ACE

Category: Uncategorized

  • Understanding AI in Intelligence Gathering and Analysis

    Understanding AI in Intelligence Gathering and Analysis

    What is AI?

    Artificial Intelligence (AI) involves the use of machine learning algorithms and predictive models to process and analyze large datasets. Intelligence gathering, a critical component of national security and defense systems, refers to the collection and analysis of information to identify potential threats. Recently, AI has taken on a bigger role in U.S. intelligence systems, automating data collection and analysis processes that used to be completed manually. While some see this as a step towards more efficient and effective defense systems, others point to the potential for human rights violations and security breaches. 

    The Rise of AI in National Defense

    The strategic competition between the United States and China has elevated AI as a critical factor in national security and defense intelligence capabilities. Both nations are heavily investing in AI, aiming to outpace each other in developing technologies that could offer a decisive advantage in intelligence gathering. At the same time, AI’s role in geospatial intelligence is particularly evident in the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian conflict. AI has become an essential asset for analyzing data from various sensors, systems, and personnel in the field. It gathers data from combat scenarios in real-time and provides actionable intelligence to military operators. 

    The Case for AI in Intelligence Operations 

    Proponents of AI’s increasing role in intelligence and defense cite two key reasons for their support:

    • Enhanced Data Analysis: Proponents of AI in intelligence gathering highlight AI’s ability to process vast amounts of data quickly and with precision. For example, Scylla AI software, designed for security and defense applications, demonstrated threat detection accuracy exceeding 96% and significantly reduced false alarm rates when tested by the U.S Department of Defense. By integrating computer vision and machine learning algorithms, Scylla improved response times in critical defense and security environments. Additionally, supporters cite projects like the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency’s SABLE SPEAR which successfully employed AI to identify illicit activities that traditional methods overlooked.
    • Complementary Capabilities: Supporters contend that by automating repetitive tasks and providing recommendations based on historical data, AI not only reduces human error, but can serve to complement human decision-making. They argue that AI systems are not completely replacing military operators’ autonomy to make decisions, but rather serving as a partner in decision making that can increase accuracy and decrease collateral damage in military operations.

    Criticisms of AI in Intelligence Operations

    AI’s growing role in intelligence and defense has drawn criticism for three main reasons:

    • The “Black Box” Problem: Critics argue that AI’s lack of transparency in decision-making, often referred to as the “black box effect,” presents a significant challenge. AI systems may behave unpredictably, especially when trained on biased data. Since it is very difficult for operators to discern how and why AI systems reach certain decisions, it is difficult to redirect AI systems after making decisions that are harmful.
    • Human Rights Consequences: Opponents say the “Black Box” problem can lead to errors in critical applications, rendering AI-driven decisions dangerous in combat. A notable example is the U.S. military’s AI-driven drone strike in Kabul on August 29, 2021. The AI system incorrectly identified a civilian vehicle as a threat, resulting in a tragic strike that killed 10 civilians, including 7 children. AI’s reliance on input data quality means that biased or flawed data can produce inaccurate and potentially deadly conclusions. In the context of military operations, these flaws could lead to increased civilian casualties or misidentification of combatants, violating international norms like the Geneva Convention.
    • Security Vulnerabilities: Centralized data analysis systems also increase the risk of cyberattacks. Critics point out that advanced AI systems could be exploited by malicious actors, raising concerns over the security of sensitive information used in intelligence operations.
    • Infrastructure and Cultural Resistance: Finally, critics hold that integrating AI into government systems requires significant resources and organizational overhaul. Transitioning to AI-based intelligence systems requires updates to infrastructure and organizational culture, and may result in layoffs of employees. The U.S. Department of Defense has faced difficulties in standardizing and integrating its vast array of data sources, hindering AI deployment across military branches. Additionally, resistance from personnel concerned about job displacement and AI’s role in decision-making has slowed the integration process.

    Weighing the Benefits and Risks

    The integration of AI into intelligence operations offers the potential for increased efficiency, enhanced data analysis, and improved threat detection. However, it also introduces serious concerns about data security, job security, and the human rights risks of unpredictable combat outcomes. Moving forward, the intelligence community will have to weigh these perks and drawbacks as it continues its push towards AI integration. 

  • Pros and Cons of the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act

    Pros and Cons of the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act

    What is the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act?

    The National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act of 2018 mandated the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to coordinate with relevant agencies to study and implement a three-digit dialing code, later designated as 988, for the national mental health crisis hotline. Introduced by Senators Cory Gardner, Tammy Baldwin, Jack Reed, and Jerry Moran, the Act aims to simplify the process of reaching out for help during a crisis, given the rising suicide rates among youth and high-risk groups such as veterans, LGBTQIA+ people, and individuals in rural areas.

    Arguments in Favor of the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act

    Improved Accessibility and Crisis Service Coordination

    One of the primary arguments in favor of the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act is that it offers better access to mental health support. By designating 9-8-8 as the national suicide prevention hotline number, proponents say the Act simplifies the process of seeking help during a crisis. According to a national report, a three-digit number is easier to remember than the previous ten-digit number, which helps ensure that individuals in distress can quickly access the support they need. Proponents highlight that such an ease of access significantly increases the likelihood of timely assistance, which is crucial in emergency situations where every second counts. Furthermore, using the 988 number for mental health crises directs individuals in distress to appropriate and specialized professional support which they may not otherwise receive from the more general 911 line. Some praise this aspect of the Act for relieving the burden on other emergency medical services, which are often overburdened and under-equipped to respond to mental health crises on top of other emergencies. 

    Follow-Up and Continuous Care

    Supporters also praise the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act’s emphasis on follow-up and continuous care for individuals who contact the 9-8-8 Lifeline. The Act recognizes that immediate crisis intervention is just the first step in preventing suicide and addressing mental health crises. By ensuring systematic follow-up programs, the Lifeline can provide ongoing support to individuals after their initial contact. Follow-up care can include regular check-ins, referrals to local mental health services, and support in navigating the healthcare system, all of which contribute to a comprehensive approach to crisis management and suicide prevention. Proponents hold that this continuous engagement helps to maintain the well-being of individuals, citing a study that suggests follow-up care reduces the risk of future crises and improves overall mental health outcomes. 

    Enhanced Funding and Resource Allocation

    Supporters claim the Act also has the capacity to drive a cultural shift in how mental health crises are perceived and addressed. By equating the importance of mental health emergencies with medical emergencies, proponents argue that the legislation encourages greater recognition and prioritization of mental health issues. This shift has the potential to lead to increased funding and resources for mental health services, ultimately improving the quality and availability of care. Indeed, the Biden-Harris Administration’s investment of nearly $1 billion in the 988 Lifeline, including a sub-network for Spanish speakers, highlights the commitment to expanding and enhancing these critical services.

    Arguments Against the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act

    Uneven State Response

    One significant concern regarding the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act is the uneven state response to the 9-8-8 implementation. Critics highlight that in-state answer rates currently range from 55% to 98%, indicating significant disparities in service quality across the country. States like Alaska, which have the lowest in-state answer rates, often lack local call centers. As a result, residents are redirected to national backup centers that may lack access to or knowledge of local resources for treatment referrals. This variability leads to different levels of accessibility and dependability, which critics claim compromises the overall effectiveness of the 988 hotline and leaves individuals in certain areas without the crucial help they need during crises. Critics warn that the discrepancies in care between states might lead to a general distrust of the hotline.

    Resource and Capacity Constraints

    Critics also argue that the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act was enacted without proper attention to resource allocation and capacity building. They claim that building the infrastructure for a new nationwide crisis hotline is a long-term endeavor, complicated by a national shortage of mental health professionals. Critics point to the development of the 911 system, which took decades to achieve full operational capacity, as a predictor of the difficulties that may be faced with such a quick 9-8-8 rollout. They argue that workforce shortages and infrastructure limitations could delay the system’s full functionality, potentially causing a snowball effect in which crisis centers drop out of the network, rendering care less accessible, reducing the effectiveness and legitimacy of the hotline, and ultimately dissuading people in crisis from calling.

    Low Public Awareness

    Another crucial issue is the low public awareness of the 988 Lifeline and its purpose. Without widespread knowledge and understanding of the service, the number’s reach and impact are significantly reduced. Critics highlight that many Americans, particularly racial minorities and those without a college education, are unaware of the 988 hotline or do not understand how to use it. They argue that the Act should have included more specific programs to increase consumer awareness of the hotline, especially in communities where mental health is a taboo topic. Similar to the rollout of 911, building public awareness will take significant time and effort to ensure that the 988 lifeline is effectively utilized by all segments of the population. Critics of the bill claim this awareness curve could have been mitigated by a more robust public outreach strategy. 

    Conclusion

    The National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act aims to improve access to mental health crisis support by simplifying the process of reaching out for help. Some believe the Act was an urgently needed intervention that provided an adequate basis for the national hotline, while others argue its passage could have been delayed to include more specifics on public awareness and capacity building. While the Act has the capacity to greatly enhance mental health crisis intervention and reduce suicide rates, challenges such as uneven state responses, resource constraints, and low public awareness must be addressed to fully realize its benefits.

  • An Impartial Look at the SAVE Act and Voter Eligibility Debate

    An Impartial Look at the SAVE Act and Voter Eligibility Debate

    With the rising surge of illegal immigrants entering the United States via the US-Mexico Southern Border, concerns are growing among the Republican Party over non-citizens voting in federal elections.

    In the US, each state has different rules regarding local, state, and federal elections, as the Constitution leaves election law in the power of the states. However, Congress can pass a federal bill regarding elections that can be applied to all federal elections across the country. This week, House Democrats and Republicans are again at odds over an immigration bill, with an election spin.

    Next week, the House is scheduled to vote on the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act. Introduced by House Republicans, the bill would require “documentary proof of United States citizenship” to vote in federal elections.

    Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson (R-LA), has spent much of his time this week promoting the bill, citing studies and research regarding illegal immigrants voting in federal elections.

    In his 22-page report on the benefits the SAVE Act will provide to American citizens and their election system, Johnson stated, “While falsely claiming the 2016 was ‘stolen’ due to ‘foreign election interference,’ Democrats ignore the real threat of foreign election interference posed when noncitizens are allowed to register and vote in U.S. elections.”

    He continued, “Lax voter registration laws make it possible for noncitizens to register and vote in federal elections while campaign finance loopholes allow noncitizens to fund U.S. election activities – both of which can affect the outcome of our elections.”

    His report also points to examples of non-citizens being removed from voter rolls in several states.

    “Earlier this year, in Massachusetts, Boston Election Department officials disclosed to the Public Interest Legal Foundation that the city had removed 70 noncitizens from the city’s election rolls… In May 2024, Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose ordered 137 noncitizens removed from Ohio’s voter rolls… As of May 2023, Virginia Department of Elections officials have removed 1,481 registrations from its official voter rolls with a reported reason for removal due to noncitizen status.”

    The bill defines “documentary proof of American citizenship” as follows:

    • A form of identification issued consistent with the requirements of the REAL ID Act of 2005 that indicates the applicant is a citizen of the United States
    • A valid United States passport
    • The applicant’s official United States military identification card, together with a United States military record of service showing that the applicant’s place of birth was in the United States
    • A valid government-issued photo identification card issued by a Federal, State, or Tribal government showing that the applicant’s place of birth was in the United States
    • A valid government-issued photo identification card issued by a Federal, State, or Tribal government other than an identification described in paragraphs (1) through (4), but only if presented together with one or more of the following:
      • A certified birth certificate issued by a State, a unit of local government in a State, or a Tribal government
      • An extract from a United States hospital record of birth created at the time of the applicant’s birth which indicates that the applicant’s place of birth was in the United States
      • A final adoption decree showing the applicant’s name and that the applicant’s place of birth was in the United States
      • A Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a citizen of the United States or a certification of the applicant’s Report of Birth of a United States citizen issued by the Secretary of State
      • A Naturalization Certificate or Certificate of Citizenship issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security or any other document or method of proof of United States citizenship issued by the Federal government pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act
      • An American Indian Card issued by the Department of Homeland Security with the classification ‘KIC’

    Former President Trump has voiced his support of the bill taking to Truth Social, writing, “Republicans must pass the SAVE Act, or go home and cry yourself to sleep… Non-citizen Illegal Migrants are getting the right to vote, being pushed by crooked Democrat Politicians who are not being stopped by an equally dishonest Justice Department.”

    House Democrats have dismissed the bill, with House Minority Whip, Katherine Clark (D-Mass), urging her fellow Democrats to “vote no” on the measure.

    In a recent whip question regarding the bill, Clark stated, “Once again, the ‘party of states’ rights’ would supersede individual state law by amending the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) to require voters in all states to show ‘documentary proof of citizenship’ (DPOC) in order to register to vote. These changes would prevent Americans from registering to vote with their driver’s license alone, as REAL ID does not indicate citizenship and is in fact available to noncitizens. Under the SAVE Act, for the overwhelming majority of Americans, the only acceptable standalone form of identification for use in voter registration would be a passport (or passport card). A REAL ID drivers’ license, a Tribal ID, or a military ID would be unacceptable unless coupled with additional documentation, such as a birth certificate or an extract from a birth record that proves the applicant was born in the United States. This would be an extreme burden for countless Americans, including military voters, Native voters, people who have changed their names (including tens of millions of American women), the elderly, the young, the poor, and naturalized citizens.”

    However, not all Democrats may be on board with Clark. Back in May of 2024, House Republicans introduced H.R. 192 which would block non-citizens from voting in local D.C. elections. In that vote, 52 Democratic House members broke from their party lines and voted with Republicans to pass the bill.

    There is a chance some Democrats will join their Republican colleagues in this vote, but the bill is most likely dead on arrival (DOA) in the Democrat-controlled Senate, just like H.R. 192 was in May.

    In stark opposition to the bill, the White House released a statement saying, “This bill would do nothing to safeguard our elections, but it would make it much harder for all eligible Americans to register to vote and increase the risk that eligible voters are purged from voter rolls.”

    Even if the bill were to pass the Senate, President Biden is expected to veto the measure, making this bill DOA no matter where it goes.

    Questions to ask yourself after reading:

    Do I think there should be a federal law requiring proof of citizenship to vote?

    Do I think non-citizens should be allowed to vote in federal elections? State? Local?

    Does my state already require me to show ID when voting?

    • If not, should my state require it?

    Does election integrity matter to me?

    What do I think are the safest and most open forms of elections?

    Do I think there’s a better solution than what’s proposed?

    As we approach the 2024 election, it can be easy to get caught up in the potential presidential politics of the future and overlook the current governance that will impact those elections. As election season heats up, make sure to stay informed on all matters. Seek out the facts and form your own opinions. This platform aims to provide clear, unbiased information, empowering you to draw your own conclusions. Stay engaged, stay critical, and stay informed.

  • Candidate Positions on Taxes

    Taxes play a central role in politics and elections as they directly affect individuals and businesses financial well-being and are responsible for funding essential government services. Democrats generally advocate for progressive taxation, where higher-income individuals and corporations have higher taxes compared to lower-income individuals. They also often prioritize using taxes to address social issues by funding social welfare programs, education, healthcare, and infrastructure projects. On the other hand, Republicans typically favor lower taxes, for all individuals and large corporations, as they believe this stimulates economic growth and incentivizes investment. It also aligns with their beliefs of limited government intervention and individual freedom. 


    Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

    Kennedy pledges to not raise taxes and aims to stimulate our economy without raising taxes. When it comes to taxing large corporations, he aims to maintain the current tax rates however eliminate deductions and put a stop to loopholes in our current system. Kennedy also believes that increasing the capital gains tax will limit investment in our economy and promises to exempt Bitcoin from taxes when converted to or from U.S. dollars.

    Quotes:

    “I’m not going to raise taxes. I don’t think that that’s the right thing to do right now. I think we really need to stimulate our economy.”

    “ exempt the conversion of bitcoin to the U.S. dollar from capital gains taxes.”

    • Kennedy Administration

    “Biden’s proposed 30% tax on cryptocurrency mining is a bad idea,”

    Jill Stein:

    Stein advocates for a progressive income tax system, proposing that high-income earners should be taxed at rates between 55 to 60 percent. Additionally, she proposes implementing a financial transaction tax, levying a 0.5% tax on sales of stocks, bonds, and derivatives in Wall Street transactions, as it is estimated that this tax would generate approximately $300 billion in new revenue annually. Stein also emphasizes the need to rewrite the tax code to prioritize benefits for working families and impoverished Americans. She argues that Wall Street, large corporations, and wealthy individuals should bear a greater tax burden, ensuring they contribute their “fair share” to government revenue.

    Quotes:

    “ America wasn’t meant to be an aristocracy. 22 billionaires have as much money as 50 percent of the US population. We need a progressive income tax, with the rich paying at least at the 55 to 60 percent level.”

    “It’s outrageous that the wealth of the top 1/10 of 1% has risen in the past decade while their taxes are cut via capital gains. No one is even talking, Democrat or Republican, about restoring the capital gains tax.”

    “making the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, we can lower taxes for the vast majority of Americans, and ensure that our tax dollars go towards the things that actually improve our lives: jobs, education, healthcare, and preventing climate catastrophe.”

    Cornel West:

    West believes that we must raise taxes for wealthy corporations and supports implementing a wealth tax on all billionaire holdings and transactions and he promises to end all tax loopholes for the rich. He claims that economic justice in America has been overshadowed by greed, because unequal taxation benefits the rich at the expense of everyone else. Additionally, that the lack of adequate and fair representation in taxation policies has allowed the wealthy to have lower tax rates, while those in poverty and the working class are overlooked and marginalized.

    Quotes:

    “ taxes ought not to go to the military side of the budget but rather the social side of the budget”

    “the most powerful and the most wealthy ought to have some public accountability be it wealth tax, be it more progressive income tax,”

    “Taxation without representation is now reflected in policies that allow the wealthy to be coddled and under-taxed while the perennially poor, working poor, and ‘new poor’ are ignored and rendered invisible”

    Marianne Williamson:

    Marianne Williamson advocates for restructuring our tax system to reduce income inequality and ensure fairness. Her plan involves enacting fair taxes on the wealthy and corporations while lowering taxes for working people. She proposes closing loopholes benefiting large corporations, raising the estate tax, and eliminating Wall Street tax breaks. Williamson also emphasizes the need to protect the middle class from tax hikes and aims to roll back tax cuts for the wealthy, including restoring the estate tax on estates over $5 million. Overall she supports raising taxes to finance progressive initiatives and programmes, while prioritizing a fair and equitable distribution of the tax burden.

    Quotes:

    “Over time, the tax burden has been shifted away from corporations and the wealthy, and onto the backs of working people. For example, business funding of the federal government has fallen dramatically, from over 33% of all federal revenue in 1945 down to only about 6% in 2018. I would reverse this trend, so that corporations and the very wealthy pay their fair share”

    “The estate tax may be the fastest way to reduce wealth inequality.”

    “ So we are going to have to raise taxes, but we can do it in a way that ensures the burden is shared fairly and equitably: we’re going to tax the rich. The rich will assuredly howl and scream about injustice and being job creators, but here are some tax policies that we can change.” -Williamson Administration

    Donald Trump: 

    Trump’s tax plan would sharply reduce the top tax rate on individual income from 39.6% to 25% and broadly reduce rates for individuals with lower incomes. His plan would also lower the tax rate on corporate income from 35% to 15%, and apply this 15% to other “business income”. He aims to make both the expiring individual income tax cuts and expiring estate tax cuts from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act permanent as well as taxing large private university endowments. Overall, Trump’s tax policy is characterized by a strong emphasis on reducing tax burdens for everyone overall, including businesses and the wealthy, as he believes that these tax cuts would stimulate economic growth, create jobs, and benefit the middle class. 

    Quotes:

    “Half of America doesn’t even pay a single penny in federal income taxes,federal spending is so dangerous: half the country …. So the idea that the lower class is shouldering the tax burden is absurd, because the bottom half of Americans pay no federal income tax at all.”

    “You’re all getting the biggest tax cuts because we’re doing additional cuts and a brand new Trump economic boom like you’ve never seen before,” 

    “I am lowering taxes far more than any other candidate. Any negotiated increase by Congress to my proposal would still be lower than current!”

    Joe Biden: 

    President Biden’s main purpose is to build a more equitable and fairer tax system that rewards work, not wealth. His fiscal year 2024 budget proposal includes extensive tax reforms, including increasing corporate, capital gains, and dividend taxes, along with expanding tax credits for families. Business taxes would rise, with the corporate income tax rate going up to 28 percent and adjustments to global income taxes. Estate and wealth taxes would tighten, and Biden plans to increase excise and individual income taxes, particularly for high earners. These reforms aim to redistribute wealth and support working families as taxes would increase for corporations and high-income individuals. 

    Quotes:

    “I think it’s about time we started giving tax breaks and tax benefits to working-class families and middle-class families, instead of just the very wealthy,”

    “I propose a minimum tax of 25% for billionaires. Just 25%. That would raise $500 billion over the next 10 years. Imagine what that could do for America.” 

    ““No billionaire should pay a lower tax rate than a teacher, a sanitation worker, a nurse,”

  • Joe Biden

    Joe Biden

  • Ryan Binkley

    Ryan Binkley

  • Pros and Cons of the ANTI-SOCIAL CCP Act

    Pros and Cons of the ANTI-SOCIAL CCP Act

    The “Averting the National Threat of Internet Surveillance, Oppressive Censorship and Influence, and Algorithmic Learning by the Chinese Communist Party Act” (ANTI-SOCIAL CCP Act) would ban using TikTok on American devices so long as ByteDance manages the app. The bill seeks to protect American citizens from threats posed by foreign countries with control over current and future social media platforms. Its focus is preventing foreign entities from conducting surveillance, learning sensitive data, and influencing the American public. Utilizing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, it grants the President the power to block all transactions of both property and interests on TikTok or any future social media platform deemed similar. 

    Background

    The national security concern surrounding TikTok is not new. In 2019, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States began to review the purchase of Musical.ly by ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company. In 2022, Commissioner Carr of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Christopher Wray, the director of the FBI, separately stated that there is a consensus in the United States that TikTok is a national security concern. They agree that consumer privacy and influence campaigns, which are “large-scale campaigns that seek to shift public opinion,” are major concerns regarding the app, primarily based on the possibility that the Chinese government could utilize the app for these harmful purposes. The federal government has already approved an unprecedented ban, blocking the app on federal government devices, and many states have followed suit. This bill would expand the scope of the current ban to include all privately owned American devices. 

    Though the concern has been raised by several national security experts and politicians, including Marco Rubio and Mike Gallagher, it has not captured the public consciousness in the same way. The app is still top-rated in the United States, where users more than doubled from 2019-2021. The total number of Americans using the app in 2023 is over 100 million. Therefore, the ANTI-SOCIAL CCP Act could affect much of the United States population if passed. 

    A federal judge has already granted a preliminary injunction, which blocked a previous attempt to ban the app. Similar bills and regulations may be introduced if the bill is not passed after a vote. The challenges around online privacy, misinformation, and influence campaigns will not disappear with or without the ban.

    Support for ANTI-SOCIAL CCP Act

    Proponents of the bill advocate labeling ByteDance, which owns TikTok, as a puppet company of the Chinese government. One of the bill’s sponsors, Marco Rubio, stated this belief publicly. The Chinese government has hired firms to recruit social media personalities to deliver crafted messages and established a network of state sponsored influencers who present their narratives, increasing the volume of exposure to their ideas. In addition, a Forbes study found many connections between ByteDance and China’s state-sponsored media industry. At the time of the study, 300 current employees had previously been employed by Chinese media publications, and many were still employed by those same firms. The connections between the two entities propel the concern for influence campaigns on the app. 

    An NYU and Global Witness study in 2022 indicated that TikTok failed to screen 90% of false ads, scoring worse than any other social media company. In comparison, YouTube caught 100% of the ads in the study and banned accounts posting misinformation. In addition an increasing number of individuals get their news media from TikTok. This created the possibility for misinformation to be disseminated to large segments of the American public with little oversight under existing laws. Incendiary posts and topics are rewarded by social media algorithms because they generate user engagement; consequently, fake ads and misinformation can affect all TikTok users. The ease with which misinformation can spread on the app was exemplified by videos making false claims about COVID-19 and vaccines. Lawmakers’ concern stems from the fact that the Chinese government could control the recommendation algorithm on TikTok which would allow it to manipulate content. 

    Hundreds of organizations have been found sharing data with ByteDance and TikTok, while over 28,000 apps use TikTok’s software development kits which also share data. While TikTok claims that US data is stored entirely outside of China, a member of TikTok’s Trust and Safety department stated that all data is still seen in China. In addition, there is a Chinese law that requires all private companies to turn over data to the government upon request. The possibility that the Chinese government can use this law to view American users’ data upon request is the catalyst for many data privacy concerns. 

    Opposition to ANTI-SOCIAL CCP Act

    Opponents of the bill claim that the free speech element of the First Amendment protects postings on TikTok. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) embraced this belief in a letter. In addition, Dr. James Andrew Lewis, Senior Vice President of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), seconded the belief in a commentary. The ACLU and Dr. Lewis argue that the government has no right to ban posts on TikTok, let alone ban the app entirely.

    Others argue that platform ownership does not affect the range of information that the Chinese government can collect. Dr. Lewis of CSIS reports that many intelligence agencies can consistently scrape various social media platforms, not just TikTok, to collect user biographical information. Further, this type of information is available for purchase on the dark web. This argument rests on the belief that ownership of the company does not grant the Chinese government any unique privileges beyond what it would be able to attain without direct influence over a social media platform. Therefore, the opposition believes that banning TikTok is based on anti-China rhetoric and sidesteps a much larger problem of online privacy. In a world where cyber attacks occur every 39 seconds, banning one app would change little concerning the safety of social media users. Multiple apps also collect similar data; banning one merely transfers the issue to the subsequent app to which users will flock.

    In addition, many of the concerns raised about misinformation and news could be applied to virtually all social media platforms, not just TikTok. Algorithms on Twitter, Instagram, Youtube, and Facebook also reward high-engagement posts, which tend to be inflammatory or polarizing. Those same platforms have also struggled to regulate “fake news” and the spread of misinformation.

    Finally, ByteDance claims that they never have or will provide data to the CCP. Georgetown Law Professor Anupam Chandler seconds this belief, stating that no concrete evidence exists of the two entities (ByteDance and the CCP) working together. In the aftermath of a leak, ByteDance fired all involved employees and restructured the audit and risk team, emphasizing the company’s commitment to working with the United States. Many consider the ban preemptive for these reasons.

  • Introducing the Common Futures Conversations Panel Discussion

    The second day of ACE’s upcoming Climate Migration Conference will feature a discussion panel on Sub-Saharan climate migration with several members of the Common Futures Conversations program. Run by Chatham House, a world-leading policy institute headquartered in London, Common Futures Conversations brings together youth leaders from across Africa and Europe to discuss pressing global challenges. In the past, Common Futures members have convened at workshops in London, Addis Ababa, and Accra to share key policy issues impacting youth in their communities and work towards sustainable solutions. Given our shared goal to give youth changemakers a seat at the table in international policy discourse, ACE is delighted to welcome members of Common Futures Conversations to the first youth-led climate migration conference in the world. 

    ACE’s panel on climate migration in Sub-Saharan Africa will run from 9am to 10am ET on April 17th. Through a moderated discussion with youth leaders spanning Africa and Europe, the panel will incorporate a myriad of perspectives on the impacts of Sub-Saharan climate migration both continentally and internationally. While specific areas of focus will be determined by the Common Futures Panel members in their responses, general areas of guided discussion will include the impacts of climate migration on agricultural systems, coastal economies, indigenous wellbeing, and cross-continental political decision making in Sub-Saharan Africa. We hope to see you there!

  • Introducing Adriel Charles

    Adriel is a featured guest speaker at the ACE Climate Migration Conference. You can see her full interview on April 26 at the Central and Latin America and the Caribbean regional focus day.

    Adriel Charles is a recent Undergraduate of The University of the West Indies, St. Augustine Campus where she pursued her BSc in International Relations and Minor in Cultural Studies. Currently, she is a Fellow at Island Innovation and an active member of the United Nations Federation of Youth for Water and Climate (UN1FY) Latin America and Caribbean Team. Adriel would have always had a passion for Caribbean development, but it was during a Model United Nations Conference in 2018, her interest and passion expanded to include the UN’s SDGs. In 2021, she was trained and certified as a Sustainability Leader by United People Global. During 2020-2021 she would have represented Trinidad and Tobago as the Country Coordinator at the UN Conference of Youth 16 (Glasgow, 2021). 

    Adriel strongly believes that education and awareness are some of the key ways that youth can become involved in the movement towards developing climate resiliency. During her three-year university program, she would have held various leadership positions where she contributed to local community development through the SDGs. She especially focused on climate change education and awareness through planning and executing local conferences, and seminars. She strongly believes that climate change can be understood and mitigated through a transdisciplinary approach, and she works tirelessly to see positive outcomes in this field. Combining her lived experiences growing up in a small island, and her professional experience she hopes to influence other young people to become more active in the fight against climate change. 

  • Conference Regional Coordinators

    Meet the Student Fellows and Research Associates responsible for coordinating each day of the ACE Climate Migration Conference.

    • April 26: Central and Latin America and the Caribbean, coordinated by Foreign Policy: Central and Latin America Research Associate Emily Hudson
    • April 27: Sub-Saharan Africa, coordinated by Student Fellow: Sub-Saharan Africa Ella Dennis
    • April 28: Middle East and North Africa, coordinated by Foreign Policy: Middle East Research Associate Sarah Frazer