| Kim Schrier |
Kim Schrier of Washington is a pediatrician and she conveyed her concerns very well. Her point about addictive behavior like smoking as really on the nose and felt like a personal attack (heh heh).
"We're seeing eating disorders in elementary age kids now. And I need you to expedite that process as much as possible because parents out there are worried, and I'm worried as a pediatrician, parents can't take themselves off of these platforms. Kids, there's no way they're gonna take themselves off. And we need you to do your part. It may affect your bottom line, but it could save this generation."
She came across as genuinely concerned and sincere as opposed to just posturing. Maybe that makes her a really good politician, if ya know what I mean.
 |
| Dan Crenshaw |
Dan Crenshaw of Texas was the last to speak. I didn't want to like this discount Nick Fury, but he did finish the hearing in bold fashion. He even exhibited a healthy level of self-awareness!
"I wanna say this to all the teenagers out there and the TikTok influencers who think we're just old and out of touch and don't know what we're talking about, trying to take away your favorite app. You may not care that your data's being accessed now, but it will be one day when you do care about it."
And while his words may have been strong, he didn't steam-roller the conversation like some of his colleagues did, or play to the gallery. This is borderline, really, but I think he belongs in this section.
Here are the rest. Some were reasonably polite. They accepted answers calmly without excessive judgement and acknowledged that Chew was answering to the best of his ability. Some raised interesting questions or perspectives. Some miraculously did both.
Most importantly, they let him speak. This is a low bar to clear, but by default, they belong in this section.
Michael Burgess of Texas
Diana DeGette of Colorado
Doris Matsui of California
Kat Castor of Florida
Yvette Clarke of New York
Debbie Dingell of Michigan
Nanette Barragán of California
Lisa Blunt Rochester of Delaware
Darren Soto of Florida
Lori Trahan of Massachusetts
Ann Kuster of New Hampshire
Lizzie Fletcher of Texas
Scott Peters of California
Mariannette Miller-Meeks of Iowa
Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota
This does not mean that I agree with everything they said. It just means that by my estimation, and I could be grossly off-base here, they conducted themselves properly.
I will also say that contrary to how much of the internet, in particular TikTok users (surprise, surprise) have portrayed this committee as a bunch of buffoons, many of them didn't really say anything I consider objectionable. They gave Chew Shou Zi an honest shot even if their attitude was sometimes a little prickly. Some of them were even friendly (some, like John Curtis, overly so).
No comments:
Post a Comment