January 17, 2025 • 39 mins
Gary Tanguay Fills In On NightSide with Dan Rea
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld the federal law banning TikTok unless it’s sold by its China-based parent company. What does this mean and what’s next? New users won’t be able to download the app and updates won’t be available, which will eventually render the app unworkable. Joe Luppino-Esposito, Deputy Legal Policy Director, and Federal Policy Chief for the Pacific Legal Foundation, joined Gary to discuss!
Ask Alexa to play WBZ NewsRadio on #iHeartRadio and listen to NightSide with Dan Rea Weeknights From 8PM-12AM!
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld the federal law banning TikTok unless it’s sold by its China-based parent company. What does this mean and what’s next? New users won’t be able to download the app and updates won’t be available, which will eventually render the app unworkable. Joe Luppino-Esposito, Deputy Legal Policy Director, and Federal Policy Chief for the Pacific Legal Foundation, joined Gary to discuss!
Ask Alexa to play WBZ NewsRadio on #iHeartRadio and listen to NightSide with Dan Rea Weeknights From 8PM-12AM!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on w BZY Boston's
new video TikTok, TikTok, TikTok, TikTok.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Thank you, Nicole, no pun intended. Right. The clock is
ticking on TikTok. I know you've heard it before. Sorry,
dad joke had to do it. This is quite a
thing that the Supreme Court up held. We are going
to talk about TikTok going away. The financial impact is
staggering for some people. And I'm more concerned because my
thirteen year old daughter is going to go out of
her mind. And if she goes out of her mind,
(00:31):
that goes That means I go out of my mind.
So which am I more concerned with? National security or
my teenage daughter not having a meltdown? I don't want
to answer that. It ends with us terrific movie. A
lot of controversy regarding the two stars. We're gonna get
into it with Cooper Lawrence. She's our entertainment guru. That's
coming up at nine o'clock. Taani Ray, Fox Football Expert,
(00:55):
Fox Sports and FS one joins us at ten o'clock
talking about Vrabel and the new look Patriots, plus your
calls throughout the evening at six one, seven, two, five,
four to ten thirty Gary Taguay and for Dan Ray.
Tonight we kick things off with TikTok as I try
to understand all of it. It's joining us right now,
is Joe Lopino Esposito, the deputy Legal policy director at
Federal Policy Chief for the Pacific Legal Foundation. You must
(01:17):
have a card that's the size of a billboard, Joe,
Welcome to night Side.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
I sometimes do yes, Thanks.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
So much for having things Okay, this seems so strange
to me, And full disclosure, I don't do TikTok. This
radio station with Matt Scherra has done very well on
TikTok Okay, so TikTok is really not just for kids anymore.
There's a lot of business people make a lot of
money on it, and we'll get to that. But what
is so strange for me as an American citizen, as
someone who has always taken pride in the fact that
(01:47):
this is a country of free speech, no matter how insulting,
no matter how racist, no matter how homophobic, no matter
how awful something may be spewed out of somebody's mouth,
they can say it. But this thing is being shut down.
It is so foreign to me that something within these
(02:11):
forty eight states would be cut off. It's so weird
to me. It's weird.
Speaker 3 (02:19):
Yeah, you know, it's a unique situation. You know, in
this particular case where the US government really attacked TikTok,
wasn't from the perspective of the First Amendment, because obviously
that was their best defense, and that's what the court
dealt with today when they they have their opinion, right,
and in the unsigned opinion, what they said was, look,
there is a compelling interest of regarding national security notwithstanding
(02:43):
the First Amendment concerns. So, you know, there's the things
that we talk about often you have these levels of
scrutiny of scrutiny, So you have strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny,
which is the two that we're talking about now, And
when you can judge how closely, essentially, you need to
look at other good reasons for the government's reduced for
doing what they're doing. So in this case, they said, look,
(03:03):
because this is a content neutral decision, right, it's not
saying because of certain things on the app is why
we're banning it. What they're saying is our concern is
actually over national security, so it's a content neutral ruling,
and therefore it comes under intermediate scrutiny, which is a
much easier bar for the government to reach versus strict scrutiny.
And that's why we have the band staying in effect.
Speaker 2 (03:25):
Yeah, I mean, and I understand that, and I get it,
and I think we're just at the point now because
of technology, is this is a reality we will probably
see be implemented again, right exactly.
Speaker 3 (03:39):
And it's funny you mentioned with the changes in technology.
The court actually starts its opinion by saying, look, we
know things are going to change, but we're hopeing not
to screw this one up too much in so many ways. Right,
So that's what they say, kind of from the outset,
knowing that they are going to be things that come
along and that could be very different. And Justice Gore
such it is conturned with the opinion said, look, there's
(04:02):
a chance this will just get replaced with some other
app that will be just as damaging according to the
United States government, and then like guess won't cross that
bridge when we get there. So they can't know everything,
but they are looking at it here and you know,
to his credit as well, and frankly that just thee
so of my Earth's credit as well. They were pretty
clear that they don't like that. The court overall said, look,
we can't say for sure. We're just gonna assume that
(04:24):
the First Amendment is involved here. We haven't really had
time to look into that enough, just as so of
my ars said, no, of course it does. Of course
it implicates the First Amendment. That's not even let's get
rid of the weasel words. Of course it does. But
now that said, I still agree with the decision, and
just this course that's said similar that, Look, you know,
I don't really care for these levels of scrutiny. We
(04:44):
spend a lot of time caring about exactly which level
it should it ought to sit into to me, if
there is a good enough compelling interest like this is,
and really backing with the US government presented as evidence
in their public evidence regarding all this, they said, look,
this is enough, and therefore I agree with the judgment
as well.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
How do you feel you agree? I understand what you're saying,
But as a person, as a United States citizen, do
you feel that our national security is threatened because of TikTok,
give me a number seven eight, Because the way I
look at it here is in order for the Supreme
Court to do this, it's got to be pretty.
Speaker 3 (05:23):
Serious, right, And that's the thing, you know, I ultimately,
you know, the blame if if somebody's uphosted this, the
blame goes to Congress and as well as President Biden,
although he also strangely has said he's not going to
enforce the law when it goes into effect on Sunday,
so I'm not quite sure why he would have signed
the bill. But that's beside the point. The point is
(05:46):
that Congress has done this and the President signed it,
so now it's up to the Supreme Court really just
make that call. So with the evidence presented to them
and with the short time I may had, the decision
does make some sense. That said, I think overall, the
discussion that's in play is what is really the national
security threat? Is it that you know, if they're stealing data?
(06:07):
And one of the things that Justine Scoresu specifically points
out as well is that, look, it gives them access
to your contact list, so that includes third parties that
did not consent to this. So you know, if I
have TikTok and you're in my phone well, and you
have your photo and your home address and everything on
my contacts on my phone. You know, TikTok can now
(06:29):
access that data. And because they refuse to divest from
the Chinese government, they're saying, look, this seems to be
what the Chinese government is after after this information. So
if that's the case. Again, I don't know enough about
national security to know what all the concerns are there,
but they're talking about things like blackmail and who knows
what else. If there's other information that could be found
from other third parties on say my phone, and they're
(06:51):
looking into you, right, So I understand where they're coming
from there. So I don't think it's without cause. But
it's tricky because they had such a tight deadline and frankly,
it really wasn't enough to the Supreme courts at decide
on this. It was that Congress made a determination and
the evidence was frankly good enough.
Speaker 2 (07:08):
Yeah right, and the Supreme Court upheld it. Call me apathetic,
I'm just lazy. I just feel that my information is
out there. No matter what I mean. I do the
best I can. I protect my social Security number I'm
not stupid. I get a lot of phishing emails and
texts all the time. I do the best I can.
(07:28):
But I also realize that with the data flying through
the air and how we're so addicted to technology, if
somebody says to me, yeah, China can get Gary Tanger's
home address, I'm like, what am I going to do
about it? Like, I think they can get it, whether
they use TikTok or not. See know what I'm saying?
You know, am I wrong in that? Is my attitude
too leisurely?
Speaker 3 (07:51):
No? And I think what you're hitting on is actually
sort of part of what the court said and what
Justice Coursus said as well. It's like, look, you know
what we consider a threat. They're not saying it directly
like this, but the way I read it is, you
know what we're seeing as a national security threat today?
That may very well change for I think some of
the reasons you're mentioning, right, it's so ubiquitous that we
have this information. We have so many apps, and frankly,
(08:13):
I'm sure I don't know all these and apps, of
all the permissions of every app, but I'm sure plenty
of popular apps that are in the us have the
same types of permissions.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
There's no question, there's no doubt. I mean, you see it, Joe.
It shows up in your feed. Like you if you
look for a particular product, say I look for I
don't know, a coffee maker, whatever, then I'm gonna get
next thing. You know, on my Instagram feed, I got
fifteen coffee companies sending me stuff. You know. So I'm
kind of like, when I look at this, I go
(08:42):
and we're so damn lazy. You know, we're just so spoiled.
We go, eh, Okay, so you know, China knows where
I live. Okay, I'll put up with it. You know.
That's just the way I feel about this. I don't know.
Speaker 3 (08:57):
That.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
I don't know. That's that's just the way I feel
about it. But that's why I wonder. I wonder if
there's something else we don't know, if there's something else
larger at play. Yeah, somebody could you know, we could
be in an episode of The Americans, you know, from Fox,
where somebody could come to my door and say, okay, Tangue,
I'm gonna you have to become a spy for Russia.
You know, I don't think that's going to happen, but
I don't know if they need TikTok to do that right.
Speaker 3 (09:21):
And actually, it's interesting you mentioned that one of the
things that Justine Goresa was pleased with the court overall,
and stacisfically called out that the Court did not do that.
The US government was trying to offer confidential information and
evidence to the court as well and say like, we
would love you for you to view this, and by
the way, TikTok can't even view it, but we would
like the court to view it. And they rejected that
(09:42):
and said, look, we don't know what's going on here,
so to your point, there may be something else to play,
but that was not part of their decision today. So
they were able to do it without that information. The
US government was saying, well, the additional information that they
have would have been even more convincing.
Speaker 2 (09:56):
Why did the court reject it? I think it when
they want to look at it.
Speaker 3 (10:02):
So the court didn't like the idea that they were
protecting it from the plaintiffs as well, So I think
it Delvin Dow again with the short timeline. They didn't
do a full analysis of it, but because of the
fact that they said, look, we have this evidence on TikTok,
and by the way, TikTok can't even see it. You know,
it's not a criminal proceeding, but it doesn't feel quite right.
So that I think is one of the issues that
(10:24):
was to play there. But I think very much to
your points, there could be something else, but the court
got to the conclusion without that.
Speaker 2 (10:29):
Okay, Joe, we got to take a break. Can you
hang out for another segment? I want to I have
some more questions about the Trump administration in this coming up.
Absolutely okay, Absolutely, okay, Joe. The pino Esposito was with
US Deputy Legal Policy Director in Federal Policy chief for
the Pacific Legal Foundation. Also knows a lot about the
big time court. That's all coming up next to WBZ.
Speaker 1 (10:50):
Now back to Dan Ray live from the Window World
Night Side Studios on WBZ News Radio.
Speaker 2 (10:56):
Harry Tangway, but dare tonight welcome back Night's side. W
see joining us right now. He's doing the pino Esposito
from the Pacific Legal Foundation. We're talking about the banning
of TikTok, which is going to begin on Sunday. Of course,
it's going to happen over time and when the app
doesn't get updated, eventually everyone will lose the power to
(11:17):
use TikTok.
Speaker 1 (11:17):
So.
Speaker 2 (11:18):
But this is what I find so interesting, Joe, is
the criticism of Trump or the Trump administration was, you
know he had the Supreme Court in his back pocket, right,
Like okay. This guy has even said one of the
reasons he may have been elected was because of TikTok Right,
(11:39):
And he doesn't he doesn't want it to go away.
So does he when he takes office, does he have
any recourse?
Speaker 3 (11:49):
So this is where, of course they can't make it easy.
So because of the fact there would have been a
way to do this, so they set the deadline for
this for the nineteenth, right, so it's before he takes office,
and there is a provision in the law that the
president can extend it by ninety days if there's significant progress.
(12:09):
I believe it's the phrase they use towards a sale
of the company. So the problem is it's unclear if
it means on the day of like on the nineteenth,
or if when he comes in at noon on the
twentieth he says, I think they're really trying. We're going
to give them another ninety days. So that may be
the first challenge that he faces when it comes to
(12:30):
this is can he if he wants to delay it,
can he even validly delay it? Or is that up
the President Biden to do it, which again he has
said that he doesn't plan to enforce the law, in
which case I think he'd be within his rights, according
to the law, to certified and give them another ninety days.
But the whole thing is very odd. I mean, I
think you could have solved this by making it the twentieth,
(12:50):
allowing either president to do it, because you would have
been talking about noon when the changeover happens, so they're
both president on the twentieth. So to me, that's sort
of the fix that you would have given the option. Obviously,
when they passed that, they didn't know who the next
president would be. But you know, even if it was
going from Biden to Harris, you would have had two
different people there having the chance to make a decision.
(13:10):
So it's I don't think it was the best choice
to make it on the nineteenth because now you have
this additional problem where it may not be in the
hands of the incoming president.
Speaker 2 (13:20):
Well as far as Trump is concerned, I'm not so
sure it would be a priority for him because this
is his second term. I mean, I don't know if
that's a hill he would die on, do.
Speaker 3 (13:30):
You, Yeah, exactly. But you know, I think, and he
said this recently, is that he knows there's going to
be a lot of things he's going to go after
try to overturn, you know, specifically go We do a
lot of work in like property rights and environmental law,
and there's a lot of things that President Biden has
done in the last couple of weeks that he's claiming
sort of you know, lock off certain areas from oil
and gas exploration, things like that. So there are some
(13:53):
provisions where he can President Trump could outright just reverse it,
and other ones that they're going to go to court.
So I mean, I I think at this point we'll
start looking at to how many people they hire at
the Department of Justice to go after these issues, and
that may determine how higher a priority some of these
issues are, particularly this one, because this is such an oddball,
you know, dating issue where they could have just be
(14:15):
give him the power or perhaps he's you know, not
going to be able to do that, and we'll see
where it goes.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
Yeah, it just doesn't seem that high on the list
for me. But what floored me. And we have a
guest coming up at ten o'clock time to Array Fox
of Fox Sports. She's a terrific sports personality in California.
She makes money on TikTok. She you know, I don't know.
(14:40):
I don't want to quote what she makes, but I
was floored that the average income on TikTok is one
hundred and thirty one thousand dollars a year. Now, I
don't know how many people that. I don't know what
the quantity is, right, I don't know if that's one
hundred people. I don't know if that's two hundred people.
I'm not sure. But I know people supplement their income
five hundred bucks here or three under books here, six
(15:00):
hundred bucks, shit, whatever. I mean, this is a big deal.
This is going to hurt some people.
Speaker 3 (15:07):
Yeah, absolutely, And you know it's you know, the analogy
would be that some other businesses or other outlets where
they suddenly they're legal and now they're not. We've had
that over the years. You know, certain businesses have determined
our violation, say the FTC right. You had companies a
number of years ago that had, you know, little miniature
antennas and you can get your local networks from a
miniature antenna at their server. The Supreme Court said, guess
(15:28):
what that's not. That's not allowed to violate the airways
laws and therefore that's the end of that, and that
def holds the business. So unfortunately, we do see that
a lot throughout the law. And yeah, this is one
in particular where I think it implicates a lot of
the rights of the individuals on there, which you know,
the court did try to tackle, but they said, look,
(15:49):
this is sort of an issue separate and apart from that.
But you're absolutely right, it is going to affect a
number of people in the pocketbook as well.
Speaker 2 (15:56):
Have you heard, because I have not, you know, looking
over the web in different news sources. But there must
be an entity ready to take over TikTok or take
its place. There's got to be somebody, I mean, Bezos
has to have somebody, or Apple has to have somebody
in the basement with a product ready to go saying
(16:18):
you've lost TikTok. But here's your here's the solution.
Speaker 3 (16:23):
Right, you know. And there's been a number of rumors.
I mean, I think I saw yesterday that you know,
the YouTube personality mister Beast was going to make a
play for it. So, I mean, I think we've we've
seen everyone who could possibly get engaged on this. We
saw some action for more Trump Cabinet secretaries. I think
we're engaged in a possible sale earlier in the or
I guess last year when we saw that in some
(16:44):
of the headlines. So yeah, I mean I wouldn't be
surprised if it's possible. But what being reported is that,
you know, the Chinese government is not allowing them to
divest from the parent company Bye Dance, which you know
to some people. You saw Senator Tom Cotton was out
there today saying, look this, here's the proof. Here's all
the proof we needed. They want to allow them to
dive back. If they're a successful business, I should just
(17:04):
let them go. Well look there you go. It's the
spy app. And I proved my point. So, I mean
it's not I don't know for sure, but it's not
a bad argument.
Speaker 2 (17:11):
Well what about just starting new I mean just saying
I'm going to start the tangwe app.
Speaker 3 (17:18):
Right, Yeah, yeah, So somebody else could come along and
do a version of this and if you look. I
mean a lot of the other social networking sites has
tried to do versions of this, right, Like, you know
that they all kind of steal from each other and
take good ideas, sure, and bad ideas. So I wouldn't
be surprised if you suddenly saw a new feature more
prominently on Facebook that looked a lot like TikTok. They
(17:38):
seem to be the ones who moved pretty quickly in
that regard, so there's definitely a chance that will happen.
And I guess we'll just see if the innovation takes
over and who really picks it up. You know, obviously
they were the leader in the market, but if they
do go away, it does open up the opportunity for
someone else to take the rings.
Speaker 2 (17:54):
Well, the new Secretary of Entrepreneurship, but whatever his title is.
I'm surprised Musk doesn't have like a ready to go
I mean, you know, like boom, here it is you.
This is the replacement for TikTok. Just go we do
exactly what TikTok. Did you pick up right where you
left off? I really do. I mean, I'm really surprised
that that's not out there. I think people are missing
the boat on that one.
Speaker 3 (18:16):
Yeah, good point.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
Yeah, you know that really with all of the technology,
with Apple and Facebook and you know, all of these guys,
you think they'd be ready to swoop in on it
because where we are a country of convenience and that
if the China, China does not want to divest, TikTok
goes away, you know, we'll just come on. We're technical,
we're digital whores, man. You know, we're not loyal. We're
(18:39):
not loyal to anyone. Somebody comes in and gives us
as our digital fix, we'll just go to them. We'll
just go to that digital pusher, you know what I mean.
That's what we are as a society.
Speaker 3 (18:49):
We don't care, right, and that seems the case that
we are willing to jump. But at the same time,
we saw, you know, some on the last and a
number of people just said, look they were going to
move away from Twitter, and they try Blue Sky, and
they tried threads through Facebook, through Instagram and they haven't
gone very far.
Speaker 2 (19:06):
But you could still get it, is my point. I mean,
you're not gonna be able to get it. So yeah,
oh I agree with that. Like I'm still on X.
You know, I think he's crazy. I mean, I don't.
I don't believe anybody anymore. I'm an isolationist. I just
hide in my house. I just don't want to know,
you know, when the world's coming to an end. Don't
tell me, don't text me, don't tweet me, don't let
(19:28):
me know. But and I think everybody's crazy on both
sides of the aisle right now. So you know, I'm
not I'm not in favor of anyone, but you know
it when it comes to musking these guys, I mean,
I'm surprised. He's just just not ready to go. So
my point was, I'm too lazy to get off X
because it's still there. But if TikTok's not there, you know,
(19:48):
and you have a chance to make money. If you
provide an alternative, I think you I would think somebody
would jump on it. I have to ask you a
question before you go, And I may be putting in
a bad spot, but you know, I just think all
lawyers are kind of the same, and you guys just
know everything. Do you have an opinion, because what I'm
fascinated to see is what happens with the border?
Speaker 3 (20:09):
Right?
Speaker 2 (20:10):
Do you have any Yeah?
Speaker 3 (20:11):
So yeah, you know, it'll be interesting. I think you
have a number of issues at play, right. You have
that the president is more than likely going to declare
a national emergency regarding the border, so that automatically gives
them a lot more power to do things. It's still
you know, it's not absolute, but it's it gives them
a little bit more leeway to take some actions that
(20:31):
he may want to do about actually physically securing the
border or otherwise. And then there's going to be sort
of the the enforcement within the border now. Right, so
everyone who's already here what happens next and what they've
been said, and I think where they think they will
certainly have the easiest time will be going after people
who are here illegally and have committed crimes. Right, so
that that will be the easiest one. Anybody has a
(20:54):
ICE detainer, on an immigration and customs detainer, that should
be relatively easy to you. You know, finding everybody is
not an easy job, certainly, but for the legal aspect,
that's the easiest one to do. So it's after that
and seeing how long that takes to see what happens next.
So does it mean that they eventually come to some
sort of deal or agreement in Congress that has some
(21:18):
sort of pathiwlay of citizenship. It's possible, but it's so
hard to predict at this point, just not knowing what
those first steps are going to take and if that's
really going to be seen as enough by not only
by Trump officials who have been wanting to get back
at this and sort of fix the problem, but also
by the American people who certainly voted to take action
on these issues. And again we're seeing that red blue
(21:39):
and otherwise that there's some general agreement on what should
be done here. So at that point, once you hit
the things that are generally agreed upon, your sort of
eighty percent issues, to what degree does the president want
to go further and saying, look, I want to do
more here, because there will always equal people calling for more, right,
So it's a matter of a political calculation and certainly
a legal calculation. Well, it's how far you want to go.
(22:01):
So at this point I think it's a bit of
a wait and see and see what happens when I
do their initial enforcement issues and see if there's any
problems in the courts or otherwise. But after that we
should get some more evidence of stuff where we're headed.
Speaker 2 (22:15):
Well, I think anybody with a reasonable attitude, we'll say
we got to do something. Yeah, I mean when when
when I hear an argument like well, in the nineteen
hundreds we welcomed all on our show, I go, Yeah,
it's not nineteen o one anymore, and people are coming
from Europe on a steamer. You know, it's a different
it's a completely different ballgame. So there has to be
(22:40):
some order to the chaos. And I agree with you.
I think both sides of the eye wants it. So
if they can get eighty percent there, that's a good thing.
What about the birthright thing? Do you think that'll actually
go away?
Speaker 3 (22:51):
No, it doesn't seem like it. And frankly, I haven't
looked at that closely to the arguments there.
Speaker 2 (22:56):
Seems really to me. I mean I'm not attorney, but
I mean I don't know if that's a hill they
die on, you know what I mean exactly.
Speaker 3 (23:04):
And that's the thing. I mean, we're going to start
looking back at the original intention of why was written,
and it's hard to put into the same contact in
the same way. Like you mentioned, you know, immigration in
the early nineteen hundreds is radically different than immigration now
just because of the just the means of how people
did it. Frankly as part of the issue that you
had an actual checkpoint that had to go through. I mean,
you certainly had people that could jump off the vote
(23:26):
in New York Harver. But outside of that, you were
coming through Ellis Island, You're going through other gateways, so
there were mechanisms and really the issue on all this
comes down to what is the overarching immigration policy. I
think if we don't look at it as a whole system,
that's when you run into problems. If you just look
at that, well, here's this spot on the border where
everon's running across, Well, sure put up what you need
(23:48):
to do there. But the point is are there more
people that we want to take in or do we
not want to take people? And that really needs to
be the conversation in Congress to say, look, this is
within Congress's power to deal with the immigration laws. What
do we want to do? So if we want to
argue between a couple of weeks ago we had the
argument over H one B visus and all their types
of work visas, that's those are a louch of people
(24:09):
that like seeing all the back and forth on that.
Perhaps that's a useful debate to have, and that's really
where the issue is, is that Congress should be deciding
what is our actual immigration policy, not just sort of
the obvious things that everyone agrees on, Because, like you said,
if everyone sort of thinks something should happen about securing
the border itself, fine, but then what is the policy
(24:29):
past that the security of the border seems like the
bare minimum? And of course we haven't had that. But
once that is done, then what do we do? And
we're back to the same question we've had for as
long as I can remember, is that we don't really
have a policy.
Speaker 2 (24:44):
Joe, you're a terrific guest. Thank you for joining us.
We appreciate and you have a good weekend.
Speaker 3 (24:49):
Thank you you too, all.
Speaker 2 (24:50):
Right, Joe DiPino Esposito joining us from the Pacific Legal Foundation.
We appreciate the time. Six one seven two five. The
telephone number, Gary Tagway here for Dan Rang on WBC's
Night Side. If you guys do TikTok, if you make
money on TikTok, give me a call, tell me about it,
and what are you going to do when it goes away?
(25:10):
Six one seven two four ten thirty. This is WBC.
Speaker 1 (25:14):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZS Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (25:20):
All right, tagway for Ray tonight six one seven two,
four to ten thirty is the telephone number. And I
have friends that make money on TikTok. Make a couple
grand a month, make five hundred a month, make a
thousand a month. I mean, this is no joke. This
is gonna get this. This is going to cost people.
I feel bad about that. That really bothers me. I
(25:41):
feel terrible about that. It must be serious for the
government to go to this level. I mean, here, the
thing that, as I mentioned in the previous conversation, is
even Trump wants TikTok to stick around because it works
(26:04):
for him. Now, this is a guy who doesn't want
to deal with anyone internationally, who wants to put a
twenty five percent tariff on China and all other imports.
But TikTok, he feels got him elected. So it's like, oh, okay,
we'll keep TikTok around because it was good for me.
I don't think it's going to necessarily do anything for
(26:26):
him now, obviously, because this is it for him. I
just laugh at that. It's just so funny, and the
politicians are all the same. You know, how is it
going to benefit me at this particular time, How is
it going to benefit my reelection, how is it going
to benefit my future as opposed to looking at the
big picture, and how does it benefit the constituents. Now
(26:47):
for the federal government to go to the Supreme Court
and say, we have more information damning information on China,
which owns the parent company of TikTok, on why it
shouldn't be allowed in the US, and the Court said, no,
we don't need to see that, which I that's odd
to me. I would think they would want that information.
(27:08):
But as Joe pointed out previous guests, she was terrific
by the way. They would want both sides of the
aisle to see that, or they would want the people
arguing to keep TikTok to have that availability too, And
from what I understand, the court just felt that that
would well, for lack of a better term, muck up
(27:29):
the situation and they were going to uphold Congress's ban
on it no matter. They didn't need that. That wasn't
going to make a difference. They were already going to
ban TikTok, and this is a country where, man, you
could say anything, you can watch anything, you could say anything.
(27:50):
It still is so weird to me that we are
banning a media channel. That's what's happening. We are banning
a media channel, and that stuff happens in Russia, happens
in China, happens in North Korea, where I've talked to
friends of mine who do business in Russia or Russia
(28:13):
not so much anymore obviously. But while with Putin that said,
that's a different animal. But you know, with China, if
you go to China and you talk to citizens, they
have no idea what's going on in the outside world
because the government only wants them to know so much.
Now that's not really the case with TikTok. Look, if
TikTok goes away, we're still going to be informed, We're
(28:35):
still going to know what's going on. But again, in
this country, to ban a media channel is so quite Frankly,
I'm American, but I guess it just goes to the show.
It just reveals the depths of the dangers of technology.
Let's go to andrewid Hero. Andrew, you're up on WBZ.
Speaker 4 (28:56):
What do you have to say, Hey, I just wanted
to say that Trump was originally for banning tick Tar.
Speaker 2 (29:04):
But he's not. But he's not, but he's not now
because it got him elected, right, Well that's what he
says anyway. I mean, so, I mean, that's the thing
that's that's funny, Like he should have just kept his.
Speaker 4 (29:18):
Mouth shut, you know, yeah, pretty much.
Speaker 2 (29:22):
What do you think about the whole thing?
Speaker 3 (29:26):
Uh?
Speaker 4 (29:27):
Like, like before you know, there must be something really
stressful going on that involves that, and it's probably not
something that we know about or nobody is telling us.
Speaker 2 (29:40):
You know, well, it has to involve national security, one
would think, because the federal government generally doesn't get involved
in oh god, I just generally doesn't get involved in
preventing freedom of speech, if you will. That's not really
what we do here. So there must be something pretty
(30:01):
serious going on. That's what I want to believe that
TikTok and it us China to get in and learn
some very serious things about the United States government that
we don't want them to know. But thanks Andrew, I
appreciate the call. But unfortunately it's going to cost people
a lot of money. All right, let's go to more
on the Cave Mara. You're up on WBZ, Hey.
Speaker 5 (30:23):
Gary, Yeah, I'm listening to your conversation. And I have
to admit when I initially heard the talk about trying
to ban TikTok, I uh, I was all in favor
of it. Yeah, I don't I want to give the Chinese,
you know, into all of our private, h private information.
(30:45):
But once once I.
Speaker 6 (30:48):
Heard that, you know, Biden and Pelosi and Schumer and
they were all against that move, I was thinking, oh,
all right, well, maybe I need to read this. So
I don't know. I don't like the idea of banning
the free speech.
Speaker 5 (31:09):
I also don't like the idea of the Chinese having
the ability to get access to all of our information.
I'm a little bit conflicted.
Speaker 2 (31:20):
Well, this is I agree with you one hundred percent,
and I have gone back and forth on it because
I'm in the media. Obviously, I believe in freedom of speech.
I believe that's why this country has been able to exist,
and that's why I know everyone in the world wants
to live here. They do. Yep, it's a great place
to live. What now, I have friends, I have friends
(31:44):
that have moved to Europe and it's a laid back lifestyle.
I get it. But look look London and France, that's terrific.
You can look, you can have a great time there too.
But the United States it's a great place to live
because we let you say what you want. I mean absolutely,
there are some there are some crazy, disgusting things that
if you want to watch them you can so I
(32:06):
hear right, I mean really absolutely. I mean the ku
Klux Klan freeom of speech. You want to talk about hate,
you want to talk about the fact that you don't
like Catholics and you don't like African Americans, Well you
can say that and we go okay, okay. So it's
got to be so bad that it does infiltrate national security.
(32:28):
And I think that one of the things that we
have to realize now in this day and age of technology,
we have to be prepared for that because with AI
and technology we can't control it. We have to be prepared.
You know that if the government says that's going to go,
because it puts you at risk, we have to believe them.
That's what I'm at.
Speaker 5 (32:48):
You know, well, I'd like to be able to truly
believe them. I'm so a little bit skeptical, but I do.
I worry there are downsides to the technology that's available
to us today, and I don't know everybody uses it,
you know, properly or for the right reasons, and so
(33:09):
that does concern me. I also think, you know, in
Trump saying, oh, you know, they helped me get elected.
You know, that's great. I also think that's him saying.
I don't know that he's making that comment solely for
his own personal benefit. I think he's also shining light
on the fact that this is something that can benefit
(33:31):
you know, it does benefit people's businesses, and it does
benefit their livelihood and there could be some some good
in there. We just need to figure out where that
happy medium is.
Speaker 2 (33:42):
You know what we have to find out more. We
have to find out if Donald Trump Junior has a
TikTok account and how much money he makes, because that
could be it. Thank you for the phone call, KT,
I appreciate it, Paula Plymouth. You're coming up next on
w b Z Quick Quick Break that we're back on
the Dan Ratio. Now Dan Way live from the Window World.
Speaker 1 (34:00):
Night Side Studios on WBZ News Radio.
Speaker 2 (34:04):
Welcome back, Gary Tank waiting for Dan Ray six one
seven ten thirty nine o'clock, We're going to talk to
our buddy Cooper Lawrence from CBS Entertainment discussing about all
the legal action that's going on in the very sad
indisturbment situation with the film. It ends with us Paul
in Plymouth on TikTok, which is going away or we'll
start to go away on Sunday. Paul, you're on Nightside
(34:27):
on WBZ. What do you got? Hi?
Speaker 7 (34:30):
How you doing?
Speaker 2 (34:30):
Gary?
Speaker 7 (34:31):
Listen? I'll tell you what I think. You know, let's
go back, you know, thirty forty years Radio Moscow and
you know you could pick it up on short way
if you imagine if radio yeah, Radio Moscow, if they
took over CBS and they're broadcasting in the United States.
Speaker 2 (34:50):
Yeah, I mean it's a fair point. I mean, what's
Woar two, Tokyo Rowse, Tokyo Rose.
Speaker 7 (34:57):
Yes, yeah, sure, right, yeah. And and this is you know,
this is a media that's controlled by an adversary of
the United States. So and you know, I don't think
people realize that, you know, I, for one, would you
know I get all these spam advertisements from TikTok trying
(35:19):
to get me to sign up, and it's like, no,
damn way am I going to sign up for that, Because,
as far as I'm concerned, if you sign up for
something like that, you're signing up for something that enemy
of the United States could be looking into your into
your computer. They're going to they're going to keep pushing
their story and it's nothing but a big prop again,
(35:42):
the machine, and it's a state run propagain, the machine
run by the Chinese government.
Speaker 2 (35:48):
Well, it's a fair point by you, and it's obviously
a concern in the United States. Excuse me as far
as it being a propaganda machine. Of just likes to
look on it and make funny videos with their friends,
you know. That's that's the innocence of it. That's the
innocence of it. But there is definitely a dark side
(36:09):
to it that the United States government feels China is
using to their benefit, which does not benefit us. Bill
in Pennsylvania, you're up on WBZ, Yeah, Gary.
Speaker 8 (36:20):
Thanks for taking my calls, and that they use it
for tracking and uh, and.
Speaker 7 (36:24):
I don't know.
Speaker 8 (36:25):
There was hardly any any conversation over the last month
or two months about fault Typhoon. Salt Typhoon has been
scarfing up every text that you and I have been
sending over the last year, and it's you know, when
you find something like this out, you gotta you gotta
shut it down. Hell, they had what they had a
(36:47):
balloon that that the Chinese flew a balloon completely across
a lot of our military. I mean, it's just what
the hell are we all this?
Speaker 2 (36:55):
Billions and billions, bill bill You're not wrong, but but
I have been doing. I've been been told with people
in the government, the defense sector, the balloon thing that's
been going on for years. And we have balloons on
other countries. Countries have balloons on us. That's nothing new.
But what is different here with this is the fact
(37:15):
that China's dangling a carrot for us to use, and
if we nibble on that carrot, it benefits them to
what degree I don't know. But it was so severe
the government went to the Supreme Court and said, we
got to shut this thing.
Speaker 8 (37:29):
Down, you know, yeah, and then we get we get
you're right, you're right.
Speaker 2 (37:33):
There, and then we yet But I'm also built it's
like what do they get, Like, what do they learn?
That's the thing, like for me or for you, Like,
what do they learn from us what they I don't
know they get my identity. Hell, somebody in a basement
in New York City could get my identity. I mean,
I don't know. I'm so apathetic. I guess they would
get things from not necessarily me or you, but governmental
(37:55):
information that's damaging. I guess, you know, I would love
to know. I would love to know what exactly it is.
I would you know what exactly getting nuclear codes.
Speaker 8 (38:10):
They're not. They're not getting it for you and me, Gary,
but they're getting it from people like Hillary Clinton running
around with four different uh when she was when she
was going overseas, and she was using four different servers,
and that's where they're getting the stuff.
Speaker 2 (38:23):
It could be, Bill, I mean, what hell, what the hell,
what the hell?
Speaker 8 (38:26):
What the hell is she in jail? Tell me that?
Speaker 2 (38:28):
Yeah, Well, I mean, look, generally politicians will go to jail. Hey,
on the other side of things, to be fair, there
are people who think Trump should be in jail. So
I think there are criminals on both sides of the aisle. Bill,
thanks for the phone call. We appreciate it. All right.
Coming up next, good discussion, folks on the TikTok thing.
It's nuts. My concern is when it goes away, my
(38:51):
daughter is going to go bananas. Help Cooper Lawrence on
a terrific movie. It ends with Us Would, which has
a terrible, terrible story behind it. That's next wdbs
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on w BZY Boston's
new video TikTok, TikTok, TikTok, TikTok.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Thank you, Nicole, no pun intended. Right. The clock is
ticking on TikTok. I know you've heard it before. Sorry,
dad joke had to do it. This is quite a
thing that the Supreme Court up held. We are going
to talk about TikTok going away. The financial impact is
staggering for some people. And I'm more concerned because my
thirteen year old daughter is going to go out of
her mind. And if she goes out of her mind,
(00:31):
that goes That means I go out of my mind.
So which am I more concerned with? National security or
my teenage daughter not having a meltdown? I don't want
to answer that. It ends with us terrific movie. A
lot of controversy regarding the two stars. We're gonna get
into it with Cooper Lawrence. She's our entertainment guru. That's
coming up at nine o'clock. Taani Ray, Fox Football Expert,
(00:55):
Fox Sports and FS one joins us at ten o'clock
talking about Vrabel and the new look Patriots, plus your
calls throughout the evening at six one, seven, two, five,
four to ten thirty Gary Taguay and for Dan Ray.
Tonight we kick things off with TikTok as I try
to understand all of it. It's joining us right now,
is Joe Lopino Esposito, the deputy Legal policy director at
Federal Policy Chief for the Pacific Legal Foundation. You must
(01:17):
have a card that's the size of a billboard, Joe,
Welcome to night Side.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
I sometimes do yes, Thanks.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
So much for having things Okay, this seems so strange
to me, And full disclosure, I don't do TikTok. This
radio station with Matt Scherra has done very well on
TikTok Okay, so TikTok is really not just for kids anymore.
There's a lot of business people make a lot of
money on it, and we'll get to that. But what
is so strange for me as an American citizen, as
someone who has always taken pride in the fact that
(01:47):
this is a country of free speech, no matter how insulting,
no matter how racist, no matter how homophobic, no matter
how awful something may be spewed out of somebody's mouth,
they can say it. But this thing is being shut down.
It is so foreign to me that something within these
(02:11):
forty eight states would be cut off. It's so weird
to me. It's weird.
Speaker 3 (02:19):
Yeah, you know, it's a unique situation. You know, in
this particular case where the US government really attacked TikTok,
wasn't from the perspective of the First Amendment, because obviously
that was their best defense, and that's what the court
dealt with today when they they have their opinion, right,
and in the unsigned opinion, what they said was, look,
there is a compelling interest of regarding national security notwithstanding
(02:43):
the First Amendment concerns. So, you know, there's the things
that we talk about often you have these levels of
scrutiny of scrutiny, So you have strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny,
which is the two that we're talking about now, And
when you can judge how closely, essentially, you need to
look at other good reasons for the government's reduced for
doing what they're doing. So in this case, they said, look,
(03:03):
because this is a content neutral decision, right, it's not
saying because of certain things on the app is why
we're banning it. What they're saying is our concern is
actually over national security, so it's a content neutral ruling,
and therefore it comes under intermediate scrutiny, which is a
much easier bar for the government to reach versus strict scrutiny.
And that's why we have the band staying in effect.
Speaker 2 (03:25):
Yeah, I mean, and I understand that, and I get it,
and I think we're just at the point now because
of technology, is this is a reality we will probably
see be implemented again, right exactly.
Speaker 3 (03:39):
And it's funny you mentioned with the changes in technology.
The court actually starts its opinion by saying, look, we
know things are going to change, but we're hopeing not
to screw this one up too much in so many ways. Right,
So that's what they say, kind of from the outset,
knowing that they are going to be things that come
along and that could be very different. And Justice Gore
such it is conturned with the opinion said, look, there's
(04:02):
a chance this will just get replaced with some other
app that will be just as damaging according to the
United States government, and then like guess won't cross that
bridge when we get there. So they can't know everything,
but they are looking at it here and you know,
to his credit as well, and frankly that just thee
so of my Earth's credit as well. They were pretty
clear that they don't like that. The court overall said, look,
we can't say for sure. We're just gonna assume that
(04:24):
the First Amendment is involved here. We haven't really had
time to look into that enough, just as so of
my ars said, no, of course it does. Of course
it implicates the First Amendment. That's not even let's get
rid of the weasel words. Of course it does. But
now that said, I still agree with the decision, and
just this course that's said similar that, Look, you know,
I don't really care for these levels of scrutiny. We
(04:44):
spend a lot of time caring about exactly which level
it should it ought to sit into to me, if
there is a good enough compelling interest like this is,
and really backing with the US government presented as evidence
in their public evidence regarding all this, they said, look,
this is enough, and therefore I agree with the judgment
as well.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
How do you feel you agree? I understand what you're saying,
But as a person, as a United States citizen, do
you feel that our national security is threatened because of TikTok,
give me a number seven eight, Because the way I
look at it here is in order for the Supreme
Court to do this, it's got to be pretty.
Speaker 3 (05:23):
Serious, right, And that's the thing, you know, I ultimately,
you know, the blame if if somebody's uphosted this, the
blame goes to Congress and as well as President Biden,
although he also strangely has said he's not going to
enforce the law when it goes into effect on Sunday,
so I'm not quite sure why he would have signed
the bill. But that's beside the point. The point is
(05:46):
that Congress has done this and the President signed it,
so now it's up to the Supreme Court really just
make that call. So with the evidence presented to them
and with the short time I may had, the decision
does make some sense. That said, I think overall, the
discussion that's in play is what is really the national
security threat? Is it that you know, if they're stealing data?
(06:07):
And one of the things that Justine Scoresu specifically points
out as well is that, look, it gives them access
to your contact list, so that includes third parties that
did not consent to this. So you know, if I
have TikTok and you're in my phone well, and you
have your photo and your home address and everything on
my contacts on my phone. You know, TikTok can now
(06:29):
access that data. And because they refuse to divest from
the Chinese government, they're saying, look, this seems to be
what the Chinese government is after after this information. So
if that's the case. Again, I don't know enough about
national security to know what all the concerns are there,
but they're talking about things like blackmail and who knows
what else. If there's other information that could be found
from other third parties on say my phone, and they're
(06:51):
looking into you, right, So I understand where they're coming
from there. So I don't think it's without cause. But
it's tricky because they had such a tight deadline and frankly,
it really wasn't enough to the Supreme courts at decide
on this. It was that Congress made a determination and
the evidence was frankly good enough.
Speaker 2 (07:08):
Yeah right, and the Supreme Court upheld it. Call me apathetic,
I'm just lazy. I just feel that my information is
out there. No matter what I mean. I do the
best I can. I protect my social Security number I'm
not stupid. I get a lot of phishing emails and
texts all the time. I do the best I can.
(07:28):
But I also realize that with the data flying through
the air and how we're so addicted to technology, if
somebody says to me, yeah, China can get Gary Tanger's
home address, I'm like, what am I going to do
about it? Like, I think they can get it, whether
they use TikTok or not. See know what I'm saying?
You know, am I wrong in that? Is my attitude
too leisurely?
Speaker 3 (07:51):
No? And I think what you're hitting on is actually
sort of part of what the court said and what
Justice Coursus said as well. It's like, look, you know
what we consider a threat. They're not saying it directly
like this, but the way I read it is, you
know what we're seeing as a national security threat today?
That may very well change for I think some of
the reasons you're mentioning, right, it's so ubiquitous that we
have this information. We have so many apps, and frankly,
(08:13):
I'm sure I don't know all these and apps, of
all the permissions of every app, but I'm sure plenty
of popular apps that are in the us have the
same types of permissions.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
There's no question, there's no doubt. I mean, you see it, Joe.
It shows up in your feed. Like you if you
look for a particular product, say I look for I
don't know, a coffee maker, whatever, then I'm gonna get
next thing. You know, on my Instagram feed, I got
fifteen coffee companies sending me stuff. You know. So I'm
kind of like, when I look at this, I go
(08:42):
and we're so damn lazy. You know, we're just so spoiled.
We go, eh, Okay, so you know, China knows where
I live. Okay, I'll put up with it. You know.
That's just the way I feel about this. I don't know.
Speaker 3 (08:57):
That.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
I don't know. That's that's just the way I feel
about it. But that's why I wonder. I wonder if
there's something else we don't know, if there's something else
larger at play. Yeah, somebody could you know, we could
be in an episode of The Americans, you know, from Fox,
where somebody could come to my door and say, okay, Tangue,
I'm gonna you have to become a spy for Russia.
You know, I don't think that's going to happen, but
I don't know if they need TikTok to do that right.
Speaker 3 (09:21):
And actually, it's interesting you mentioned that one of the
things that Justine Goresa was pleased with the court overall,
and stacisfically called out that the Court did not do that.
The US government was trying to offer confidential information and
evidence to the court as well and say like, we
would love you for you to view this, and by
the way, TikTok can't even view it, but we would
like the court to view it. And they rejected that
(09:42):
and said, look, we don't know what's going on here,
so to your point, there may be something else to play,
but that was not part of their decision today. So
they were able to do it without that information. The
US government was saying, well, the additional information that they
have would have been even more convincing.
Speaker 2 (09:56):
Why did the court reject it? I think it when
they want to look at it.
Speaker 3 (10:02):
So the court didn't like the idea that they were
protecting it from the plaintiffs as well, So I think
it Delvin Dow again with the short timeline. They didn't
do a full analysis of it, but because of the
fact that they said, look, we have this evidence on TikTok,
and by the way, TikTok can't even see it. You know,
it's not a criminal proceeding, but it doesn't feel quite right.
So that I think is one of the issues that
(10:24):
was to play there. But I think very much to
your points, there could be something else, but the court
got to the conclusion without that.
Speaker 2 (10:29):
Okay, Joe, we got to take a break. Can you
hang out for another segment? I want to I have
some more questions about the Trump administration in this coming up.
Absolutely okay, Absolutely, okay, Joe. The pino Esposito was with
US Deputy Legal Policy Director in Federal Policy chief for
the Pacific Legal Foundation. Also knows a lot about the
big time court. That's all coming up next to WBZ.
Speaker 1 (10:50):
Now back to Dan Ray live from the Window World
Night Side Studios on WBZ News Radio.
Speaker 2 (10:56):
Harry Tangway, but dare tonight welcome back Night's side. W
see joining us right now. He's doing the pino Esposito
from the Pacific Legal Foundation. We're talking about the banning
of TikTok, which is going to begin on Sunday. Of course,
it's going to happen over time and when the app
doesn't get updated, eventually everyone will lose the power to
(11:17):
use TikTok.
Speaker 1 (11:17):
So.
Speaker 2 (11:18):
But this is what I find so interesting, Joe, is
the criticism of Trump or the Trump administration was, you
know he had the Supreme Court in his back pocket, right,
Like okay. This guy has even said one of the
reasons he may have been elected was because of TikTok Right,
(11:39):
And he doesn't he doesn't want it to go away.
So does he when he takes office, does he have
any recourse?
Speaker 3 (11:49):
So this is where, of course they can't make it easy.
So because of the fact there would have been a
way to do this, so they set the deadline for
this for the nineteenth, right, so it's before he takes office,
and there is a provision in the law that the
president can extend it by ninety days if there's significant progress.
(12:09):
I believe it's the phrase they use towards a sale
of the company. So the problem is it's unclear if
it means on the day of like on the nineteenth,
or if when he comes in at noon on the
twentieth he says, I think they're really trying. We're going
to give them another ninety days. So that may be
the first challenge that he faces when it comes to
(12:30):
this is can he if he wants to delay it,
can he even validly delay it? Or is that up
the President Biden to do it, which again he has
said that he doesn't plan to enforce the law, in
which case I think he'd be within his rights, according
to the law, to certified and give them another ninety days.
But the whole thing is very odd. I mean, I
think you could have solved this by making it the twentieth,
(12:50):
allowing either president to do it, because you would have
been talking about noon when the changeover happens, so they're
both president on the twentieth. So to me, that's sort
of the fix that you would have given the option. Obviously,
when they passed that, they didn't know who the next
president would be. But you know, even if it was
going from Biden to Harris, you would have had two
different people there having the chance to make a decision.
(13:10):
So it's I don't think it was the best choice
to make it on the nineteenth because now you have
this additional problem where it may not be in the
hands of the incoming president.
Speaker 2 (13:20):
Well as far as Trump is concerned, I'm not so
sure it would be a priority for him because this
is his second term. I mean, I don't know if
that's a hill he would die on, do.
Speaker 3 (13:30):
You, Yeah, exactly. But you know, I think, and he
said this recently, is that he knows there's going to
be a lot of things he's going to go after
try to overturn, you know, specifically go We do a
lot of work in like property rights and environmental law,
and there's a lot of things that President Biden has
done in the last couple of weeks that he's claiming
sort of you know, lock off certain areas from oil
and gas exploration, things like that. So there are some
(13:53):
provisions where he can President Trump could outright just reverse it,
and other ones that they're going to go to court.
So I mean, I I think at this point we'll
start looking at to how many people they hire at
the Department of Justice to go after these issues, and
that may determine how higher a priority some of these
issues are, particularly this one, because this is such an oddball,
you know, dating issue where they could have just be
(14:15):
give him the power or perhaps he's you know, not
going to be able to do that, and we'll see
where it goes.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
Yeah, it just doesn't seem that high on the list
for me. But what floored me. And we have a
guest coming up at ten o'clock time to Array Fox
of Fox Sports. She's a terrific sports personality in California.
She makes money on TikTok. She you know, I don't know.
(14:40):
I don't want to quote what she makes, but I
was floored that the average income on TikTok is one
hundred and thirty one thousand dollars a year. Now, I
don't know how many people that. I don't know what
the quantity is, right, I don't know if that's one
hundred people. I don't know if that's two hundred people.
I'm not sure. But I know people supplement their income
five hundred bucks here or three under books here, six
(15:00):
hundred bucks, shit, whatever. I mean, this is a big deal.
This is going to hurt some people.
Speaker 3 (15:07):
Yeah, absolutely, And you know it's you know, the analogy
would be that some other businesses or other outlets where
they suddenly they're legal and now they're not. We've had
that over the years. You know, certain businesses have determined
our violation, say the FTC right. You had companies a
number of years ago that had, you know, little miniature
antennas and you can get your local networks from a
miniature antenna at their server. The Supreme Court said, guess
(15:28):
what that's not. That's not allowed to violate the airways
laws and therefore that's the end of that, and that
def holds the business. So unfortunately, we do see that
a lot throughout the law. And yeah, this is one
in particular where I think it implicates a lot of
the rights of the individuals on there, which you know,
the court did try to tackle, but they said, look,
(15:49):
this is sort of an issue separate and apart from that.
But you're absolutely right, it is going to affect a
number of people in the pocketbook as well.
Speaker 2 (15:56):
Have you heard, because I have not, you know, looking
over the web in different news sources. But there must
be an entity ready to take over TikTok or take
its place. There's got to be somebody, I mean, Bezos
has to have somebody, or Apple has to have somebody
in the basement with a product ready to go saying
(16:18):
you've lost TikTok. But here's your here's the solution.
Speaker 3 (16:23):
Right, you know. And there's been a number of rumors.
I mean, I think I saw yesterday that you know,
the YouTube personality mister Beast was going to make a
play for it. So, I mean, I think we've we've
seen everyone who could possibly get engaged on this. We
saw some action for more Trump Cabinet secretaries. I think
we're engaged in a possible sale earlier in the or
I guess last year when we saw that in some
(16:44):
of the headlines. So yeah, I mean I wouldn't be
surprised if it's possible. But what being reported is that,
you know, the Chinese government is not allowing them to
divest from the parent company Bye Dance, which you know
to some people. You saw Senator Tom Cotton was out
there today saying, look this, here's the proof. Here's all
the proof we needed. They want to allow them to
dive back. If they're a successful business, I should just
(17:04):
let them go. Well look there you go. It's the
spy app. And I proved my point. So, I mean
it's not I don't know for sure, but it's not
a bad argument.
Speaker 2 (17:11):
Well what about just starting new I mean just saying
I'm going to start the tangwe app.
Speaker 3 (17:18):
Right, Yeah, yeah, So somebody else could come along and
do a version of this and if you look. I
mean a lot of the other social networking sites has
tried to do versions of this, right, Like, you know
that they all kind of steal from each other and
take good ideas, sure, and bad ideas. So I wouldn't
be surprised if you suddenly saw a new feature more
prominently on Facebook that looked a lot like TikTok. They
(17:38):
seem to be the ones who moved pretty quickly in
that regard, so there's definitely a chance that will happen.
And I guess we'll just see if the innovation takes
over and who really picks it up. You know, obviously
they were the leader in the market, but if they
do go away, it does open up the opportunity for
someone else to take the rings.
Speaker 2 (17:54):
Well, the new Secretary of Entrepreneurship, but whatever his title is.
I'm surprised Musk doesn't have like a ready to go
I mean, you know, like boom, here it is you.
This is the replacement for TikTok. Just go we do
exactly what TikTok. Did you pick up right where you
left off? I really do. I mean, I'm really surprised
that that's not out there. I think people are missing
the boat on that one.
Speaker 3 (18:16):
Yeah, good point.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
Yeah, you know that really with all of the technology,
with Apple and Facebook and you know, all of these guys,
you think they'd be ready to swoop in on it
because where we are a country of convenience and that
if the China, China does not want to divest, TikTok
goes away, you know, we'll just come on. We're technical,
we're digital whores, man. You know, we're not loyal. We're
(18:39):
not loyal to anyone. Somebody comes in and gives us
as our digital fix, we'll just go to them. We'll
just go to that digital pusher, you know what I mean.
That's what we are as a society.
Speaker 3 (18:49):
We don't care, right, and that seems the case that
we are willing to jump. But at the same time,
we saw, you know, some on the last and a
number of people just said, look they were going to
move away from Twitter, and they try Blue Sky, and
they tried threads through Facebook, through Instagram and they haven't
gone very far.
Speaker 2 (19:06):
But you could still get it, is my point. I mean,
you're not gonna be able to get it. So yeah,
oh I agree with that. Like I'm still on X.
You know, I think he's crazy. I mean, I don't.
I don't believe anybody anymore. I'm an isolationist. I just
hide in my house. I just don't want to know,
you know, when the world's coming to an end. Don't
tell me, don't text me, don't tweet me, don't let
(19:28):
me know. But and I think everybody's crazy on both
sides of the aisle right now. So you know, I'm
not I'm not in favor of anyone, but you know
it when it comes to musking these guys, I mean,
I'm surprised. He's just just not ready to go. So
my point was, I'm too lazy to get off X
because it's still there. But if TikTok's not there, you know,
(19:48):
and you have a chance to make money. If you
provide an alternative, I think you I would think somebody
would jump on it. I have to ask you a
question before you go, And I may be putting in
a bad spot, but you know, I just think all
lawyers are kind of the same, and you guys just
know everything. Do you have an opinion, because what I'm
fascinated to see is what happens with the border?
Speaker 3 (20:09):
Right?
Speaker 2 (20:10):
Do you have any Yeah?
Speaker 3 (20:11):
So yeah, you know, it'll be interesting. I think you
have a number of issues at play, right. You have
that the president is more than likely going to declare
a national emergency regarding the border, so that automatically gives
them a lot more power to do things. It's still
you know, it's not absolute, but it's it gives them
a little bit more leeway to take some actions that
(20:31):
he may want to do about actually physically securing the
border or otherwise. And then there's going to be sort
of the the enforcement within the border now. Right, so
everyone who's already here what happens next and what they've
been said, and I think where they think they will
certainly have the easiest time will be going after people
who are here illegally and have committed crimes. Right, so
that that will be the easiest one. Anybody has a
(20:54):
ICE detainer, on an immigration and customs detainer, that should
be relatively easy to you. You know, finding everybody is
not an easy job, certainly, but for the legal aspect,
that's the easiest one to do. So it's after that
and seeing how long that takes to see what happens next.
So does it mean that they eventually come to some
sort of deal or agreement in Congress that has some
(21:18):
sort of pathiwlay of citizenship. It's possible, but it's so
hard to predict at this point, just not knowing what
those first steps are going to take and if that's
really going to be seen as enough by not only
by Trump officials who have been wanting to get back
at this and sort of fix the problem, but also
by the American people who certainly voted to take action
on these issues. And again we're seeing that red blue
(21:39):
and otherwise that there's some general agreement on what should
be done here. So at that point, once you hit
the things that are generally agreed upon, your sort of
eighty percent issues, to what degree does the president want
to go further and saying, look, I want to do
more here, because there will always equal people calling for more, right,
So it's a matter of a political calculation and certainly
a legal calculation. Well, it's how far you want to go.
(22:01):
So at this point I think it's a bit of
a wait and see and see what happens when I
do their initial enforcement issues and see if there's any
problems in the courts or otherwise. But after that we
should get some more evidence of stuff where we're headed.
Speaker 2 (22:15):
Well, I think anybody with a reasonable attitude, we'll say
we got to do something. Yeah, I mean when when
when I hear an argument like well, in the nineteen
hundreds we welcomed all on our show, I go, Yeah,
it's not nineteen o one anymore, and people are coming
from Europe on a steamer. You know, it's a different
it's a completely different ballgame. So there has to be
(22:40):
some order to the chaos. And I agree with you.
I think both sides of the eye wants it. So
if they can get eighty percent there, that's a good thing.
What about the birthright thing? Do you think that'll actually
go away?
Speaker 3 (22:51):
No, it doesn't seem like it. And frankly, I haven't
looked at that closely to the arguments there.
Speaker 2 (22:56):
Seems really to me. I mean I'm not attorney, but
I mean I don't know if that's a hill they
die on, you know what I mean exactly.
Speaker 3 (23:04):
And that's the thing. I mean, we're going to start
looking back at the original intention of why was written,
and it's hard to put into the same contact in
the same way. Like you mentioned, you know, immigration in
the early nineteen hundreds is radically different than immigration now
just because of the just the means of how people
did it. Frankly as part of the issue that you
had an actual checkpoint that had to go through. I mean,
you certainly had people that could jump off the vote
(23:26):
in New York Harver. But outside of that, you were
coming through Ellis Island, You're going through other gateways, so
there were mechanisms and really the issue on all this
comes down to what is the overarching immigration policy. I
think if we don't look at it as a whole system,
that's when you run into problems. If you just look
at that, well, here's this spot on the border where
everon's running across, Well, sure put up what you need
(23:48):
to do there. But the point is are there more
people that we want to take in or do we
not want to take people? And that really needs to
be the conversation in Congress to say, look, this is
within Congress's power to deal with the immigration laws. What
do we want to do? So if we want to
argue between a couple of weeks ago we had the
argument over H one B visus and all their types
of work visas, that's those are a louch of people
(24:09):
that like seeing all the back and forth on that.
Perhaps that's a useful debate to have, and that's really
where the issue is, is that Congress should be deciding
what is our actual immigration policy, not just sort of
the obvious things that everyone agrees on, Because, like you said,
if everyone sort of thinks something should happen about securing
the border itself, fine, but then what is the policy
(24:29):
past that the security of the border seems like the
bare minimum? And of course we haven't had that. But
once that is done, then what do we do? And
we're back to the same question we've had for as
long as I can remember, is that we don't really
have a policy.
Speaker 2 (24:44):
Joe, you're a terrific guest. Thank you for joining us.
We appreciate and you have a good weekend.
Speaker 3 (24:49):
Thank you you too, all.
Speaker 2 (24:50):
Right, Joe DiPino Esposito joining us from the Pacific Legal Foundation.
We appreciate the time. Six one seven two five. The
telephone number, Gary Tagway here for Dan Rang on WBC's
Night Side. If you guys do TikTok, if you make
money on TikTok, give me a call, tell me about it,
and what are you going to do when it goes away?
(25:10):
Six one seven two four ten thirty. This is WBC.
Speaker 1 (25:14):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZS Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (25:20):
All right, tagway for Ray tonight six one seven two,
four to ten thirty is the telephone number. And I
have friends that make money on TikTok. Make a couple
grand a month, make five hundred a month, make a
thousand a month. I mean, this is no joke. This
is gonna get this. This is going to cost people.
I feel bad about that. That really bothers me. I
(25:41):
feel terrible about that. It must be serious for the
government to go to this level. I mean, here, the
thing that, as I mentioned in the previous conversation, is
even Trump wants TikTok to stick around because it works
(26:04):
for him. Now, this is a guy who doesn't want
to deal with anyone internationally, who wants to put a
twenty five percent tariff on China and all other imports.
But TikTok, he feels got him elected. So it's like, oh, okay,
we'll keep TikTok around because it was good for me.
I don't think it's going to necessarily do anything for
(26:26):
him now, obviously, because this is it for him. I
just laugh at that. It's just so funny, and the
politicians are all the same. You know, how is it
going to benefit me at this particular time, How is
it going to benefit my reelection, how is it going
to benefit my future as opposed to looking at the
big picture, and how does it benefit the constituents. Now
(26:47):
for the federal government to go to the Supreme Court
and say, we have more information damning information on China,
which owns the parent company of TikTok, on why it
shouldn't be allowed in the US, and the Court said, no,
we don't need to see that, which I that's odd
to me. I would think they would want that information.
(27:08):
But as Joe pointed out previous guests, she was terrific
by the way. They would want both sides of the
aisle to see that, or they would want the people
arguing to keep TikTok to have that availability too, And
from what I understand, the court just felt that that
would well, for lack of a better term, muck up
(27:29):
the situation and they were going to uphold Congress's ban
on it no matter. They didn't need that. That wasn't
going to make a difference. They were already going to
ban TikTok, and this is a country where, man, you
could say anything, you can watch anything, you could say anything.
(27:50):
It still is so weird to me that we are
banning a media channel. That's what's happening. We are banning
a media channel, and that stuff happens in Russia, happens
in China, happens in North Korea, where I've talked to
friends of mine who do business in Russia or Russia
(28:13):
not so much anymore obviously. But while with Putin that said,
that's a different animal. But you know, with China, if
you go to China and you talk to citizens, they
have no idea what's going on in the outside world
because the government only wants them to know so much.
Now that's not really the case with TikTok. Look, if
TikTok goes away, we're still going to be informed, We're
(28:35):
still going to know what's going on. But again, in
this country, to ban a media channel is so quite Frankly,
I'm American, but I guess it just goes to the show.
It just reveals the depths of the dangers of technology.
Let's go to andrewid Hero. Andrew, you're up on WBZ.
Speaker 4 (28:56):
What do you have to say, Hey, I just wanted
to say that Trump was originally for banning tick Tar.
Speaker 2 (29:04):
But he's not. But he's not, but he's not now
because it got him elected, right, Well that's what he
says anyway. I mean, so, I mean, that's the thing
that's that's funny, Like he should have just kept his.
Speaker 4 (29:18):
Mouth shut, you know, yeah, pretty much.
Speaker 2 (29:22):
What do you think about the whole thing?
Speaker 3 (29:26):
Uh?
Speaker 4 (29:27):
Like, like before you know, there must be something really
stressful going on that involves that, and it's probably not
something that we know about or nobody is telling us.
Speaker 2 (29:40):
You know, well, it has to involve national security, one
would think, because the federal government generally doesn't get involved
in oh god, I just generally doesn't get involved in
preventing freedom of speech, if you will. That's not really
what we do here. So there must be something pretty
(30:01):
serious going on. That's what I want to believe that
TikTok and it us China to get in and learn
some very serious things about the United States government that
we don't want them to know. But thanks Andrew, I
appreciate the call. But unfortunately it's going to cost people
a lot of money. All right, let's go to more
on the Cave Mara. You're up on WBZ, Hey.
Speaker 5 (30:23):
Gary, Yeah, I'm listening to your conversation. And I have
to admit when I initially heard the talk about trying
to ban TikTok, I uh, I was all in favor
of it. Yeah, I don't I want to give the Chinese,
you know, into all of our private, h private information.
(30:45):
But once once I.
Speaker 6 (30:48):
Heard that, you know, Biden and Pelosi and Schumer and
they were all against that move, I was thinking, oh,
all right, well, maybe I need to read this. So
I don't know. I don't like the idea of banning
the free speech.
Speaker 5 (31:09):
I also don't like the idea of the Chinese having
the ability to get access to all of our information.
I'm a little bit conflicted.
Speaker 2 (31:20):
Well, this is I agree with you one hundred percent,
and I have gone back and forth on it because
I'm in the media. Obviously, I believe in freedom of speech.
I believe that's why this country has been able to exist,
and that's why I know everyone in the world wants
to live here. They do. Yep, it's a great place
to live. What now, I have friends, I have friends
(31:44):
that have moved to Europe and it's a laid back lifestyle.
I get it. But look look London and France, that's terrific.
You can look, you can have a great time there too.
But the United States it's a great place to live
because we let you say what you want. I mean absolutely,
there are some there are some crazy, disgusting things that
if you want to watch them you can so I
(32:06):
hear right, I mean really absolutely. I mean the ku
Klux Klan freeom of speech. You want to talk about hate,
you want to talk about the fact that you don't
like Catholics and you don't like African Americans, Well you
can say that and we go okay, okay. So it's
got to be so bad that it does infiltrate national security.
(32:28):
And I think that one of the things that we
have to realize now in this day and age of technology,
we have to be prepared for that because with AI
and technology we can't control it. We have to be prepared.
You know that if the government says that's going to go,
because it puts you at risk, we have to believe them.
That's what I'm at.
Speaker 5 (32:48):
You know, well, I'd like to be able to truly
believe them. I'm so a little bit skeptical, but I do.
I worry there are downsides to the technology that's available
to us today, and I don't know everybody uses it,
you know, properly or for the right reasons, and so
(33:09):
that does concern me. I also think, you know, in
Trump saying, oh, you know, they helped me get elected.
You know, that's great. I also think that's him saying.
I don't know that he's making that comment solely for
his own personal benefit. I think he's also shining light
on the fact that this is something that can benefit
(33:31):
you know, it does benefit people's businesses, and it does
benefit their livelihood and there could be some some good
in there. We just need to figure out where that
happy medium is.
Speaker 2 (33:42):
You know what we have to find out more. We
have to find out if Donald Trump Junior has a
TikTok account and how much money he makes, because that
could be it. Thank you for the phone call, KT,
I appreciate it, Paula Plymouth. You're coming up next on
w b Z Quick Quick Break that we're back on
the Dan Ratio. Now Dan Way live from the Window World.
Speaker 1 (34:00):
Night Side Studios on WBZ News Radio.
Speaker 2 (34:04):
Welcome back, Gary Tank waiting for Dan Ray six one
seven ten thirty nine o'clock, We're going to talk to
our buddy Cooper Lawrence from CBS Entertainment discussing about all
the legal action that's going on in the very sad
indisturbment situation with the film. It ends with us Paul
in Plymouth on TikTok, which is going away or we'll
start to go away on Sunday. Paul, you're on Nightside
(34:27):
on WBZ. What do you got? Hi?
Speaker 7 (34:30):
How you doing?
Speaker 2 (34:30):
Gary?
Speaker 7 (34:31):
Listen? I'll tell you what I think. You know, let's
go back, you know, thirty forty years Radio Moscow and
you know you could pick it up on short way
if you imagine if radio yeah, Radio Moscow, if they
took over CBS and they're broadcasting in the United States.
Speaker 2 (34:50):
Yeah, I mean it's a fair point. I mean, what's
Woar two, Tokyo Rowse, Tokyo Rose.
Speaker 7 (34:57):
Yes, yeah, sure, right, yeah. And and this is you know,
this is a media that's controlled by an adversary of
the United States. So and you know, I don't think
people realize that, you know, I, for one, would you
know I get all these spam advertisements from TikTok trying
(35:19):
to get me to sign up, and it's like, no,
damn way am I going to sign up for that, Because,
as far as I'm concerned, if you sign up for
something like that, you're signing up for something that enemy
of the United States could be looking into your into
your computer. They're going to they're going to keep pushing
their story and it's nothing but a big prop again,
(35:42):
the machine, and it's a state run propagain, the machine
run by the Chinese government.
Speaker 2 (35:48):
Well, it's a fair point by you, and it's obviously
a concern in the United States. Excuse me as far
as it being a propaganda machine. Of just likes to
look on it and make funny videos with their friends,
you know. That's that's the innocence of it. That's the
innocence of it. But there is definitely a dark side
(36:09):
to it that the United States government feels China is
using to their benefit, which does not benefit us. Bill
in Pennsylvania, you're up on WBZ, Yeah, Gary.
Speaker 8 (36:20):
Thanks for taking my calls, and that they use it
for tracking and uh, and.
Speaker 7 (36:24):
I don't know.
Speaker 8 (36:25):
There was hardly any any conversation over the last month
or two months about fault Typhoon. Salt Typhoon has been
scarfing up every text that you and I have been
sending over the last year, and it's you know, when
you find something like this out, you gotta you gotta
shut it down. Hell, they had what they had a
(36:47):
balloon that that the Chinese flew a balloon completely across
a lot of our military. I mean, it's just what
the hell are we all this?
Speaker 2 (36:55):
Billions and billions, bill bill You're not wrong, but but
I have been doing. I've been been told with people
in the government, the defense sector, the balloon thing that's
been going on for years. And we have balloons on
other countries. Countries have balloons on us. That's nothing new.
But what is different here with this is the fact
(37:15):
that China's dangling a carrot for us to use, and
if we nibble on that carrot, it benefits them to
what degree I don't know. But it was so severe
the government went to the Supreme Court and said, we
got to shut this thing.
Speaker 8 (37:29):
Down, you know, yeah, and then we get we get
you're right, you're right.
Speaker 2 (37:33):
There, and then we yet But I'm also built it's
like what do they get, Like, what do they learn?
That's the thing, like for me or for you, Like,
what do they learn from us what they I don't
know they get my identity. Hell, somebody in a basement
in New York City could get my identity. I mean,
I don't know. I'm so apathetic. I guess they would
get things from not necessarily me or you, but governmental
(37:55):
information that's damaging. I guess, you know, I would love
to know. I would love to know what exactly it is.
I would you know what exactly getting nuclear codes.
Speaker 8 (38:10):
They're not. They're not getting it for you and me, Gary,
but they're getting it from people like Hillary Clinton running
around with four different uh when she was when she
was going overseas, and she was using four different servers,
and that's where they're getting the stuff.
Speaker 2 (38:23):
It could be, Bill, I mean, what hell, what the hell,
what the hell?
Speaker 8 (38:26):
What the hell is she in jail? Tell me that?
Speaker 2 (38:28):
Yeah, Well, I mean, look, generally politicians will go to jail. Hey,
on the other side of things, to be fair, there
are people who think Trump should be in jail. So
I think there are criminals on both sides of the aisle. Bill,
thanks for the phone call. We appreciate it. All right.
Coming up next, good discussion, folks on the TikTok thing.
It's nuts. My concern is when it goes away, my
(38:51):
daughter is going to go bananas. Help Cooper Lawrence on
a terrific movie. It ends with Us Would, which has
a terrible, terrible story behind it. That's next wdbs
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.