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