Search for Articles:
Journal:
Subject:
MOSP / Journal / Journal of International Economy and Global Governance

Journal Menu

Home
Aims & Scope
Editorial Board
For Authors
Ethics & Policies
APC & Subscription
Editorial Office

Journal Browser

Vol.2 (2025) Iss. 1 / 2
Vol.1 (2024) Iss. 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8

Table of Contents

Abstract
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
License
Open Access
Research Articles

Citizens’ Rights and Interests in the Context of Technological Competition: A Discourse Analysis of the TikTok Ban

Zhiqiang Zhao1, Jirong Guo2,*, Qian Zhang3

1 School of Foreign Studies, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, China
2 School of Foreign Studies, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, China
3 School of Foreign Studies, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, China
* Corresponding Authors: Zhiqiang Zhao, Email: zzq.xj.0807@stu.xjtu.edu.cn
 
J. Int. Eco. Glo. Gov., 2024, 1(4), 4-19; https://doi.org/10.12414/jiegg.240268
Received : 26 Jul 2024 / Revised : 31 Jul 2024 / Accepted : 31 Jul 2024 / Published : 25 Sep 2024
© The Author(s). Published by MOSP. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license.
Download
Cite
Abstract
 
This study employs a corpus-assisted framework analysis approach to examine how mainstream media in China and the United States adopted issues and frameworks related to citizens’ rights and national security when covering the TikTok ban. The research finds differences in the focus and frequency of framework usage between the two countries’ media. Chinese media paid more attention to the potential negative impact of the ban on citizens’ daily rights and interests, while U.S. media emphasized data security risks and impacts on national security. This reflects potential differences in the ideas and positions of the two countries’ media regarding national public interests and citizens’ rights and interests. The reasons for the differences may stem from contrasts in how the two countries’ media define their social responsibilities and reporting strategies. This reminds that different countries and regions need to take into account multiple stakeholders when promoting global internet governance and related policy making. The study calls for effective protection of technology users’ civil rights while pursuing national security.
 
Keywords: TikTok Ban, Technological Competition, Citizens’ Rights and Interests, Framework Analysis, Corpus
 
Download the full text PDF for viewing and using it according to the license of this paper.

Funding

    None.

Conflicts of Interest:

    The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to report regarding the present study.

References

  1. Nieborg, D. B., & Helmond, A. (2019). The political economy of Facebook’s platformization in the mobile ecosystem: Facebook Messenger as a platform instance. Media, Culture & Society, 41(2), 196–218.
  2. Hansler, J. D., Jennifer. (2020, July 7). The United States is “looking at” banning TikTok and other Chinese social media apps, Pompeo says | CNN Business. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/07/tech/us-tiktok-ban/index.html
  3. United Nations. (1949). Universal declaration of human rights (Vol. 3381). Department of State, United States of America.
  4. Jain, A. K., Sahoo, S. R., & Kaubiyal, J. (2021). Online social networks security and privacy: Comprehensive review and analysis. Complex & Intelligent Systems, 7(5), 2157–2177.
  5. Jiang, Y. (2012). Cyber-nationalism in China: Challenging Western media portrayals of internet censorship in China. Univ. of Adelaide Press.
  6. Yang, F., & Xu, J. (2018). Privacy concerns in China’s smart city campaign: The deficit of China’s Cybersecurity Law. Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies, 5(3), 533–543.
  7. Aminah, S. (2021). The public rights to the sidewalk in a smart city framework: The case study of Surabaya. Masyarakat, Kebudayaan Dan Politik, 34(2), Article 2.
  8. Hernandez-Ramos, J. L., Martinez, J. A., Savarino, V., Angelini, M., Napolitano, V., Skarmeta, A. F., & Baldini, G. (2021). Security and Privacy in Internet of Things-Enabled Smart Cities: Challenges and Future Directions. IEEE Security & Privacy, 19(1), 12–23.
  9. Van Twist, A., Ruijer, E., & Meijer, A. (2023). Smart cities & citizen discontent: A systematic review of the literature. Government Information Quarterly, 40(2), 101799.
  10. Jacobsen, K. L., & Sandvik, K. B. (2018). UNHCR and the pursuit of international protection: Accountability through technology? Third World Quarterly, 39(8), 1508–1524.
  11. Taylor, L. (2016). No place to hide? The ethics and analytics of tracking mobility using mobile phone data. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 34(2), 319–336.
  12. Knuth, R. (1999). Sovereignty, Globalism, and Information Flow in Complex Emergencies. The Information Society, 15(1), 11–19.
  13. Cozzens, S., & Thakur, D. (2014). Problem and concepts. In Innovation and Inequality (pp. 3–22). Edward Elgar Publishing.
  14. Land, M. K., & Aronson, J. D. (2020). Human Rights and Technology: New Challenges for Justice and Accountability. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 16(1), 223–240.
  15. Carmi, E., & Yates, S. (2023). Data Citizenship: Data Literacies to Challenge Power Imbalance Between Society and “Big Tech.” International Journal of Communication, 17, 3619–3637.
  16. Oyedemi, T. (2015). Internet access as citizen’s right? Citizenship in the digital age. Citizenship Studies, 19(3–4), 450–464.
  17. Custers, B. (2022). New digital rights: Imagining additional fundamental rights for the digital era. Computer Law & Security Review, 44, 105636.
  18. Lapsley, I., & Segato, F. (2019). Citizens, technology and the NPM movement. Public Money & Management, 39(8), 553–559.
  19. Yi, S., Rabnawaz, M., Jalal, W., & Zeb, A. (2023). The Nexus between Foreign Competition and Buying Innovation: Evidence from China’s High-Technology Industry. Sustainability, 15(15), 11756.
  20. Krolikowski, A., & Hall, T. H. (2023). Non-decision decisions in the Huawei 5G dilemma: Policy in Japan, the UK, and Germany. Japanese Journal of Political Science, 24(2), 171–189.
  21. Lee, S. (2024). U.S.-China Technology Competition and the Emergence of Techno-Economic Statecraft in East Asia: High Technology and Economic-Security Nexus. Journal of Chinese Political Science.
  22. Cartwright, M. (2020). Internationalising state power through the internet: Google, Huawei and geopolitical struggle. Internet Policy Review, 9(3).
  23. Kilcullen, D. (2020). The dragons and the snakes: How the rest learned to fight the West. Oxford University Press.
  24. Martin, A., Sharma, G., Peter de Souza, S., Taylor, L., van Eerd, B., McDonald, S. M., Marelli, M., Cheesman, M., Scheel, S., & Dijstelbloem, H. (2023). Digitisation and Sovereignty in Humanitarian Space: Technologies, Territories and Tensions. Geopolitics, 28(3), 1362–1397.
  25. Zuboff, S. (2020). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power (First trade paperback edition). Public Affairs.
  26. Wang, M., Kaltheuner, F., & Klasing, A. (2023). The future of technology: Lessons from China. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 79(3), 170–173.
  27. Allison, Graham, Kiersznowski, Nathalie, & Fitzek, Charlotte. (2022). The Great Economic Rivalry: China vs. The US. Harvard Kennedy School Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs paper.
  28. Singh, K., & Kalia, S. (2020, July 7). Pompeo says U.S. looking at banning Chinese social media apps, including TikTok. Reuters.
  29. Wahl-Jorgensen, K., & Hanitzsch, T. (2009). The Handbook of Journalism Studies. Taylor & Francis.
  30. Dallmayr, F. (2016). Dialogue Among Civilizations: Some Exemplary Voices. Palgrave Macmillan US.
  31. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press.
  32. Gross, K., & D’Ambrosio, L. (2004). Framing Emotional Response. Political Psychology, 25(1), 1–29.
  33. Weaver, D. H. (2007). Thoughts on agenda setting, framing, and priming. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 142–147.
  34. Entman, R. M. (2007). Framing bias: Media in the distribution of power. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 163–173.
  35. Bateson, G. (1972). A theory of play and fantasy. MIT Press. Boston, MA.
  36. Kinder, D. R., & Sanders, L. M. (1990). Mimicking Political Debate with Survey Questions: The Case of White Opinion on Affirmative Action for Blacks. Social Cognition, 8(1), 73–103.
  37. Semetko, H. A., & Valkenburg, P. M. V. (2000). Framing European politics: A Content Analysis of Press and Television News. Journal of Communication, 50(2), 93–109.
  38. Touri, M., & Koteyko, N. (2015). Using corpus linguistic software in the extraction of news frames: Towards a dynamic process of frame analysis in journalistic texts. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(6), 601–616.
  39. Liu, M., & Li, C. (2017). Competing discursive constructions of China’s smog in Chinese and Anglo-American English-language newspapers: A corpus-assisted discourse study. Discourse & Communication, 11(4), 386–403.
  40. Wang, G., & Ma, X. (2021). Were They Illegal Rioters or Pro-democracy Protestors? Examining the 2019–20 Hong Kong Protests in China Daily and The New York Times. Critical Arts, 35(2), 85–99.
  41. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.
  42. Van Gorp, B. (2010). Strategies to take subjectivity out of framing analysis. Doing News Framing Analysis: Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives, 84–109.
  43. Baker, P. (2023). Using corpora in discourse analysis (Second edition). Bloomsbury Academic.
  44. Schmidt, L., & de Kloet, J. (2017). Bricolage: Role of Media. In The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects (pp. 1–9). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
  45. Kay, S., Zhao, B., & Sui, D. (2015). Can Social Media Clear the Air? A Case Study of the Air Pollution Problem in Chinese Cities. The Professional Geographer, 67(3), 351–363.
  46. Patterson T. E. (2016). News Coverage of the 2016 General Election: How the Press Failed the Voters (SSRN Scholarly Paper 2884837).
© The Author(s). Published by MOSP. 
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license.

Zhao, Z.; Guo, J.; Zhang, Q. Citizens’ Rights and Interests in the Context of Technological Competition: A Discourse Analysis of the TikTok Ban. Journal of International Economy and Global Governance 2024, 1 (4), 4-19. https://doi.org/10.12414/jiegg.240268.

Subscribe Your Manuscript
Branches
HanLin Group
澳科中文官网
Book Center
Patent Center
Services
For Authors
Book Builder
Projects
Young Mind
Beyond Expo.
About us
MOSP Team
MOAJ Team
Blog & News
Partnership
Careers
Contact
© 2021-2023 Macao Scientific Publishers ( Macao, P.R. China )
www.mospbs.com