The app is largely popular in China, where citizens use it as a chat and texting app, as well as a sort of ad-hoc social network. It combines the features of many popular U.S.-based social networks into a single platform that often grows around group chats. Group chats become friend groups people share news and stories with. It’s a decentralized process that feels more personal and perhaps even a bit safer to use under the Chinese regime, though they still police the network. That’s the only reason it’s even allowed in China. In some countries, the ad-hoc nature and sharing features of WeChat have lead to the spread of hate speech and violence, but that’s certainly not why Trump wanted to ban the platform. Instead, it’s the fact that WeChat is owned by Chinese tech behemoth Tencent.
Tencent owns Riot Games, makers of League of Legends and apparently a toxic work environment. They also own a stake in Epic, makers of Fortnite and the Unreal Engine, as well as many other companies, like Reddit. However, WeChat, a chat app and social network was the only one Trump specifically targeted.
That may be what saved the company, for now.
Free Speech and Targeting Immigrants
WeChat usage in the U.S. largely comes from immigrants who wish to remain in contact with family or friends overseas. Often, this is the only or at least best way they can reliably stay in contact with their loved ones. When Trump decided to target WeChat, and not Tencent’s other holdings, it’s clear that the issue was speech. Trump’s silencing the one way many immigrants and travelers have for speaking to their friends and family around the world. Consider this heartwarming use case quoted from the New York Times:
“Every day for nearly five years, Juliet Shen’s 94-year-old grandmother in Shanghai has begun her day with a WeChat message to her 40 children and grandchildren scattered across the globe.”
“‘Good morning, everyone!’ she writes.”
“And each time, the diaspora of family members across China, the United States and Central America respond with a cascade of warm replies.”
– Daisuke Wakabayashi, Cecilia Kang, and Kellen Browning, writing for The New York Times
That’s what Trump’s WeChat ban takes away. Communication between immigrant families. If data collection, security, and privacy were the real reasons for Trump’s focus on Tencent’s WeChat, why didn’t he target any of their other holdings? If you really wanted to ban Tencent and China’s ability to collect data on Americans and, frankly, people all over the world, you’d ban Reddit. This, too, would have free speech implications though.
Judge Agrees
“The regulation — which eliminates a channel of communication without any apparent substitutes — burdens substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government’s significant interest.”
– Judge Laurel Beeler
U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of San Francisco blocked Trump’s ban after WeChat users collectively sued the Trump administration to prevent his ban from going into effect. She stated that she believed the WeChat users “have shown serious questions going to the merits of the First Amendment claim, the balance of hardships tips in the plaintiffs’ favor.” Basically put, WeChat is a social network, and removing it could silence users. Specific users, as it turns out. That seems like a direct violation of the First Amendment, without an appropriate security concern.
No Security Focus
“certainly the government’s overarching national-security interest is significant. But on this record — while the government has established that China’s activities raise significant national security concerns — it has put in scant little evidence that its effective ban of WeChat for all U.S. users addresses those concerns.”
– Judge Laurel Beeler
It’s worth noting that, despite referencing security, this ban doesn’t actually do much for it. Tencent still has a variety of methods for collecting data in the U.S. That’s not going to change if Trump bans WeChat. Trump’s specifically targeting a means of communication largely for immigrants, a group that is far less likely to appreciate his nationalist agenda. This squashes speech for a group of people who are unlikely to vote for Trump. It’s targeted, much like his TikTok ban. If Trump truly cared about security, he has other options.
“there are obvious alternatives to a complete ban, such as barring WeChat from government devices.”
– Judge Laurel Beeler
Much like Trump’s TikTok ban, Trump’s attack on WeChat seems to deliberately ignore security concerns, while specifically targeting social networks used by people unlikely to vote for Trump. This seems like a political move to paralyze groups of voters. It keeps them from organizing, sharing news, or even planning to vote with friends. If this was the only way Trump attacked voting in the U.S., it wouldn’t be so suspicious, but he’s attempted to undermine mail-in ballots as well as use the census to decrease voter representation in areas with more immigrants. This all follows a pattern, Trump working to undermine democracy and reduce the chances of certain people voting.
There’s no question that Chinese apps could pose a privacy and security risk. But overarching bans doesn’t solve the problem, while creating far worse implications for free speech and democracy.
Sources:
- Shubham Agarwal, Digital Trends
- Brian Fung, CNN Business
- Kim Lyons, The Verge
- David Shepardson, Reuters
- Daisuke Wakabayashi, Celilia Kang, and Kellen Browning, The New York Times