Everyone is familiar with those historic moments where a key figure markedly lost their battle with a small, but noticeable, behavior. We can look back to George H.W. Bush looking at his watch during a debate, or even something involuntary such as the series “The Jinx” in which Robert Durst begins belching when confronted with tough evidence regarding his involvement in a murder. We have preparation and strategy at our disposal when taking on tough questions or tasks, but we seem to have a nerve that burns when we are losing control of ourselves or the situation. This often happens unwittingly in interpersonal relationships where a joke or a comment stings someone. Unbeknownst to the speaker, someone in the circle had deep scars over something they blithely grazed over with an ill-formed, yet harmlessly intended remark.

When conducting targeting, you are desperately seeking that nerve, and if you pay close attention, lighting it burns more like a fuse than the average slow-burning candlewick. If you can pick it out, you’ve got dynamite. This is well established in interrogations, business negotiations, and online trolling... when you let someone see they’ve found a fuse, you can only put it out so many times before it runs out, and they get the fireworks they’re looking for.

The China-based social media platform TikTok is, in the most optimistic scenario, an aggressively expanded and innovative app which has spread like wildfire in its journey to become an international tech juggernaut. On the other hand, the platform has been marred by allegations of deceptive practices, strategies to erode American youth with tailored destructive or dangerous content, Anti-West and Pro-China propaganda machinations, espionage, and latent control by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). One could say that, in their targeting of United States-based users, whether optimistic intent or otherwise, they lit wick after wick, and either quietly hit dynamite or simply made the room too hot. As a result, they were brought forth to testify before Congress regarding the allegations.

Speaking for the company was Shou Zi Chew, TikTok’s CEO. Born in Singapore, Chew has an impressive resume as he served in the Singaporean Armed Forces, attained a Harvard MBA, worked at Facebook pre-IPO, made successful investments while working at Russian investment firm, served as CFO at Xiaomi, and replaced Kevin Mayer as TikTok CEO after Mayer served only three months in the role. Given his experience, it is clear that Chew knows how to handle stress, and as a CEO (somewhat of a figurehead for a company’s board, brand, and investors), Chew likely understood he’d take the heat for TikTok and all of the accusations of it being a massive tech trojan horse. The hearing can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1xEuK0Fxu8

What is interesting about Chew’s appearance before Congress is his preparation and cool demeanor in answering questions about his nationality, political affiliations, and other non-TikTok subject matter. He also consistently goes to bat for the company, answering questions with policy or past performance on taking down content, complying with requests and making promises for more transparency. He even fields some questioning from members with technical-know-how regarding the code and infrastructure of TikTok, in pursuit of unearthing some leads into potential “backdoors” that can be exploited by the CCP. Where it gets more interesting is when Congress members are emboldened by either conviction or frustration after hours of Chew seemingly evading or thinly navigating hard questions regarding allegations against TikTok.

Congress members venture further and begin to suggest that Chew is not answering questions and, even worse, is being deceptive. Representative Gary Palmer from Alabama even flat out asks Chew if he is afraid of the CCP in regards to his lack of answers and evasiveness. Representative Palmer then matter-of-factly calls Chew deceptive at the end of his time. A wide shot can be seen right after the comment and Chew is calmly flipping his stapled papers and making some notes. He was just called deceptive and suggestions that he fears the CCP were made and he couldn’t be bothered about it. Other Representatives make similar claims, but it is a comment made almost by accident that lights a fuse.

Representative Neal Dunn from Florida is going through his allotted time, entering items into the record, suggesting questionable practices of Chew’s previous performance of allegedly censoring on behalf of the CCP. Although he’s not asked a question, Chew chimes calmly that TikTok does not remove or promote content on behalf of the CCP. Up until this point it has been business as usual and Chew’s responses continue to be delivered in a matter-of-fact and emotionless voice. Right then, at approximately 2:45:52 of the YouTube video of the hearing, Representative Dunn mentions that “we don’t find you credible on these things.” As Representative Dunn yields the remainder of his time, despite asking Chew no questions at that point, Chew’s voice elevates slightly with speed proclaiming that he was given no time to respond. To be clear, Chew had not been given time to respond previously in the hearing.

Let’s take a step back... If we’re looking at this objectively, the goal of Chew is to state TikTok policy, minimize damage, and really just get through the heat. So once questioning from a Representative is over, it’s time to take a sip of water, collect yourself and prepare for the next probe. Just before Representative Dunn’s remarks, Chew was called deceptive and he took to writing some notes and getting organized right after. It was when his credibility was called into question that he nearly boasts “I reject the characterizations!” Wick or fuse?

Representative Dan Crenshaw from Texas later goes head-on, fully suggesting that TikTok is complicit in an agreement with the CCP to give access to data on users, that they employ 300 former members of the CCP’s propaganda organization, and that they are attempting to destroy lives. Chew doesn’t reject those characterizations – and this is 5 hours into the hearing when one would be the most worn down emotionally. 

So what is the fuse here? How can this be interpreted? Chew had little concern over harsh allegations of espionage, ill intent, perjury... all things that are punishable by law. What did he bite on? Credibility. If we accept that it is more likely than not that the CCP exerts pressure on companies, particularly ones operating internationally to facilitate ways and means to further national interests, then the figureheads of the such companies matter very much. They can control their loyalty with money or pressure, they can throw resources, time, money, and knowledge at problems. But one thing they cannot fully control, is trust. If the world sees the elite resume CEO of TikTok as not credible, that’s not good for the CCP and Chew knows this. Chew also knows the outcomes of disgraced CEOs in China and how quickly they seem to disappear. So when Representative Dunn makes a comment on credibility, the look on Dunn’s face as he’s sorting own papers suggests that he did not understand the fuse he lit with that comment. Had the remainder of the session peppered in more questions on credibility, it would have likely been very different.

Put yourself in the hot seat now. Your task is to weaken TikTok. What are you gonna do? Throw a rock a their front door? You have to consider what is within your control. Paying attention to the weakness and fear of not being considered credible that Chew exposed opens opportunities. After all, in attrition, a terrific strategy is to diminish command and control faster than it can sustain itself. If the first TikTok CEO lasted 3 months, then Chew is ousted for lack of credibility, they are one more puppet from being a revolving door of executive leadership. Anyone knows that when leadership shakeups occur that frequently in a company, it surely isn’t a good thing.

To reflect on this, there are plenty of American CEOs with awful credibility, particularly after post-COVID layoffs that followed consistent growth in hiring. Have those CEOs been ousted? No chance. Why? Because the board of directors and investors of those companies ascribe to the “they’re our a**hole” mantra because, despite public opinion, those CEOs earn and carry out the ugliness to keep the lifeblood of corporations flowing. That’s not to say it’s agreeable or even righteous/justified, but it is a pragmatic, almost reptilian truth. So why does credibility matter so much to China?

Decades of history has shown China to be extremely strategic, planning in cycles that are beyond reasonable to the average person. They have massive ambitions to become more of a world leader every year and to cross milestones by the decade, and they have. Good for them right? Well... the ugly truth is that the CCP’s practices have been aggressive in every way, including theft, genocide, mass surveillance (foreign and domestic), and an ever-increasing appetite for economic growth despite the lack of any realism of real estate development coupled with four years of a declining stock market. They will pump money into their market to keep it afloat and smiling for the world, the same way they will use any means necessary to keep TikTok breathing while still under a structured form of their control. They continue to legislate evermore tightened laws for companies operating in China to cooperate with data regulations and cracking down on foreign companies who conduct Business Intelligence collection, as China fears those channels are used to generate human intelligence assets collecting against the CCP. How would they know that is such an effective method? Rhetorical question. Seems the strong and ruthless efforts to make China-based companies latent cooperators of statecraft opened up a vulnerability where they thought it to be a strength. Keep your eyes open Targeters.

As of now the United States is taking action against TikTok by way of legislation, mandating a sale of the platform or a permanent ban. TikTok has responded with lawsuits claiming First Amendment rights. The chosen action has been to use administrative/legal power to combat the platform, which is appropriate given the legislature’s powers. It is usually how they take action. President Biden signed the law as an executive measure and previously President Trump ordered the sale of TikTok but that was later brought down. It is also not fair to observe that Meta, a TikTok competitor is up 36% this year at this time of this writing.

Now, could a simple expression of “I reject the characterizations” blowing up into a downfall of one of the largest social media platforms be hyperbole? Maybe. But the fact that the opportunity was not recognized and struck can be considered a missed opportunity. If someone did notice, somewhere in the basement of a shadowy entity at odds with TikTok, perhaps there’s a reason they held back. Maybe Shou Zi Chew as CEO is perfect for the CCP’s adversaries for a reason. There have been bigger turncoats or inept leaders in history. That, coupled with his knowledge of both CCP and Russia affairs would fare well for any would-be handler. Who knows? Maybe Shou Zi Chew is precisely where economic or governmental enemies of TikTok want him to be.