TikTok is absurdly cool - and in absurdly irresponsible hands

China is often a mega example in terms of digitization – and at the same time mega deterring. It is all the more important that top politicians get a picture on site. An interview with Tobias B. Bacherle, representing the Greens in the Bundestag and spokesperson on the Digital Committee, who traveled to China in early 2023 with Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock and held numerous discussions there.

Your conclusion after the trip: Can we keep up in the digital competition in Germany and Europe?

When we think of top research, such as quantum computing, yes. But when it comes to issues of scalability or market viability, then we are having a hard time in Germany. It used to be different: For decades we were able to define global standards in the industrial sector and influence binding standardization processes. This was ideal for our company structure, which consists of many often family-owned small and medium-sized enterprises. The German export economy was able to scale highly and assert itself worldwide. This is how our hidden champions emerged. However, regarding digital standardizations, we haven't been paying enough attention in recent years.

What is the reason?

A core problem from my perspective: In the digital field, we have simply adopted many basic technologies and standards from outside and worked with them, rather than developing them ourselves. This is why Germany no longer felt responsible for setting digital standards. Equally important, however, is that the global standardization processes have fundamentally changed. Our approach was always this: politics defines expectations, for example, concerning product quality. Standardization committees like VDE or DIN then define the details together with the economy.

But now we see that China has been strategically infiltrating international standardization bodies for years in order to set standards in line with political requirements. And where they don't manage to do so, they don't stick to them when in doubt. The result is stark barriers to market entry. For example, the automotive industry points out that the bus lane in China is five centimeters narrower - and European buses can no longer drive there. The same is true in the digital sector. And what is another huge competitive advantage for China: The country has systematically built up huge corporations that can digitally map the entire value chain and collect data on a scale that is unimaginable for us.

What role do these digital XXL value chains play in competitiveness?

They play a huge role. First of all: I am basically a fan of small-scale value chains. They ensure that tasks and participation are distributed more efficiently and fairly, and the bond between management and employees is much stronger.

But: When it comes to data-driven efficiency improvements, we have a massive disadvantage. We need to be aware of this and find solutions. See AI applications. For this we need a lot of well-prepared data. We need balanced data samples to identify and reduce bias. For me, the crucial question is therefore: How do we want to share and use data in Europe? The Data Act, which the European Commission adopted last year, offers important answers.

At its core, this is about the right to use data. This is beneficial for everyone and will revolutionize many processes in areas such as agriculture or aviation and open up enormous efficiency potential. To stay with the areas, farmers and airlines will be able to critically question recommendations from seed manufacturers or aircraft manufacturers and - based on the data - find their own, better solutions.

OK. At the same time, China has already set up a service with WeChat that combines all online services from chatting to payment functions and currently has around a billion users - would that also be possible in Germany and Europe?

Hardly. Firstly, the market here is much more fragmented. 1.4 billion people speak Chinese there. In Europe, 450 million people communicate in two dozen different languages. This is a hurdle for information-based platforms and slows down the spread enormously. Secondly, we are used to using different services for different needs, be it chatting or ordering food. That's OK too. And thirdly, we are not so keen on monopolies.

Completely different in China. There, the state has an interest in strengthening monopolies. This also has a lot to do with the desire for surveillance: it is much easier when all information on payment behavior or communication is available via an app. People there are largely transparent. So: At first glance, a service like WeChat may seem practical. But when I think about the value system behind it, I clearly reject it for Germany and Europe.

Keyword surveillance: China is working with companies like Huawei - why do we continue to allow their use in Germany almost without restrictions?

If you don't want third parties to be able to read what you're doing, you should stay away from Huawei devices. The crux of the matter, however, is that secure communication must also be ensured in other areas. If I use Facebook Messenger or Telegram in server-based mode on my iPhone without encryption, it is like writing postcards. This is about personal responsibility. Of course, messenger services are required to offer secure encryption.

The state, on the other hand, must protect the communication infrastructure more effectively. Keyword 5G discussion: All Chinese telecommunications companies have to pass on information on the instructions of the state - according to current law. There is also the possibility that certain components could paralyze networks over a wide area if necessary. Therefore, we can say to Chinese companies like Huawei, 'sorry, we are concerned that you are so heavily controlled by the state that it endangers our national security - and we cannot install your products in sensitive telecommunications areas such as nodes and distributors.' The federal government has the issue on its radar, and we must take a clear line in the security-critical core network.

At the beginning of the year, TikTok confirmed that it had deliberately tracked US users who were critical of the product. Why was this not discussed in Germany?

So first of all: TikTok is an absurdly good product. Of all the apps, TikTok has the best algorithm. It is designed less commercially, but this can also be an indication that the app is pursuing other goals. At the same time, TikTok is in absurdly irresponsible hands. The company simply does not understand the European value approach. And it does not even make the effort to try to understand it. In all discussions and lobby talks, the answer is always, 'if we absolutely have to...' - that may be a little more honest, but it does not make them more trustworthy.

But many of the problems that I see with TikTok are the same as those that I see with all platforms. There is simply very little control and transparency about what really happens with our data. Users need to know under what conditions the algorithm on the platforms rewards or downgrades something. This is the only way they can change their own behavior, complain about a misassessment or expose discrimination.

Does this also have a sociopolitical dimension?

Of course! The platforms can have a massive influence on democratic opinion-forming thanks to their reach. For example, reporting on acts of violence or protests can quickly lead to emotional reactions and poison the public opinion climate. If the display or non-mention of certain information is controlled by corresponding algorithms, we have dangerous manipulation. TikTok is particularly in focus in the USA. Because it is a Chinese company, but also because it is enormously influential and has long since replaced Twitter - which is now called X - as a source of information for Generation Z.

But again: all major platforms carry this risk. In the case of Meta, thanks to whistleblower Fances Haugen, we know very well which inauthentic user accounts are listed on them. This is not deliberate manipulation of the Meta algorithms, but a tolerance of manipulative influences. Nevertheless, the platforms are also great for getting information. When it comes to political information, they offer an extreme reach to people who would otherwise be impossible to reach. That is why we need a plurality of platforms and owners, as well as a high level of transparency and control over them.

What is the development like?

I am incredibly excited to see what changes the TikTok discussion will bring to the American debate. In the hearings, questions were asked about data sovereignty - in relation to the state as well as to individuals - and about possible influence by the large platforms. Questions that we have been asking in Europe for years about American services. For us, this led to the Digital Services Act and the General Data Protection Regulation. I am cautiously optimistic that the TikTok discussion will trigger an aha moment in the USA and that Europe and the USA will perhaps come closer together on these issues.

Let's take a look at 42 Heilbronn: What can such innovation centers do for Germany?

Places like 42 are incredibly important for Germany. Firstly, they create space to move outside of rigid structures and to live creativity. Secondly, innovative power comes from doing and, above all, from doing things differently - the 42 approach fits perfectly with this, as it is based on an application-oriented learning concept and hands-on mentality. This is exactly what I miss in the classic STEM subjects. The 42 takes a radically different approach and does justice to the digital scene in a special way.