Washington's 'spying' allegations hit home: China Daily editorial

?

The recent surge in users in the United States abandoning TikTok after the announcement of a so-called "Americanized" joint venture offers an ironic footnote to the long-running political drama around the popular video-sharing app.

For years, some US politicians have claimed that TikTok represents a grave "national security threat". Invoking slogans such as "privacy leakage risks" and "China threatens US data security" they created the specter of "Big Brother spying" on users of the app in the US.

Yet, now that a deal has been forced through for US capital to acquire control of the app in the country under these pretexts, it is not China that users in the US appear to fear. It is the US elites and government.

According to data from market intelligence company Sensor Tower, the daily average of US users deleting TikTok has jumped nearly 150 percent over the five days from Thursday to Monday compared with the previous three months. The spike followed TikTok's announcement that its US services would be operated by a new joint venture controlled by US capital, with a new leadership and a majority-US board. The message from users has been blunt: the promised "security solution" has only deepened anxiety.

Social media skepticism flared after users were prompted to agree to an updated privacy policy. Critics seized on language describing potential data collection involving sensitive personal information. Yet archived versions of the policy show that this language was already present months earlier. What changed was not the policy itself, but who would ultimately sit behind the curtain of control.

For years as it tried to wrest control of the company from its Chinese parent ByteDance, Washington claimed it was acting to protect US-based users from "foreign surveillance". Now, the same users are openly questioning whether the real risk lies in the concentration of data and influence in the hands of domestic political and financial elites. As one commenter in an Associated Press analysis put it, "There is something inherently wrong with allowing the people who control government policy to invest in the outcome. I believe it's called lining their own pockets."

The structure of the deal does little to dispel such doubts. The new TikTok US entity is backed by Oracle, Silver Lake and the Emirati investment company MGX, each holding 15 percent, alongside other US investors linked to powerful technology and media interests. ByteDance retains a 19.9 percent stake and licenses its algorithm to the US entity, which will retrain and operate it on US user data. In other words, the core technology remains Chinese intellectual property, while control over the data, moderation and distribution increasingly shifts to US capital.

This arrangement exposes the essential nature of the deal: a forced transaction achieved through political pressure though it is claimed to be the outcome of "market negotiations".

Under the threat of a congressionally mandated ban, a prized global digital asset was compelled to open its ownership to select US tycoons. "National security" rhetoric provided the packaging; capital redistribution was the content.

Ironically, the very algorithm once portrayed as a "dangerous foreign weapon" is now expected to be "retrained" to produce a more "distinctly American" feed. As analysts note, this means trends will shift, rankings will change, and what dominates users' screens may increasingly reflect domestic political and commercial priorities. Who controls TikTok in the US has a lot of sway over what US citizens see on the app.

Unsurprisingly, creators are uneasy. Nadya Okamoto, a TikTok creator with more than 4 million followers, told the media that the company had failed to explain what the joint venture means for users. "That's why there is so much paranoia," she said, adding that technical disruptions only intensified fears of censorship. Another viral comment summarized the mood with biting satire: The US didn't "save" TikTok — it redistributed its ownership to White House-aligned billionaires while leaving ByteDance's algorithm at the core.

Small business owners, whose livelihoods depend on the platform, are watching closely. Although they were relieved the ban threat was lifted, they are still worried the new owners might sideline e-commerce features. These business owners hold a wait-and-see mindset, as they really doubt whether TikTok's role in empowering voices that once lacked access to mass platforms can be retained.

The wave of uninstalls has not yet translated into a meaningful drop in active users, reflecting TikTok's massive user base and the reluctance of frequent users to leave. But the symbolic message is unmistakable. As one user wrote, "The new American TikTok will be like Panda Express for Chinese food: familiar on the surface, sanitized for mass appeal, owned by different interests, and stripped of the original's deeper flavor and context."

In reality, the TikTok deal may already represent the maximum compromise possible under current circumstances. It satisfies US regulatory demands while preserving ByteDance's control over core intellectual property. If "privacy" and "data security" were truly the concerns, the deal should have reassured users. But it has not. Instead, it has suggested a deeper unease: In today's Washington, "national security" has become negotiable — provided the right people get a share.

The users' verdict, expressed through uninstall buttons and sharp-edged comments, may be the most telling commentary of all.