Keith Rabois

And then playing on a field that's not favorable to them, which is there are advantages Apple has in AI. But there's some significant organizational structural disadvantages. And that's the field that people are going to be competing on for the next five years from a consumer perspective. And they're playing on a field where they don't have all the advantages in their favor.

And then playing on a field that's not favorable to them, which is there are advantages Apple has in AI. But there's some significant organizational structural disadvantages. And that's the field that people are going to be competing on for the next five years from a consumer perspective. And they're playing on a field where they don't have all the advantages in their favor.

You don't even have to have a conversation, in my view. TikTok is a threat. to the national security of the United States.

You don't even have to have a conversation, in my view. TikTok is a threat. to the national security of the United States.

Why? So I think there's different dimensions. One of the problems is there's so many things wrong with TikTok that actually sometimes people get confused because there's not just one. It'd be easier sometimes if there's just one. So they are definitely using the app to track data about Americans. And there's evidence that regardless of what alleged protections exist,

Why? So I think there's different dimensions. One of the problems is there's so many things wrong with TikTok that actually sometimes people get confused because there's not just one. It'd be easier sometimes if there's just one. So they are definitely using the app to track data about Americans. And there's evidence that regardless of what alleged protections exist,

There are people in China monitoring what certain people in the United States are doing. And the CEO lied under oath to congressional committees about this. And the evidence is now in the public domain. Hopefully, this Justice Department will prosecute him for lying under oath. I think setting a really good example that you cannot just perjure yourself before Congress.

There are people in China monitoring what certain people in the United States are doing. And the CEO lied under oath to congressional committees about this. And the evidence is now in the public domain. Hopefully, this Justice Department will prosecute him for lying under oath. I think setting a really good example that you cannot just perjure yourself before Congress.

So there are people in China who on the record have said they had access and had access to American user data, which he swore under oath to the Congress that they were storing the data in Texas somewhere. and that there's no possibility that Chinese nationals in China could access the data. There is now several instantiations of this in the public record, let alone what's privately available.

So there are people in China who on the record have said they had access and had access to American user data, which he swore under oath to the Congress that they were storing the data in Texas somewhere. and that there's no possibility that Chinese nationals in China could access the data. There is now several instantiations of this in the public record, let alone what's privately available.

Then secondly, let me keep going here because it's worse. So there's a law. The fundamental problem is in China, there's a law that says if you're a Chinese company, upon request of the CCP, you must provide all user data. So any Chinese company is subject to that law, period. There's no court intervention. You don't need a subpoena, blah, blah, blah.

Then secondly, let me keep going here because it's worse. So there's a law. The fundamental problem is in China, there's a law that says if you're a Chinese company, upon request of the CCP, you must provide all user data. So any Chinese company is subject to that law, period. There's no court intervention. You don't need a subpoena, blah, blah, blah.

And so any Chinese, any executive at that company is subject to significant penalties. on the record for not providing any user data at the request of the CCP. So as long as that law exists, there's a real structural threat to the United States.

And so any Chinese, any executive at that company is subject to significant penalties. on the record for not providing any user data at the request of the CCP. So as long as that law exists, there's a real structural threat to the United States.

Now, then there's the, is the app being used, manipulated on a content basis to influence policy in the United States to disadvantage this or that or create hostilities? I don't really know the answer. I think there's been studies that suggest that and pretty rigorous methodologies, but that's a second level. And then third is there's the, why the hell are we allowing

Now, then there's the, is the app being used, manipulated on a content basis to influence policy in the United States to disadvantage this or that or create hostilities? I don't really know the answer. I think there's been studies that suggest that and pretty rigorous methodologies, but that's a second level. And then third is there's the, why the hell are we allowing

Chinese companies to compete with us when no American content-based organization is allowed into the Chinese market, whether it's Meta, Google, X. There's a strong argument there that Reddit, if you don't allow our content or non-Chinese content into your market, why should we be enabling Chinese companies to be successful in quotes in the US market? And that's more of a fair trade, free trade

Chinese companies to compete with us when no American content-based organization is allowed into the Chinese market, whether it's Meta, Google, X. There's a strong argument there that Reddit, if you don't allow our content or non-Chinese content into your market, why should we be enabling Chinese companies to be successful in quotes in the US market? And that's more of a fair trade, free trade

Yes. So my evidence for this that I believe is an interpolation of what's in the public domain is if you looked at that vote to ban TikTok, it was extremely bipartisan, despite controversy. And what happened was that vote was taken a week after there was an intelligence briefing to both the House and Senate intelligence committees. That's confidential.

Yes. So my evidence for this that I believe is an interpolation of what's in the public domain is if you looked at that vote to ban TikTok, it was extremely bipartisan, despite controversy. And what happened was that vote was taken a week after there was an intelligence briefing to both the House and Senate intelligence committees. That's confidential.