TikTok's rapid rise to become teenagers' favorite social media app is not unprecedented. Before it, youngsters were flocking by millions to Snapchat; and before that, to Instagram. And before Instagram, there were others, beginning of course with Facebook. 

![](https://images.ecency.com/DQmUBDEDAxj3inqRYDkmaQAP8UDQBe1uqK8DGnDiKEc7ueJ/tiktok.jpg)

## The US, China and Europe

All these hugely popular applications had started in the US and were owned by American companies. 

What **is unprecedented** in TikTok's case is that, for the first time, almost a billion people, including significant amounts of "Westerners" are active on a platform **owned by a Chinese company**.

**Europe** used to be the world's economically dominant pole in the XIX<sup>th</sup> century and, despite the devastation wrought by two terrible conflagrations, had managed to remarkably recover its footing in the three decades following the Second World War. 

Yet since the turn of the XXI<sup>th</sup> century, its standing in the corporate world began to deteriorate markedly and a clear, [continuous decline became impossible to deny](https://www.economist.com/briefing/2021/06/05/once-a-corporate-heavyweight-europe-is-now-an-also-ran-can-it-recover-its-footing). 

To an outside observer, Europe's response to this phenomenon, in both intellectual and political circles, appeared muddled at best. A **cacophony of takes coming from the four corners of the continent** included calls to **reproduce the Silicon Valley conditions** in this or that region (_it never worked_), but also public shrugs: Europe still has a lot of innovation and start-up formation, the answer went; accordingly, the fact that **[European startups tend to move their HQs to the US](https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/21/uipath-rises-17percent-in-nyse-debut-after-one-of-top-software-ipos-ever.html)** beyond a certain stage on their growth path **does not matter**. The US is a close ally and, if it wasn't for geography, distinguishing between it and "Europe" was only an old reflex, irrelevant in the era of globalization. 

The 2003 invasion of Iraq by a "coalition" led by the US made apparent the first cracks in the "Western" construct: France and Germany decided to stay aside. What looked back then like a superficial crack got deeper as Barack Obama announced a "pivot to Asia" and even more so during the **fateful 2016** when the **[UK voted for "Brexit"](https://peakd.com/brexit/@sorin.cristescu/brexit-game-of-chicken-on-the-irish-border)** and the **US elected Donald Trump** as its president.  

This was when European politicians started talking about **"strategic autonomy"**.  The moment when, accordingly, the place where innovation not only **happened** but also **matured into "one billion customers" companies** began to seem relevant.  

## Clear and present danger
What was, back then, just an intellectual argument, took concrete shape these last months. For the first time, European governments had reasons to believe that a **"systemic rival"** and **"strategic competitor"**, China, could **get hold of critical data thanks to its power over a "platform" application**, TikTok. 

![](https://images.ecency.com/DQmWrmxKonBU4PThKaZHr5MiqpHvciJBbwQuJAEUehKUrDy/ec_ban.jpg)
<sup>[source](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/23/business/european-union-tik-tok.html)</sup>

While TikTok is nominally headquartered in Singapore, it is uncontested that the Chinese government is able to exercise effective control over it. For the first time, hosting (or just being able to effectively control) one of these "wonder applications" that **began as a [scrappy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ic7NqP_YGlg) start-up** - of the sort Europe creates at a healthy pace - **and proceeded to grow into a global platform with hundreds of millions of users** - of the sort only the US managed to create previously - conferred on the "host" (or, more appropriately, controlling) government a **dangerous amount of power!**

## Being able to grow innovative start-ups into global platforms matters!

After the European Commission, the European Parliament too has requested its staff to _delete TikTok **from their private phones** if those phones are also used for work_. That is a relevant injunction because of the recent spread of the ["BYOD" policy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bring_your_own_device). For several years, EU Commission and EU Parliament staff had been encouraged to use their personal smartphones for work related purposes (including for 3-factor authentication). By requesting their staff to uninstall an application from their personal devices, weren't the EU institutions taking disproportionate measures encroaching on the private life of its employees? Especially since no solid evidence has been presented in support of the expressed fears of cyberespionnage. 

One could conclude that _"even not substantiated and potentially unfounded public security concerns trump respect for the private life"_ in the EU. But that would be a distraction. **All this would not have mattered if TikTok had been a European company** (or even an US one). 

Yet Europe has consistently refused to do what it takes in order to ensure that at least some of the most innovative applications not only emerge but also **stay in Europe** as they become bigger and bigger to the point of **becoming global platforms**. 

![](https://images.ecency.com/DQmZFHvBpY9pN7epJzHxVi2jY24Jz5koFjyMFrWTfpefGL3/guardian.jpg)
<sup>[source](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/mar/17/why-is-tiktok-banned-from-government-phones-and-should-rest-of-us-be-worried)</sup>

## Mathematics eats ideology for breakfast
International trade has much in common with a mathematical game of "[repeated prisoner dilemma](https://peakd.com/blockchain/@sorin.cristescu/game-theory-102-blockchain-and-cooperative-games)". It has been proven that whether "implementing protectionist measures" ("defecting" in prisoner's dilemma terms) or "trading freely" ("cooperating") is _the better strategy_, depends on how the other actor behaves. When both "players" (Europe and the US) "cooperate", the best aggregate result is achieved. Yet if one player (US) defects and "implements protectionist measures", he ends better off than if he had cooperated. The motivation for a player **not** to defect thus comes from the "threat of retaliation" - when the game is repeated, if the other player (Europe) plays **"tit for tat"** and "defects" too, then  the US loses more than if it had cooperated consistently.  

If on the other hand the second player (Europe) **refuses on principle** to retaliate and **continues to play "cooperate" (to trade freely)** despite the obvious "defection" of the US, then the latter has absolutely no incentive to "cooperate" and is best served by continuously playing "defect" (protectionism). This is precisely what we've seen with the brazenly protectionist "Inflation Reduction Act" and the muted response of the Biden administration to the feeble protests of the Europeans.


"Protectionist measures" in the classical sense leads to think of the classical commerce in goods. In the particular context of innovative tech platforms, the equivalent of "implementing protectionist measures" is "regulating later / more lightly / not at all"

The real lesson of the TikTok thus is much bigger: whether **responding to protectionist** (or deregulatory measures) **with similar measures** or **staying true to principled free trade** (or adding regulatory burdens) **is not a matter of political choice and principles**, but of **mathematics and hard-headed calculation**. 

"Wishing mathematics away" is not a responsible attitude when deciding for 400 million Europeans. Relying on ideology and principles, rather than on cold, hard maths is a loser's game.