T

houghts and prayers. After 
years of mass shootings and 
gun violence, all the country 
has to show for the bloodshed 
is a long stream of condolences. 
Following shootings in Parkland, 
Oxford, UVA and countless other 
locations, legislators nationwide 
have advocated for strong reform, 
only to repeatedly come up short. 
Support for legislation curtailing 
access to some types of firearms 
draws 
support 
from 
71% 
of 
Americans, yet the drastic measures 
proposed by activists on the left 
have caused a stalemate with right-
wing lawmakers, preventing any 
significant legislation from being 
passed.
In order to escape the endless 
cycle of carnage and inaction, 
it’s time for the left to reevaluate 
its 
policies 
and 
focus 
on measures that enjoy 
higher support from the 
American people. Rather 
than advocating for assault 
rifle bans and mandatory 
buyback 
programs, 
legislators should focus on 
measures like red flag laws, 
background 
checks 
and 
limits on the sale of high-
capacity magazines, which 
have bipartisan support and 
a far greater chance of being 
implemented. Though these 
reforms 
certainly 
won’t 
stop all violence, they’ll go a 
long way toward improving 
safety in our communities 
and breaking decades of deadlock 
on gun reform.
Since the Sandy Hook shootings 
a decade ago, numerous attempts 
to counter gun violence have come 
up short. The most successful of 
those measures, the Bipartisan 
Safer Communities Act, which 
was passed in 2022, makes positive 
change but leaves many issues 
unresolved. Though it supports 
funding for red flag laws, closes the 
“boyfriend loophole” and provides 
significant mental health funding, 
the bill fails to mandate red flag 
laws nationally and doesn’t close 
major background check loopholes 
regarding private gun sales and 

the unavailability of mental health 
histories. In order to improve the 
safety of cities nationwide, it’s 
paramount that we enact more 
measures on the statewide and 
national level that make strides 
toward rectifying a chaotic system 
of gun ownership. Our best hope 
to pass tangible legislation lies in 
tempered measures that correct 
flaws surrounding the current gun 
purchase procedures, rather than 
banning classes of weapons outright 
and uprooting a convoluted system 
that has been in place for decades.
One of the most actionable 
and popular propositions is the 
creation of a national red flag 
law. A whopping 48% of mass 
shooters inform others of their 
plan before their attacks, making 
many tragedies preventable. Red 
flag laws, which allow courts 
to 
authorize 
the 
temporary 
confiscation of deadly weapons 
from individuals who are a threat to 

themselves or others, are a key tool 
in foiling attackers. Though only 
19 states currently have such laws, 
they were used 626 times between 
2013 and 2020 to stop individuals 
deemed credible mass shooting 
threats. By implementing these 
laws nationwide and improving 
transparency 
to 
encourage 
individuals to report threats, we 
can build upon a pre-existing 
framework to prevent bad actors 
from carrying out their deadly 
plans.
Promisingly, Congress passed 
$750 million in red flag law funding 
in this year’s bipartisan gun reform 
bill, demonstrating a willingness to 

support such programs. Through 
enacting 
a 
nationwide 
law, 
lawmakers have the opportunity to 
standardize statewide procedures 
and provide the infrastructure 
necessary for all 50 states to save 
lives through the policy.
Another important step that 
leaders 
must 
take 
is 
closing 
loopholes in background checks. 
Currently, 
there 
are 
many 
egregious loopholes that prevent 
the background check system from 
functioning as desired. One of 
the most prominent ones is called 
the “Charleston loophole,” which 
allows individuals to purchase guns 
if their background checks aren’t 
completed within 72 hours. While 
only 1% of screens completed in that 
time frame are denied, an estimated 
5% are denied when that process is 
extended beyond three days. This 
discrepancy causes many checks 
to ignore critical information that 
can’t be obtained in time, leading 
many individuals’ criminal 
records and history of violence 
to be ignored.
Even more concerning, gun 
purchases administered by 
private sellers are often subject 
to no background checks 
at all. Known as the “gun 
show loophole,” unlicensed 
dealers selling online or at 
gun shows aren’t required to 
conduct background checks 
on their clients. With 22% of 
all gun purchasers undergoing 
no 
background 
checks, 
many people who would 
be flagged circumvent the 
requirement. This loophole 
only serves to benefit violent 
individuals who seek to obtain 
deadly weapons, so there is little 
justification for preserving it. With 
93% of Americans, including 89% of 
Republicans, supporting required 
background checks on all gun sales, 
closing this loophole would be 
widely popular and make a major 
impact.
Finally, 
legislators 
should 
consider limiting the sale of high-
capacity magazines, especially for 
those under 21 and with histories of 
mental struggles. 

With Michigan Democrats 
controlling both the 
Governor’s mansion and 
the Legislature for the first 
time since 1984, they have 
an opportunity to capitalize 
on limited Republican 
opposition and pass many 
critical measures.

Opinion
Wednesday, January 11, 2023 — 7
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com

I

f you’re like me (or not), 
you’ve probably used TikTok. 
The addictive social media 
app is appealing, especially to 
Gen Z. There are a variety of 
reasons why — content creation 
is easier and more accessible 
than ever before, videos cover all 
sorts of topics (from politics to 
nature to music to frogs) and it’s 
all user friendly. However, there 
is one fundamental reason that 
TikTok grasps our attention: the 
calculated algorithm that picks up 
on users’ interests.
The algorithm has powerful 
categorization techniques for the 
astronomical number of videos that 
get uploaded every day. By sorting 
various trends, creators, likes and 
comments, the algorithm can then 

look at how much time you spend 
watching certain kinds of videos. 
Then, it will simply feed you more 
and more of these videos. 
This results in some pros and 
cons.
The pros are that in America’s 
consumer-oriented culture, this 
app provides an infinite amount of 
fun (just keep scrolling!). It’s hard 
to get bored of TikTok — well, until 
you start to get a headache or you 
have to get up and interact with the 
real world. You can also find some 
niche corners of TikTok in which 
to interact with creators that are 
doing something relevant to your 
life. An instance of this is when, for 
the periods of time I was away from 
home and missed my cat, I indulged 
in cat TikTok — the small furballs 
kept me entertained for hours.
The cons are that the app is 
detrimental to our attention span 
and it can drive us into some 

dangerous rabbit holes. This creates 
echo chambers and polarization 
among the masses. In a sense, the 
more videos you see that reaffirm 
your beliefs, the more likely you 
are to perceive these videos as 
representative of reality (which is 
often not the case).
So, if an algorithm is so 
impactful, so fruitful, so targeted, 
should we be afraid of it?
Well, substantial claims from 
government officials have been 
made about TikTok’s threat to 
national security. Some claims go 
so far as to say that this Chinese 
company (and, subsequently, the 
Chinese government) can collect 
data from the American masses, 
posing a threat to American 
consumer 
privacy. 
This 
data 
includes (but is not limited to) what 
pages users spend more time on, 
browser tracking and history and 
ad preferences.

However, I don’t really think 
that the problem lies with security 
against potential foreign actors. 
We should expect that TikTok, 
like other tech giants, collects 
this information in an impersonal 
and algorithmic manner. Failing 
to rid us of this assumption, the 
U.S. government has been tight-
lipped when asked to back up its 
claims of a conspiracy. TikTok’s 
data is collected and distributed 
to private companies; the app then 
feeds its users these personalized 
ads based on the content they’ve 
shown interest in. For example, say 
you’ve been watching a lot of music 
beat-making TikTok videos. Soon 
enough, you might come across 
online courses that teach users how 
to use beat-making software.
In that way, TikTok and other 
major social media apps can 
derive a digital copy of you: what 
you like, what you dislike, who 

you follow, how you interact, etc. 
Thus, the user is reduced to a 
collection of profitable potential 
and subsequently sold as a product. 
Identities are blurred and fit into 
various compartments that are 
most convenient for advertising 
corporations. 
Moreover, in this new age of 
technology, surveillance is not 
really a means for the government 
to watch over its people. Unless 
there’s an investigation taking 
place, 
American 
government 
agencies can’t legally tap into 
people’s personal data. But that 
doesn’t mean users are in good 
hands with the private sector.
When surveillance is handed off 
from a (traditionally) governmental 
authority to a distributed web of 
corporations, the users’ data is 
commodified. In that sense, you 
can go on TikTok and bash the 
government all you’d like. You 

have a sort of “free speech” that’s 
maintained by the private company 
(which doesn’t necessarily ascribe 
to some larger political agenda). 
However, there’s a flip side to it. 
This data acquisition leads to a lost 
sense of digital privacy because 
you’re now a product.
TikTok’s data harvesting is not 
reminiscent of a centralized “Big 
Brother” overseer. It’s lines of code 
embedded in statistical models 
that slingshot your information to 
other algorithms owned by other 
companies. Because of that, the 
individual’s idiosyncrasy is lost 
and turned into data points fed 
into a larger machine. (It’s not like 
a human being ever personally 
handles your information and 
looks at it. However, computer or 
not, the data is still being collected 
and sold.).

AMMAR AHMAD
Opinion Columnist

No more thoughts and prayers: A 
bipartisan path to gun control

W

ith 
an 
increasingly 
competitive 
applicant 
pool for U.S. medical 
schools, accepting the call to 
become a physician requires a great 
deal of altruism, philanthropy and 
patient advocacy — at least on paper. 
An article from the Association 
of American Medical Colleges 
illustrates that in 2020, first-year 
medical students averaged 644 
hours of volunteering. Of those 644 
hours, students first encountered 
harsh medical disparities in clinical 
environments. Patients unable to 
afford medication, women denied 
abortions, diseases brought about 
by food insecurity, children dying of 
COVID-19 and predatory insurance 
companies are a few of the many 
injustices that leave a sour taste in 
the mouths of aspiring clinicians. 
Navigating the tangled web of 
healthcare 
inequity 
politicizes 
physicians. Combined with the 
increase in female physicians, 
student 
loan 
debt, 
a 
broken 
healthcare system and metropolitan 
clustering, 
the 
profession 
is 

beginning to turn incredibly blue. 
35% of physicians identify as 
Democrats and nearly two-thirds of 
physician campaign contributions 
go to Democratic candidates. 
Given the fact that physicians 
must 
interact 
with 
both 
the 
physical and socioeconomic sides of 
sickness, it is concerning that 27% of 
physicians identify as Republicans 
— a party ardently against crucial 
pieces of health provisions such 
as abortion, mask mandates and 
universal healthcare. What’s more, 
it comes as no surprise that political 
affiliation 
ultimately 
influences 
treatment given to patients. Yale 
researchers found that Republican 
physicians were more likely to 
discuss the negative effects of 
marijuana usage and abortions, 
while 
Democratic 
physicians 
were more concerned with the 
presence of a gun in the house when 
presented with identical patient 
vignettes.
In 
government, 
the 
same 
phenomenon persists. There are 
currently 10 Republican doctors 
in the House of Representatives 
and four Republican doctors in the 
Senate, as opposed to just three 
Democratic doctors in the two 

chambers combined. Dr. Mehmet 
Oz, a former cardiothoracic surgeon 
and host of “The Dr. Oz Show,” 
was one member of the cadre of 
conservative physicians running to 
join their ranks this past midterm 
election cycle. Oz has a lengthy track 
record of promoting pseudoscience, 
gun rights, the abolishment of the 
ACA and abortion bans. He was 
the Republican party’s perfect 
pawn to proliferate post-lockdown 
healthcare policy that only a 
medical degree holder like Oz could 
get away with legislating.
Had 
he 
won 
the 
2022 
Pennsylvania 
Senate 
race, 
Oz 
could’ve 
easily 
twisted 
bad 
proposals on the Senate floor 
with 
flowery 
medical 
jargon, 
patient stories and mention of his 
credentials — much like he had done 
on his TV show when promoting the 
“medicinal benefits” of astrology, 
raspberry ketones and umckaloabo 
root. While Oz’s ultimate loss to Lt. 
Gov. John Fetterman was a step in 
the right direction, the negative 
impact his campaign had on both 
physician credibility and reliability 
is unforgivable. 

NIKHIL SHARMA
Opinion Columnist

TikTok: What is surveillance today?

Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St. 
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

SHANNON STOCKING 
AND KATE WEILAND
Editor in Chiefs

QUIN ZAPOLI AND 
JULIAN BARNARD
Editorial Page Editors

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board. 
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

Ammar Ahmad

Julian Barnard

Brandon Cowit

Jess D’Agostino

Ben Davis

Shubhum Giroti

Devon Hesano

Sophia Lehrbaum

Olivia Mouradian

Siddharth Parmar

Rushabh Shah

Zhane Yamin

Nikhil Sharma

Lindsey Spencer

Evan Stern

Anna Trupiano

Jack Tumpowsky

Alex Yee

Quin Zapoli

JULIA VERKLAN 
MALONEY AND ZOE 
STORER 
Managing Editors

Conservative doctors make terrible 
politicians, but great pawns

NAMRATHA NELAPUDI
Opinion Columnist

VIEW THE FULL DEI 1.0 EVALUATION REPORT AT 
DIVERSITY.UMICH.EDU

#UMichDEI @UMichDiversity

DEI 1.0 
EVALUATION REPORT

Learn about the progress made and challenges discovered 
through U-M’s initial DEI Five-Year Strategic Plan, DEI 1.0, and 
how these lessons will help guide our next strategic plan, DEI 2.0.

Read more at MichiganDaily.com
Read more at MichiganDaily.com

Read more at MichiganDaily.com

