TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users after Trump comments - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42759336 - Jan 2025 (22 comments)
What I mean is: maybe it's not about protecting "their" humans (from what, exactly?), but protecting "their" corporations. Which is a very different goal.
But yes, countries who impose import restrictions often don't want others to impose them.
Restrictions that would be clearly invalid as applied to other forms of media were therefore allowed -- you need an FCC license to operate a radio station, but any proposal to require a federal license to operate a printing press, for example, would be extremely unconstitutional.
Once the licencing regime was in place for broadcast media, they were able to work other concerns into the criteria for issuing licenses. But the argument you seem to be making here -- that it's appropriate to regulate public communications in order to control, as an end in itself, who is allowed to have "influence" on public opinion -- flies in the face of the first amendment, and is entirely outside the legitimate role of the federal government.
The internet does not have the scarcity of communication channels that broadcast media does -- apps and websites are more like printing presses than radio stations.
I would say America has as much right to be upset at China blocking American websites within its borders, as China has to be upset at the US blocking Tiktok within its borders.
Or, would have. It's all a moot point now that the appeal to Trump's ego worked.
AFAIK nobody seriously believes that.
The goal of government entities in these types of spots is to have de facto control and/or influence without appearing to have it.
> AFAIK nobody seriously believes that.
Ummmm…
Who knows what could be on those chips.
Foreign Ownership Does Not Equate to a National Security Threat There is no publicly available evidence proving that TikTok has provided U.S. user data to a foreign government. TikTok has already implemented localization measures for data storage and operations (e.g., the "Texas Project"). In contrast, many U.S. tech companies (e.g., Facebook, Google) have faced scrutiny over data privacy issues but have not been restricted due to foreign ownership. Restricting TikTok solely based on "foreign ownership" lacks factual support.
Economic Impact: TikTok Is a Lifeline for Millions TikTok provides a critical source of income for over 5 million small businesses and 1.5 million creators in the U.S. According to 2023 data, TikTok contributed $24.2 billion to the U.S. economy and supported at least 300,000 jobs. Restricting TikTok would directly threaten the livelihoods of these individuals, causing significant harm to social stability and economic vitality.
A More Reasonable Solution Is Strengthening Regulation, Not an Outright Ban Rather than imposing a blanket restriction on TikTok, it would be more effective to strengthen data privacy protections through legislation, ensuring that all social media platforms (whether foreign or domestic) adhere to the same security standards. For example, TikTok could be required to further localize data storage and undergo independent audits. This approach would safeguard national security while avoiding unnecessary harm to users and creators.
I don't understand your point. Yes, TikTok and traditional media are different. But there are similarities. And you haven't pointed out any difference between them that would make a law restricting traditional media reasonable but a law restricting TikTok unreasonable.
>A More Reasonable Solution Is Strengthening Regulation, Not an Outright Ban
Why capitalize every letter of the sentence? This feels like it was generated by an LLM.
I very much doubt that 5 million people earn significant money from tik tok
This has been an open secret in national security circles but the average person on the street has no idea what a grey zone conflict is, what it looks like, or why it matters. Geopolitic strategies are increasingly executed as grey zone warfare, and some hybrid warfare, because the costs and risks of traditional overt warfare have become unacceptably high.
> Use of the term grey-zone is widespread in national security circles, but there is no universal agreement on the definition of grey-zone, or even whether it is a useful term, with views about the term ranging from "faddish" or "vague", to "useful" or "brilliant"
It goes on to say:
> Grey zone warfare generally means a middle, unclear space that exists between direct conflict and peace in international relations.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey-zone_(international_relat...
Also, I'm starting to feel like the vagueness of "are we at war or not?" is an intentional feature that gives people in power leverage to gaslight the public. That applies to both cold war and grey zone conflict.
The ADL head (Greenblatt) noted they had a major issue with young people seeing footage from the front lines negatively impacting perception of Israel, this is in a leaked voice memo from early 2024. Ban legislation followed within a month.
(1) https://x.com/wikileaks/status/1852851603365036222
The hell will sooner freeze that me as an European will believe US government is not weaponizing data of all US companies it can get it hands on, and well, it can get hands on all data. That's decade old story at best.
For an European, this is really funny, fight for who can control general population more. Don't get me wrong, I consider all social networks a brain and societal cancer, but to claim one is weaponized and the other is not, pinky promise... Snowden, NSA, secret courts and rulings that can't be even made public, recording basically whole internet traffic for further analysis including this comment (maybe apart from youtube traffic). Discussion who is doing worse is then just an academic one, lets make an Excel spreadsheet and compare numbers.
The problem has no easy solution.
At the end of the day, either users are really in control for what they can or they cannot talk about or it's censored one way or another and thus not free.
Information war is complex and if we don't allow our foes to express their povs then all we're left is our own manipulated media. If we do allow it we might face a spread of a different kind of information.
I wish this was all solved by allowing everybody to spread whatever information and educating citizens since young age about raising a lot of doubt about anything they hear/see in the news/socials.
But again this is also complicated on a social media level especially with those auto feeder algorithms that will either push you controversial content because it makes views or just because you stumbled on few videos on the topic so it's gonna push you even further in the hole.
In any case there's no simple solution.
The issue with China is that our own information and misinformation cannot reach them either.
We allowed Russian state media for long on our platforms because they allowed our on theirs too. Reddit or YouTube or X were never banned there. But again 90% of Russians get informed by tv, and the minority that doesn't gets it on VK or other Russian social media.
Is it freedom of speech if there is no freedom of hearing?
The notion that without tiktok you'll now get anything "true" is laughable.
If you control the "last mile" infrastructure, you have a pretty good idea what's going on. If you control the mobile network, you can track everyone, and flash their baseband processor if you like.
(see also: concerns about Huawei equipment in our internet infrastructure)
The documents that Snowden released confirmed that this kind of thing was going on. To be honest, I don't think that really surprised anyone in the security community.
We just don't want China to have the same power to monitor our citizens as we have ourselves.
Could you please give some source on that info?
a backdoor: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/replicant-developers-fin...
a patent for doing it in "civilian" applications: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2013114317A1/en
sure, the NSA will respect that
Look at the backlash against the US government trying to clamp down on Covid misinformation with a national emergency declaration [1]. There’s exactly zero reason to expect the CCP has an incentive to behave differently, especially when there’s effectively no way for companies to push back in China.
And no that doesn’t excuse the nonsense some US administrations get up to. Like undermining the effectiveness of the Chinese covid vaccine [2].
There is already evidence of pressure being applied to ByteDance by the CCP for data on Hong Kong citizens [3].
So it would be silly to think that: 1) data for different TikTok users is more or less difficult for the CCP to access based on their specific locations (technically or practically) And 2) the CCP has more respect for foreigners than Western governments do.
———
1 - https://hms.harvard.edu/news/whats-stake-us-supreme-court-ca...
2 - https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-covi...
3 - https://apnews.com/article/tiktok-china-bytedance-user-data-...
The Chinese government invested a lot for decades in R&D around population-scale behavioral manipulation, including running a lot of experiments on their own population. It was an impressive research effort; other countries invest in this too but the Chinese commitment to mastery of it was next level. Not an issue.
These capabilities and techniques can make populations wired into it dance like predictable puppets in aggregate but they don’t work that effectively over generic undifferentiated communication channels because humans are too chaotic. It requires tight real-time feedback, control, and instrumentation of the information channels with sufficient critical mass population-wise to matter. Those kinds of tight feedback and control loops under direct control of government systems for constructive manipulation aren’t really a thing at most social media companies. You can spam propaganda but that is qualitatively inferior.
Divestiture of TikTok removes the access and control the Chinese government needs to effect outcomes with TikTok beyond typical propaganda and influence operations.
Most countries desire this capability but the technical implementation and requirement of sufficiently tight control of the channel has been a formidable barrier. China outright banned any vehicle that had the potential to allow foreign governments to do the same in their own country.
All of this has been known and discussed in national security settings for decades. The difficulty of implementation in the real world made it mostly a hypothetical risk at any non-trivial scale until TikTok.
The most insidious aspect is that sophisticated operational analytics has made it such that the manipulation may seem completely unrelated to the desired population-scale effect, it is not propaganda in a conventional sense. Done well, the individual never perceives it but the aggregate effect reliably emerges. The extent to which humans can be analytically manipulated in very indirect ways at scale is both fascinating and scary.
(Many years ago I used to work on problems related to population-scale operational behavioral analysis. China was on the cutting edge of this research even back then. None of the experimental theory is new, but apparently the tech finally caught up.)
> This has been an open secret in national security circles but the average person on the street has no idea what a grey zone conflict is, what it looks like, or why it matters
Looks like you're just confirming what OP said
Might as well look up the definition of "5th column"
That's what growing conservative "anti globalist" movements backed by national security elements are really about. Not ultimately immigration or racism or tax cuts (that's how you get the tubes on board), but about how the inability to keep civilians out of information conflicts has made running countries incredibly difficult.
This is one area where China absolutely has the right approach and we need to wake up about what it means in the public rather than complain that we can't scroll silly waste of time videos all the time. The US public is incredibly uneducated about this concept and why it poses a threat, so the discussion needs to be had.
I think we should be far more critical of American internet companies as well and quite a few of them should probably be banned because they are creating the same sort of problem w.r.t how we can practically organize a functioning society. That's the unfortunate thing, is a bunch of libertarians in silicon valley a while back decided to invent a business model that could cause a global war.
AOC published a video talking about how she (and some other representatives) believed that the arguments that were presented to them were just as vague, nonspecific and theoretical as these online arguments I keep reading.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey-zone_(international_relat...
“Aggressively weaponized”: These conflicts rely on information as a primary weapon because it is more cost-effective and impactful than traditional warfare.
“National security circles”: This term commonly refers to the U.S. security establishment, including its agencies and defense systems.
Pro-Russian, right-wing candidate (Calin Georgescu) with zero funding becomes leading candidate overnight. Turns out there's coordinate campaigns to push him on social media channels, like TikTok, where tens of thousands of accounts were opened a couple of weeks prior to polls opening. All pushing Calin.
Deep down, the sorts of people who'd ban TikTok and overturn the Romanian election are those who believe they, not the people collectively, get to weigh the merit of ideas. They see democracy as a rubber stamp for elite consensus. If the rubber stamp malfunctions, it's time to fix it. This attitude is a betrayal of centuries of liberal values that made this country and the west generally what it is today.
i hate that nationalism is becoming another hyper-polarized topic - now we get people who are ridiculously jingoistic/anti-cosmopolitan and other people who reject fully the notion that a government’s first responsibility is to its own citizens. both are radical views that are no way to govern a well-functioning republic.
"Why wasn't I told this before?" Is a common sentiment in those videos.
The only study I've seen said that TikTok wasn't any more biased than other social medias.
anyone with half a statistics brain can see the problems in this analysis
It's not like those hashtags were even banned, so what's the point here?
It's also likely that demographics between the apps are different.
Calling it "Grey zone conflict" feels like the "Deep state" shenanigans... It's primarily marketing to achieve your goal.
We've seen the invasion of Iraq; that was all based on lies. We got ISIS as a result... "National security circles" look for evidence so it fits their narrative. Like watching FoxNews. It's a very narrowminded funnel of carefully picked pieces of evidence. They are not truth seekers that aim to provide a holistic view of the situation. No, they are scared aged men who love to control the narrative and see danger in everything in the hope to get more funding for their next projects.
Btw; banning TikTok is a good thing, but for other reasons entirely.
cold-war (not an obsolete term)
ambient non-linear conflict
cyberwar
business
Social media manipulation has already been effective.
Education?
"Manipulation Playbook: The 20 Indicators of Reality Control"
I’m sorry, but not everything on this world is Israel/Palestine.
That has been happening since time immemorial.
What is actually the issue is that for the first time ever in the post-WW2 Pax Americana era, media is being weaponized by a powerful non-American state (China).
America does through Facebook, Mysterious Twitter X, Reddit, CNN, Fox News, PBS, et al. what China does through TikTok. If anything, other countries should also seriously consider banning foreign media and realize insofar as future geopolitics that Pax Americana is ending.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_i...
TikTok serves to make everyone wear Chinese blue jeans and listen to Chinese pop music, and America does not like that.
Putting it another way: America can dish it out but they can't take it.
Also, seeing as you took "blue jeans" quite literally I am going to assume you never played Civilization. For being a child-oriented game filled with memes it's actually very insightful about human psychology, I recommend playing it.
America banned TikTok because it's not something America can control, that really is all there is to it. It's even stated right there in the law: Sell TikTok to America and they can do business.
Libgen domains are "seized", and tiktok "goes dark", but of course other countries "censor" porn or news outlets.
(I agree with you about authoritarianism in a political sense, but I'm trying to look at the informational "water" in which we're swimming in).
One could argue in the US that this was very useful to the new regime gaining popularity.
But still, not all blocks are born equal. That's a bit of beating around the bush to avoid going one level up in the abstraction of information controls. There's a thin line between content moderation at the platform level and mandatory hijacking of the DNS system via legal means.
If you squint, they are just a different configuration in the phase space of distributed technical systems, corporations operating in nation-states, and national laws.
In many European countries this still includes regulations for publishers - while social media are somehow excluded from these regulations (and that explains why society is in state that is now when lies are not confronted but amplified).
Is Reddit a great place? Eh. Is it critical to daily life in Indonesia? Of course not. But what I witnessed was censorship, full-stop.
I understand that the U.S. is not blocking TikTok at the DNS level. And that there are valid concerns over sharing user data and government influence over TikTok. But in my view, this is still censorship. Instead of allowing individuals decide whether or not to use TikTok, my government decided to ban it.
The whole argument over selling TikTok to a U.S.-based company is bullshit, imo. What kind of precedent is that? I use online services from all over the world, and in doing so decide to allow my usage to fall (to some extent) under the jurisdiction of that country.
(There are also a whole host of other service providers that might be put into the position of being censors if Tiktok were to ignore the law and continue working for sidedloaded apps).
This sounds like one of those irregular verb conjugations English is so full of: I ban; you go dark; he/she/it censors.
It's probably worth adding, though, that Libgen, TikTok, Porn and News Outlets would all be censored/banned/deliberately-excluded-from-culture-by-people-with-legitimate-power for different reasons.
I think TikTok and News Outlets would be the most closely aligned in this sense.
You say "banned", but that is not quite the same as "censored". Just try and search, you will see the US "bans" and China or Iran "censor". Perhaps one regime's "censorship" is experienced as "lawfully banned" from within the context of their legal and cultural system.
And no, I don't see why would I keep my edgy observations to myself. That would be self-censorship :)
> You do not seem to find any commonality between censoring different categories of websites or apps.
The fact that they're different is important. Pornography is really different from journalism. Aversion against public nudity and sexual acts is deeply ingrained in many cultures, if not all. It also doesn't serve any democratic goal. Freedom of porn isn't a human right.
1. Libgen domains are "seized" - only the domains got seized, the website is still operational.
2. tiktok "goes dark", yes because it was an action of tiktok to go dark with the hope that they will be operational next week. Nobody banned them and even Biden said he would not enforce it so they could have simply do nothing and wait for the next week.
3. "censor" porn or news outlets, I think thats common usage.
There is a passage in the book Life of Pi, where Pi's family is gathered and ready to leave India for Canada. And his mother does something out of the ordinary:
> The day before our departure she pointed at a cigarette wallah and earnestly asked, "Should we get a pack or two?"
> Father replied, "They have tobacco in Canada. And why do you want to buy cigarettes? We don't smoke."
> Yes, they have tobacco in Canada-but do they have Gold Flake cigarettes? Do they have Arun ice cream? Are the bicycles Heroes? Are the televisions Onidas? Are the cars Ambassadors? Are the bookshops Higginbothams'? Such, I suspect, were the questions that swirled in Mother's mind as she contemplated buying cigarettes.
Do I use TikTok? No, I've always advocated against it. Will I use it if it is reinstated? Probably not. But I downloaded it anyway the same way Mrs Gita Patel wanted to buy cigarettes. It wasn’t about need or use. It was about the loss.
I would stand behind a tiktok ban if it was for the right reasons. But this ban is only because it failed to conform to manufactured consent.
> Chinese mobile apps were stealing and surreptitiously transmitting users’ data.
> The compilation of such data, and its mining and profiling by elements hostile to India is a matter of very deep and immediate concern which requires emergency measures
[0] https://apnews.com/article/bd02ecd62ff9da6b1301868f0308e297
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Personal_Data_Protecti...
This, to me, is a weird stance. On what grounds did you advocate against it?
I just had to create a new account tonight after the ban[0] to keep using it. When you first start TikTok you might be presented with a wave of seemingly crap, bizarre or boring videos, but after several minutes of liking and watching the good stuff the algorithm very quickly starts serving you some excellent content.
There is some really, really great, really smart content on TikTok. I have always advocated for TikTok on those grounds.
[0] my accounts are all on USA servers and you can't log into them even through a VPN
It is incredibly addictive inducing drug like state:
> You’ll just be in this pleasurable dopamine state, carried away. It’s almost hypnotic, you’ll keep watching and watching. - Dr. Julie Albright
> You keep scrolling, she says, because sometimes you see something you like, and sometimes you don’t. And that differentiation — very similar to a slot machine in Vegas — is key.
I detest slot machines, so many lives wasted away, and I feel like we already spend too much time on computers to the detriment of both ourselves and society, let alone giving the CCP a hand to manipulate people on top of everything else
> my accounts are all on USA servers
Keep telling yourself that ;)
No idea how you could know this. I have never seen any concrete evidence that there are propaganda videos interlaced into people’s feeds. Everything I have heard is hypothetical. “China could” do this or that. If there were anything more than conjecture it would be huge news.
Casey Newton said on Hard Fork that he started a new account recently as an experiment and didn’t mention anything about China propaganda videos.
The app's design is to get you to mindlessly doomscroll and not really think too hard about what it's showing you. If it shows you something insane occasionally it's no big deal, it's just the algorithm trying something new right?
It's very difficult to show any concrete evidence for how a secretive algorithm controlled by an adversary behaves. In an ideal world the burden should be on the platforms to prove that their algorithms are fair and not biasing towards certain viewpoints, but that might never happen.
I opened a new account in Canada last night due to the ban. I saw a lot of Canadian memes, and a ton of wildly incomprehensible foreign material from every corner of the globe as the algo tried to figure me out. But none of it looked remotely political or ideological in any way.
If there is propaganda it is very covert. Compared with X where my feed is maybe 80% overt propaganda, including from the owner of the platform himself.
I did once see a cat that was named "Chairman Meow" in one video, which might have been very subtle CCP reprogramming now that I think on it.
Usually it is about behavior shifts and/or emotions. E.g. if I’d be watching videos with cute penguins and then seen a politician „adopting” penguins at zoo, that’d be a political propaganda.
Political ads have to be marked clearly but if politician is sympathetic to the platform and platform owner has a stake in keeping good relations then it’s just another penguins video, right?
And it’s omnipresent, so you stop paying attention. It’s not only China who is doing that. That’s why Paris Syndrome exists, car manufacturers don’t allow game makers to show their models in a destroyed form or why actresses don’t like to show their nostrils.
The problem with China (as far as I understand) is lack of the symmetry. They will sell you everything, but refuse to let your merchants in.
And I’d describe message shown to American users as a propaganda.
I have been using TikTok for months and I didn't see any propaganda at all. I only get content about my interests (3d printing, game dev, tech stuff). Sometimes it shows random stuff like animals and camping and funny videos or something but nothing like heavy politics at all.
I guess if I started engaging with "slightly political stuff" and started searching for it, it may be possible to get that kind of content, but yeah it's definitely not shown to me.
I expect that to stay unless I start to show intentions to the algorithm that I care about that kind of content.
The medium is the message. I treat YouTube shorts and reels the same way. I'm sure there is smart content, but I'd rather take the time to research a subject rather wait for it to be randomly fed to me in the most exaggerated manner.
It's owned by the Chinese government and I don't trust the Chinese government.
Are you saying that TikTok was banned because the company would not generate specific content? That's not at all how the app works, so maybe I am misunderstanding what your claim here is.
TikTok being a foreign entity was under no obligation to conform to the US government, well at least not until now. With the exception to illegal content.
Do you understand what kind of information can be derived from 150 million smart phones?
(For anyone out of the loop, see https://www.dw.com/en/elon-musk-backs-far-right-afd-in-contr...)
I think you're trying to describe Twitter and the other "conservative" media sources? These are for entertainment, but traditionally would advertise whoever paid them. Now the companies have been purchased or created to spread misinformation.
Too bad. Sucks that you got beat at your own game.
And in this case they are known to be exceptionally ruthless and part of Trump's administration.
Meta won't tinker with the algorithm to push propaganda. TikTok will.
TikTok had a huge negative impact on special interest groups that want to continue to allow the holocaust of our days to continue happening and the genocidal state to continue to behave with impunity.
The U.S. is already infiltrated by people working for foreign interests. The thing is, it's not infiltrated by China's or Russia's operatives.
Would you not expect the rules to be different?
If it's only about reciprocity and global hegemony, well then...
United States is classified as a flawed democracy. Partly because sweeping decisions like this one are made by Supreme Court Justices who nobody voted for and who hold their position for life.
Or maybe that's what you meant and you were being sarcastic with the quotation marks around "bastion of democracy"?
As in, due to their official stance, we should not expect reciprocity at all.
But you did pique my curiosity, where did you get that list of "full democracies"?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index
A number of democratic countries have residual symbolic figureheads.
In Canada the monarch is the judicial branch. Ministers are appointed and dismissed by the monarch. Parliament can be adjourned by the monarch.
When was they last time these things weren't rubber stamped?
What do you suppose would happen should the symbolic monarch not rubber stamp procedure?
Why is it that Canada, et al are regarded in the world as "full democracies" whereas the US is ramked a bit lower as a "flawed democracy"?
( See: peer comment with wikipedia link to democratic rankings )
You could say it is a bastion of liberty but I'm from Europe and women here have reasonable abortion and sexuality rights.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Inde...
I wouldn't refer to USA as very democratic or China as a center of human rights violation.
If there is no blanket ban, there would have to be many laws, rules, regulations and restrictions prohibiting the software from government buildings, etc.
In addition to the data points: contacts, location, audio, video, etc, malicious actors can learn a lot through deduction. That's before any sort of manipulation.
Historically speaking the biggest threat by far to the lives and livelihood of US citizens is the US government and corporate elite. Giving them more power to control what information the population can access is much more dangerous to the average American than giving the Chinese government some data.
The same guy who pushed for a ban massively last year, is going to save the app despite the security concerns he and most of our government said they had. If only we knew what happened in that classified briefing that made them vote together across party lines.
[1] https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxbusiness.com/foxbusiness.c...
Most likely, the rationale will be similar to Huawei and Kaspersky.
Not based on actual historical misbehaviour, but rather the amount of power you’re allowing their respective governments to have over US citizens / infrastructure.
There are very few “from first principals” thinkers in the world, especially amongst TikTok’s younger audience. Most people take their beliefs from others, in the same way a llm’s output reflects its training data. If China controls the recommendation system that decides what content people consume, then they can influence the narrative of the country.
China has long banned US social media for likely the same reason.
Kaspersky has been very credibly linked to Russian intelligence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaspersky_and_the_Russian_gove...
And Huawei has been very credibly linked to Chinese intelligence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Huawei
There is often an attempt to equate these behaviors with compliance with court-order subpoenas, but they are not the same.
Here, in response to a very public failure of our security apparatus, the US Congress passed a draconian law allowing the US government to do the kinds of bad things that Russia and China do routinely. When the public realized this, they made it clear that there is a limit to the power of the government, and that behavior was very quickly stopped. Forever.
The idea that there is a limit to the power of the government, and that the general public can enforce that limit, is what makes America different than China and Russia. That difference is foundational to our Constitution, and I think it is a very good thing.
My memory is hazy on the details and Wikipedia might be wrong, but (1) didn't the lawsuits against the perceived perpetrators (NSA, AT&T, etc) fail and (2) is it also not true, that not only was "Patriot Act" not quickly repealed, the sunset provisions were extended throughout the 2000s and 2010s?
1. You assume others play dirty by default, even though we never caught them red-handed. Not necessarily unreasonable, but see 2.
2. You assume we play fair even when we are caught red-handed. You rationalize it with "it only goes to show this was the exception and look what happened after". Spoiler alert, nothing happened after, neither the courts nor public opinion shit it down.
You have to admit these two are a little inconsistent to say the least.
1,105 deaths related to bicycles vs 357 airplane related deaths. Depending on the metric you choose you can argue that either one is more deadly.
So yes, people here would do that.
* Young people suffer the hardest from the housing crisis
* Young people suffer the most in any kind of job market challenges
* Young people have the least say in elections
* Young people now give up the app they use that actually makes them happy and helps to forget about how shit the world has become for them. Also an app that makes some of them real money.
Basically, the youth have no real legislation in their favour while their quality of life continues to degrade. I imagine that gets old.
This is a rant from someone who supports the tiktok ban.. but I'd extend it to all social media.
While this is true from the perspective of voting laws (you can vote after 18 but you don’t need to be 18 to see how f’d ip things are…), it’s also true that the age bracket 18-29 has the lowest participation in elections. I didn’t do the math but I would not be surprised if the last elections turned differently if this bracket increased to percentage levels seen amongst older ages.
https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/half-youth-voted-20...
Of course you can say it's a question of priorities and it's "their fault" for not being politically active, but I would argue the system is stacked against young people's political participation.
Also, most places in the US have minimum age limits for elected positions.
People who don't vote have no right to complain about the government.
Arguments like yours are used by lazy people to justify non-participation. You aren't helping them by making excuses for them.
If voting registration was automatic, and election day was a holiday, I’d expect the participation across age brackets to be much closer.
I agree that Election Day should be a holiday. There’s a slight issue with Federal Holidays being applying only to federal employees and not necessarily to independent businesses, which can choose to observe it or not… but it’s a start.
Also in Texas, the polls are open for early elections for like two weeks ahead of Election Day. I always take advantage of that. No wait, no hassle, in and out. Most states offer either that or mail-in voting.
Citation needed - social media seems to be very bad for young people's health, if anything.
One would need citation for either claim honestly, there's plenty studies around the idea that social media actually doesn't have as much of an impact on mental health as people seem to believe, as well as the other way around. If we get more specific, people who have or are prone to certain psychological conditions do get aggravated by social media, but the same way that's true, it could be for anything else would there not be social media. In the end, what the comment says holds true regardless of how it may affect their long-term mental health
This isn't about teen mental health.
They’re just saying they’re not convinced TikTok causes the overall happiness the GP comment claims.
I think it’s hard to argue that any social media has a net positive effect on mental health of any age, let alone the younger generations.
Anywho, main point is more about giving this already vulnerable demographic more tools to succeed. Especially if, from their perspective, all we keep doing is making their lives worse.
From a young one's perspective, it's natural they're going to take it as one more incursion into their lives, else Red Note, an app made for a largely Chinese audience by an unrelated company would not have seen so much uptake over the past few days.
Do you see my point? We're just taking random shit from them without giving anything back. Also, objectively, Meta's platform is just as bad for them as tiktok, so it's obvious to them that it's not being taken away because we actually care about their mental health lol.
I’m not sure I would elevate TikTok to that degree though - we have some serious issues especially for young men. Not sure that scrolling through TikTok videos is actually fixing any of that- it’s like saying “don’t take away the heroin, it’s the only thing that makes me feel happy”
Maybe if we're going to cancel tiktok or whatever, offer them some tax credits to cover the cost of registration for a coed sport or other such things that might enable them to be happier. Do more to help them get their first house and get their life going.
Just taking things from this demographic, without giving back, is a surefire way keep them disenfranchised. Even if we're taking something away that is objectively harmful to them (but still keeping instagram around lol).
Deck is stacked against them from birth. The entire system discourages from a young age what you're proposing. So if these kids feel so disenfranchised (and often filled with misinformation) from a young age, it's entirely unreasonable for us to expect them to "step up" in a vacuum.
You need better systems in place from the beginning to help someone become a better person.
Reality is the American dream is dead for most young people not born with a spoon up their ass. And that seems more and more by design. When you experience this reality your whole life, you carry a level of apathy that "get out and vote" is meaningless to hear.
Lives need to get better from a young age. People need to believe in the American dream again. But the policies set in place over the last 30 years are heavy.
1. Participate in the system 2. Violently overthrow the system 3. Do nothing
Sitting on the internet and whinging about how the deck is stacked against you is choosing option 3.
Fact of the matter is that a lot of people picked option 3 because of whatever reasons they had and now a bunch of oligarchs and criminals are running the joint now.
Voting is the least you can do if actually running for an elected position is not an option.
What do you propose as an actual alternative?
In past years, voters under 30 have proved essential on the margins, especially for Democrats, where even minimal shifts in support can decide an election.
It was a group that Vice President Harris had hoped would be part of her winning coalition this year. Instead, she underperformed, and President-elect Trump made gains.
Since 2008, winning Democratic candidates have received at least 60% support from young voters, but Harris did not meet that threshold, getting 54%, according to early exit polls.
[1] I mean when people cared about Iraq, 2003 to circa 2008. We still have troops there, but I don't think most of America is even aware of that.
What you actually mean is that there was little personal legal accountability for past actions, which I don't disagree with. The legal and political frameworks they operate under has changed quite a bit though.
Note that it was a shift for Trump, still not a majority voting for him. Exit polls that I've seen still indicated an 11-point lead for Harris[1], but that's much more narrow than the 24-point lead that Biden had in 2020[2]. Anyway, I've been fascinated by this because it kind of broke my mental model imagining that the Republican party would eventually be marginalized as its voters died of old age. I definitely thought Trump was going to lose this age group in 2024 by the widest margin ever.
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/exit-polls [2] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-elections/exit-polls
This also can explain bytedance's approach of support and reassurance towards the incoming administration. I bet they care more about their company and not having to choose between two loss scenarios than about politics/international relations, just like most of big corporations in the world.
Your home country at least has some incentive to work towards your interest. No matter how evil they are because they have to pay the consequences of these actions. Even in autocratic China, for example, anti-lockdown censorship during Covid in China eventually caused even more resentment against the CCP.
On the other hand, look at examples of Russian election interference in 2016 [1]. One of the posts is "Satan: If I win Clinton wins. Jesus: Not if I can help it. Press like to help Jesus win." The entire goal is to get Americans to distrust and hate each other. Nobody in America has anything to gain from posting this, but China and Russia have nothing but to gain from a more fractured America. We only found out about this because Facebook cooperated with American intelligence to find this foreign propaganda. At best, you can't expect the same cooperation from TikTok they are accountable to the CCP. At worst, TikTok would actively be working with China to disguise this propaganda as genuine content.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/us/politics/russia-2016-e...
It's the opposite: if they can block any alternative to the "hive mind" they can easily pursue any interest they like and make you believe that they align with your interests. And if you keep having doubts, they can easily label you as a dissident or a foreign agent, because no one will take your side, mostly for lack of tools and platforms to expose fabricated evidence.
It is definitely not the opposite. You have very recent cases where Russia has been caught financing US right-wing hate-speech "influencers" to spread extremist talking points fed by Russia's propaganda effort. Their purpose is to sow divisiveness and turn Americans on each other.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/10/01/russia-...
It was not the first time either. In 2016 Russia was caught actively trying to spark a race war in the US.
So what?
You also have the same kind of "influcence" from the US, on a total different level though, given the disproportion of available budgets between the two.
OTOH that wasn't my assumption, I simply said that single minded propaganda will harm free people more than those who are not free.
Russia or not Russia (it is honestly ridiculous to compare Russia to the USA at this point of history).
> In 2016 Russia was caught actively trying to spark a race war in the US.
And you don't know what the US has done exactly because they do not allow platforms to speak about it, the "fact checking" was simply state censorship disguised as "war on fake news".
No one can seriously believe that Russia can outsmart US intelligence or outmaneuver them, unless you don't really think that the US are collapsing and are no longer the more powerful country in the World, with the more powerful military, with the more powerful and pervasive intelligence.
Which is frankly not credible.
But there are still people out there that with a straight face will tell you that the US elections have been rigged by Russia (or at least they tried).
Which would put the US behind even some small country like Luxembourg or The Vatican.
If you can't or refuse to understand the danger of having totalitarian regimes destabilize your country, including calls for extreme violence against minorities, then no wonder you're trying to argue there is nothing wrong with having the likes of Russia and China screw you over.
I happen to be born in a country where the US have controlled every single elections for 50 years, at least.
I know what happens when you refuse to obey to them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGHXjO8wHsA
My "so what" should be read as: does this really sounds new to you? haven't you heard about stuff like "operation condor"?
it's called innocent until prove guilty for a reason, it's the system working as intended.
And the US have exploited it too and are still doing it.
As an example, read the transcript of Victoria Nuland conversation about the future of Ukraine during the time President was someone NATO disliked for not being anti Russian enough.
Nuland: OK. He's now gotten both Serry and [UN Secretary General] Ban Ki-moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday. So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and to have the UN help glue it and, you know, *Fuck the EU*.
Did Nuland pay for saying it? Of course not. On the contrary, she was awesomely compensated for her work.
Your example further reinforces my point that content matters less than who is saying this content. You quoted a phone call that was very likely to be have intercepted by Russian intelligence and quickly disseminated on Russian-owned media, yet you're freely posting this on an American website.
It is absolutely not!
It is surprising to me that people believe the USA are victims and not the greatest instigators of geopolitical unrest of the past 80 years (at least).
> You quoted a phone call that was very likely to be have intercepted by Russian intelligence
Nahhh
The Russian intelligence simply put it in the open, but who actually intercepted Nuland is unknown.
The point is we perfectly know that the USA are waging wars to also punish Europe, but it cannot be said, because platforms are all from the US and follow US directives.
That's why people also followed in love with tik tok, it was a breath of fresh air, finally few things that we all know are true (Nuland transcription just prove it) could finally be said (again: never used the platform, that's what people I know have said to me and I know a lot of regular people, white collars, regular jobs, kids and all the rest. They simply understand that American social networks and American propaganda have become so unbelievably false that it's baffling)
> yet you're freely posting this on an American website.
Am I?
Have you noticed my name is a generated random string?
Do you ever wonder why people like me do that?
That principle applies to laws, in order to minimize the chance of abuse when investigating criminal and civil charges.
This is not the same. This is about national security, and specifically enforcing national security policies. You do not need presumption of innocence to determine if you should embargo a country, expell a diplomat, and ban a suspicious supplier from your critical infrastructure.
Are you saying that US decision makers are the ones to blame here?
> and ban a suspicious supplier from your critical infrastructure.
I don't think China controls through tik tok what country the US should or should not embargo...
Similarly, all so called "far-right" parties that are supposedly financed by Russia in the EU ultimately are in favor of national interests.
Similarly, Ukrainian nationalists are in favor of Ukrainian interests.
If it came to a war between Russia and the EU, who would fight? Not the chicken hawks of the Green Party, but the "Deplorables" who vote "far-right".
The entire Russian influence narrative was concocted by the Neocons who had moved from the Bush era Republicans to the Democrat party. Now everyone realizes that perhaps China and Russia had financed culturally left organizations all along, which is entirely in line with the historic behavior of the Soviet Union. So everyone abandons ship now and pledges allegiance to Trump.
Regarding the division to the US population: That is in the interests of the established two parties, so no one looks too closely what is actually happening.
Post trump win people in elite circles started to realize and actually discuss (to my amazement) that maybe they should not have played all those games to derail Bernie Sanders. TikTok served as an interesting counterweight to the national narrative on many topics. What does not directly affect China negatively may also pose a threat to the US and that seemed to bubble to the top on TikTok from time to time.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/tiktok-goes-dark-us-users...
Is it because he his a collaborator of the CCP or because the accusation against China where just a ruse to move the attention away from the Dem losing the elections on their own incompetence? (I am in no way a Trump supporter, but honestly the Dems did everything in their power tho lose the elections)
This is obviously false.
Go check TikTok to see what shows up in searches for Tiananmen square or Uighur genocide, or even anyone of the many small catastrophes that go against the CCP's narrative.
You're claiming that consuming propaganda from a totalitarian regime that actively engages against your security, stability, and best interests is somehow better than consuming hypothetical propaganda from your own democratically elected government. Make it make sense.
Foreign propaganda is much less dangerous than domestic propaganda because domestic propaganda is more likely to relate to issues that actually matter to citizens.
It's not about what you care or don't care. It's about using China's social media service to discuss the very topics that China wants to censor. Again, go to TikTok or whatever alternative service provided by China and try to refer to the Tiananmen massacre or Uighur genocide. See what your paragons of free speech treat that.
Since TikTok became massive, US gov & agencies lost that oligopoly/monopoly and now China (or any other country for that matter) could define the narrative, form and destroy opinions.
Simple Porter's Five Forces model of analysis. People despised censorship (I will not debate whether this 'content moderation' and/or 'censorship' was good or bad). The "New Entrants" took over. And since it is clear that TikTok cannot be defeated in the foreseeable future, and it cannot be purchased, then it must die.
(q.e.d.)
"If China controls the recommendation system that decides what content people consume that, then they can influence the narrative of the country."
What makes Chinese propaganda so powerful, even in the form of silly 30 seconds dancing? Or perhaps the real problem is not this? But the existance of a single non western source of consent manufacturing?
It’s like saying you should allow someone to punch you because you “should” be able to punch yourself harder.
The US controls Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Tumblr, Youtube, Reddit, Snapchat, Whatsapp.
Owner of Twitter has office space in the white house, and is calling for the overthrow of elected European governments and deliberately spreading misinformation.
Then the US sees one non-american-owned social media network and decides it's got to be banned.
Perhaps those Europeans should consider whether they want foreigners influencing domestic audiences?
Not in the way that the CCP controls ByteDance. ByteDance cannot win a lawsuit against the Chinese government.
China, Russia and Iran are designated adversaries and will be treated as such.
And I think Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Tumblr, Youtube, Reddit, Snapchat, Whatsapp should be also be far more regulated.
Musk won't be in the White House for long.
The mistake here is seeing the US action as a universal moral statement and therefore hypocritical.
The US action was simply pragmatic. There is no claim of universality or morality.
I very much agree other countries should also look at US hegemony through a pragmatic lens: is this a net harm? It’s kind of funny that you raise it as a gotcha.
TikTok is as much about silly 30 seconds dancing as Twitter was about posting 144 character messages or a prime time news program is about 2 minute clips with a voiceover.
The way you fail to even frame the problem suggests you either are oblivious about the problem or you're doing your best to avoid discussing it.
wtf
How about as little propaganda as possible?
No, im not arguing this because US already uses more propaganda than China. I was asking why americans are so afraid that chinese propaganda will be so more powerful than the Inês that they already have.
To really be fair, we should lock our Internet from China for 30 years and let the Chinese people have the full wide un-CCP-censored Western consent Internet you’re talking about. We can start with old favorite topics like T-square, Winnie the Pooh, that COVID doctor the CCP suppressed and then martyred.
Then we can sit down and have a frank discussion on what the terms of Internet use should be.
Until then, China should be grateful their State enterprises were allowed in at all.
But to answer your question, US propaganda isn’t countering because it just doesn’t exist. We have a free press. It can criticize the government, and does it every single day. The U.S. doesn’t do military parades, and its self marketing sucks because it’s not an imperative, unlike China.
Furthermore, China clearly thinks propaganda and intense censorship is the way to go. What else can explain the efforts to A. Block Winnie the Pooh B. Block the sale of TikTok? Profit clearly isn’t the motive now, which is very suspicious of such a large ostensibly for profit company.
The fact that the consideration to sell it to Trump/Musk in particular is floating around points to the political value of TikTok in the first place. Bribe the incoming admin, extract some favor in return, I.E. back down on Taiwan or relieve semiconductor tariffs.
It’s all obvious.
But owning the platform makes influence far, far more efficient and that is why we should not allow our adversaries to do so.
Hysteria or ban McDonald's/Pepsi/Coke/Subway/etc?
If you desire a strong analogy, do Hollywood, YouTube, Netflix etc, which are banned by the other side citing similar reasons to TikTok, I am sure. But the other side is totally authoritarian and we aren't, right?
When I say narrow, I mean narrow. The toppling of the Guatemalan liberal democracy and subsequent replacement by a dictator was performed at the behest of a handful of people who wanted to and did retire to a sinecure at United Fruit, and without the full knowledge of the president.
Something about The government you elect is the government you deserve.?
The Elon thing is way more brazen, yes. I also think many people would rather have than instead of two dozen faceless lobbyists sitting behind superPACs, at least you can point to the guy when he pushes for policy. If it was the norm that companies were completely public about showing up to influence politics that might make a better world, really.
Not a fan of the whole thing mind you, but if it's going to go down, I'm not sure this is actually worse.
Sure, but this is quite a different scale. Apparently the net worth of Trumps (official) cabinet, so excluding Musk, is 7 billion. For comparison, the net worth of Biden's cabinet was 118 million dollar.
Source: https://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/amerikaanse-ambtenaren-...
(Sorry for the Dutch source, searching the numbers gives English sources as well.)
The Elon thing is way more brazen, yes. I also think many people would rather have than instead of two dozen faceless lobbyists sitting behind superPACs,
The super PACs will continue to exist as well. I am pretty sure this will give some of the PACs only more influence/power.
at least you can point to the guy when he pushes for policy
In the same way you can point to the guy when he tries to interrupts peaceful transition?
Which brings me back me to my original point, the majority of Americans voted for a crook (interrupting peaceful transition amongst other things) and oligarchs. We'll see where it ends.
Its widely known at this point that TikTok is a Chinese owned business and that the CCP has a history if forcibly influencing companies to do their bidding. If people still want to use TikTok I don't see what the real problem is.
You're talking about people who say Haitians are eating pets and having the CCP dictate what content you consume is preferable than not having the CCP dictate what content you consume. Make it make sense.
I don't want the CCP, or any government, dictating what I see. Thankfully they really can't. They can dictate what is online on various sites and apps, but they can't dictate what I consume. I've never used TikTok personally, the CCP hasn't dictated anything to me at least on that front because I can choose what I look at.
And yes, there is big difference between the US advertisement industry, which is at least in principle regulated by the US legal/government system and thus, US citizens, vs. the essentially unregulated propaganda-machine that is Tik Tok.
This is not to say that a ban is the only option here. But I am not convinced that other control options are effective, or less of a danger.
We're definitely in agreement here, there are other options and all have their pros and cons.
The major risk I see with the TikTok ban is that it wasn't actually a TikTok ban, it gave the president new powers to unilaterally ban services in certain situations.
As far as TikTok goes the ban may be more effective. At a minimum I wish the law was specific to them though, and I can't support it simply for the new executive powers created.
(Not saying one way or another about banning the app, but discussion should start from a realistic assessment)
It's the direct effect of political pressure.
You nicer you behave to the government, the more carrots you get.
What percentage of population understands that propaganda can be subtle? Sneak some ragebait here and there to make it look like situation is worse than it is, exaggerate, radicalize people...
A kid should be out exploring on their own, shooting squirrels, riding their bike to the next town, bailing hay for cash at the farm at the edge of town. I didn't become a staunch supporter of most American classical liberal principles because an app told me to, it's because it's how I lived when I grew up. If you shut me in or chained me to a parent all day, well maybe you grow up with whatever tiktok tells you since you see it as the only way to stretch your legs.
Our cities are run by cars, children are notoriously bad at sensing them. I'm sure there's things that could be done but nothing, nothing can give a kid in Brooklyn the opportunity to "bail hay at the farm on the edge of town".
The idea that people can just choose to resist a foreign propaganda machine is just as comical.
ByteDance not only blocked the sale of TikTok to a US company but also TikTok unilaterally decided to shut down operations in the US to strongarm the US government to prevent it's sale.
If the CCP actually had no control over TikTok and at most they only held a residual non-controlling position, then how do you explain the scorched earth strategy that is only aligned with the CCP's strategy and throws all other shareholders under the bus?
More importantly, the company based in China, and the engineers working on it's recommendation system are based in China, and both are subject to the laws of China.
From a national security perspective, it's controlled by the Chinese government.
There is quite a bit of naivete regarding how the Chinese government controls Chinese companies.
It is very different from the US.
I happen to know how China works, have you got some example to present?
> It is very different from the US.
Actually, not really.
Can Facebook keep alive their "fact checking" program, now that Trump is president and not Biden, whose administration ordered it, probably more against Trump himself, than any other adversary of the USA?
Are Vanguard and BlackRock free to invest in whatever company they want?
For example: why are Vanguard and BlackRock backing Unicredit to buy Commerzbank, one of the few European banks not owned or heavily funded by American funds?
China has a faux free capitalist society. Chinese companies are the way they are because the government lets them be that way, not because they have the right to be that way.
Why should a company take the CCP to court though?
They are in business together and have grown immensely in the past 30 years.
> There is no constitutional protection held on place by a group outside the ruling party
Where is that protection in the US though?
Call them parties, a faux bi-headed system instead of an honest one-headed one, and you get the same outcome.
> China has a faux free capitalist society
They never wanted US capitalism though, so it's business as intended.
> Chinese companies are the way they are
because the people of China like them like that.
Believe me, they do not want to be like you. The opposite is true in fact.
Someone's internet is monitored...
Yeah! and it's 99% the NSA on this side of the World.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-security-agency-spie...
Has someone brought the US to court for that?
And why not?
Apparently, only when it pleases them
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/01/12/mohammad-abe...
It also sounds like an argument for parents to step in - every child is different and a parent should be doing the parenting rather than Congress and the White House.
When it comes to children that is a different story, but the debate should be whether we enforce an age limit on social media. There is at least precedent (for better or worse) for an age limit on things we think children aren't ready or able to consume.
There are some controls like certain pornography, but if these exist they should apply uniformly, not based on whether we like the person publishing it.
I am not OK with that.
China is far, far more powerful than Zuck or Musk.
US billionaires are far more dangerous to US residents than China is, and this law gives them even more influence than they already had by removing the only significant competitor that was not owned by a US billionaire. If this law had impacted all social media equally, I would be a huge advocate. But as it is, it's just another handout to the US's richest and most influential people. It's a bad law, and will make life worse for the people who live in the US.
I would as well and it is unfortunate that we haven't/can't pass such a law. Hopefully someday we can.
I support the TikTok ban in the meantime.
Saying a foreign nation has the capability to brainwash your citizens into making a vote is propaganda by itself. It's not only cheap and imbecilic, it's a waste of everybody's time.
Yes, we should do this also.
Individuals are not equipped to recognized and counter the effects of highly sophisticated influence operations run by adversaries with enormous resources.
in a representative republic that would ideally be the elected representatives
In this example: who cares? But the problem is how implicit everything is.
Imagine that a major US ally (like Israel) were attacked by a globally recognized terrorist organization. Imagine if, for some reason, a high percentage of people on TikTok ended up being opposed to the US government's support of their ally. Imagine if there were protests across college campuses. And counter protests.
Would we know whether TikTok was behind the scenes, sowing discord? This is the kind of thing - weakening our alliances - that china would love to do. If china can reduce our willingness to defend our allies (think the Philippines in the south china sea, or Taiwan which.... there's explicitly a project 2027 in China to be ready to invade Taiwan)
Do we want the Chinese government to have the ability to do this?
Ben Thompson's 2020 piece about banning TikTok: https://stratechery.com/2020/the-tiktok-war/
Note it's not a plan to invade, just a plan to be ready: https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2024/05/07/how-dc-becam...
Where is the American voter being sidelined?
This is done in a number of ways. For example, because the media has a great influence on the voter, politicians seek to influence the media. Journalists who publish unfavorable information are denied valuable interviews, incentivizing them to stay close to the administration. Lobbyists with connections to major advertisers, which have a great influence on the media, are attended to with high priority.
Another method is to close off the voter's access to information that originates outside a politician's sphere of influence. This can be done by encouraging nationalist jingoism and a distrust of outside influence, by outright bans on foreign press, or in this case, by either banning or causing a transfer of ownership of a social media platform that had proven unhelpful to a past administration's intent for the media landscape. For TikTok, this was hosting middle east peace activism.
^ the description of campaign promises feels very 90s to me. We tend to have a lot of information about how our elected officials act. I think most of them believe more of what they're saying or advocating for (although the reasons why they believe those things are fairly widely varied)
Some people think Elizabeth Warren is pure evil incarnate, and I think she considers herself as a policy wonk who loves nuance and is trying to protect citizens from ruthless capitalist entities.
The same is more or less true on the other side (I'm not sure who the analog is exactly, but a republican Elizabeth Warren would imagine she is protecting companies and citizens from government overreach)
yes. If too many people started reading aljazeera should we ban that too? Do we want the US government to have the ability to do this?
Bad - quietly manipulating social media recommendations for millions of Americans ... - a chinese company launches a Netflix competitor in the US. They don't create content but they can choose which shows and movies are "recommended" - a Chinese TV show series becomes popular in the US. They know it's popular in the US and not China. It slowly and subtly starts injecting plot points that are pro-China ... OK - foreign news sources
As a rough heuristic, compare advertising on social media vs on traditional tv. Note: we've actually (intentionally) reduced the effectiveness of online advertising (you can no longer target as narrowly)
Imagine being able to make sure that a very specific person receives a very specific type of propaganda. These are power tools. It is not in the United States' interest to allow foreign adversaries (countries that specifically view the relationship as adversarial) to wield them
You can be cynical. You should say the power tools shouldn't exist. But given that they do exist and given that we have a very limited amount of agreement in the US, is it better to ban TikTok? Or not? We do not get to say "don't do it because there are better approaches." This is the approach we have. It's the first time in four years the political will had almost enabled something that was genuinely better for America.
It seems that [the executive branches of] both parties are happy throwing that away though
Sure, but most other countries haven't. Perhaps they should learn from these developments and start considering their options.
EU/NATO members can't outright block US social media for obvious reasons (military protection is not free). They try to do sneaky things to control social media with DSA, etc.
India/Indonesia and a few other countries are already debating banning foreign social media companies. India was the first to ban TikTok (for the same reason that US is banning TikTok now). US and India are not really rivals and US can retaliate against India if US companies are blocked so math is that it's not worth it to block for now but it can change in future.
Most other countries are not capable/do not have economy and critical number of people to have viable clone of social media. They block social media from time to time during elections, etc.
From Noah Smith:
> Second, the refusal to sell the app tells us that the Chinese government would rather see TikTok destroyed than see it fall into American hands. Notably, that same government put up little fuss back in 2020 when the U.S. forced a Chinese company to sell the gay dating app Grindr to an American company. Why shut down TikTok and leave untold billions of dollars on the table, instead of just selling the thing like Grindr was sold?
> One possibility is that it’s an attempt to make young Americans angry, in the hopes that they’ll demand that Trump and Congress repeal the 2024 law. But a simpler explanation is that Chinese leaders simply think that TikTok, unlike other apps, is so important that they would rather destroy it than see it escape their control.
> Why? Some supporters of the divestiture bill argue that TikTok will transfer Americans’ personal data to the Chinese government — something it has already admitted to doing in a few cases. Others are concerned with TikTok’s social harms. But the biggest concern is that by controlling the TikTok algorithm, the Chinese government might be able to propagandize America’s young people — and to silence Americans who say things it doesn’t like.
> In fact, there’s some pretty strong evidence that TikTok already does exactly this. Rutgers University’s Network Contagion Research Institute has produced a number of papers about TikTok’s manipulation of information to suit Chinese government desires. The standard methodology is to compare topics on TikTok to similar topics on Instagram and YouTube. The NCRI people find that content on the different platforms is broadly similar, except where China-related issues are concerned. […]
* https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/tiktok-is-just-the-beginning
American's would have the freedom to choose what social media they want to consume, now they are forced to only have one controlled by a US billionaire.
China doesn’t allow US social media companies to operate there—why should the US unilaterally allow Chinese social media companies to operate here with no reciprocity?
Continuing to play cooperate over and over when the other player keeps playing defect is not smart.
This statement is not entirely accurate. It is possible for a US social media company to operate in mainland China, provided it complies with local regulations, including hosting its servers in China and adhering to censorship requirements. For instance, LinkedIn operated in China until August 2023. However, it may ultimately prove unfeasible due to factors such as user preferences, the volume of censorship requests, or even perceived unfair competition. Since at least 2010, when Google faced demands for compliance with Chinese censorship regulations, the requirements for foreign companies to operate in China have been clearly outlined.
No comment on these policies, but it is undeniable that businesses operating in foreign markets must comply with local laws. However, by intervening in business activities, undermining corporate property rights, and contradicting its own stated principles of free market economics and international trade rules, the U.S. has demonstrated economic nationalism. I can't tell who is playing defect in this case.
Basically, there are 2 legislation in the world, legistlation and the China legislation. In China, there are laws on the surface and there are rules underneath. For example, the government never admitted that the GFW exists, yet it keeps blocking more and more sites. The government never bans online forums, yet it never grants license to open a online bbs, since like ten years ago.
During some political sensitive times, the government would send secret requirement to local companies like ByteDance and Tencent on how to censor the social media. Back when I worked at ByteDance, when the 19th Communist Party congress was open, the auditors would be in a war room, just for making sure that no negative news or comments would be released. American companies also work with the government on censorship, more or less, but that's another story.
It's very common for Chinese people who have been fooled by the government to say that, these western companys left by themselves. But it's not the laws that on the surface drives them away, it's the rules underneath.
My point is that China isn't selectively banning websites from a single country. I wouldn't criticize if US apply the reasons of banning TikTok to all foreign websites.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/26/politics/social-media-disinfo...
The US is taking more control over social media, more than the government ever had over traditional media. This is similar to how the switch to the digital medium has been used as an opportunity to weaken the fourth amendment.
Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Twitter#China
Read about Google's search engine project in China aka Project Dragonfly[0]; it was a totalitarian dystopian nightmare where CCP wanted to know everything about people who use Google, like their queries and mobile phone numbers and plus they demanded from Google that millions of websites/webpages must be censored (removed from Google's China index).
Project Dragonfly was like Stalin's manifestation of perfect surveillance and propaganda tool.
See the difference?
Americans have way more faith in America being the good guys than is warranted.
Is this a serious question? Google removes all sorts of content from its index.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google#:~:text=G....
Same thing, different beneficiaries in power
From experience I can tell you that also means handing over all encryption keys which is a violation of most companies compliance requirements. That means creating an entirely separate org for compliance in China with entirely different b2b and end-user contracts, terms, etc... I know of a few companies that get around this only because they are more totalitarian than China and have their own circuits bypassing the great firewall. Not naming them.
This sounds good on the surface, but China and the US have very different regimes. Full reciprocity would mean turning the US into a China style dictatorship. For instance, if China censors western press in their country should we be censoring Chinese press here?
We're supposed to be a democratic republic with safeguards for our rights, not a mercenary war machine that can be reprogrammed at will by a few people lucky enough to influence policymaking.
My biggest fear isnt China or Russia (like Im told it should be) but becoming like China and Russia. It's happening faster every day.
When the first and the fourth amendments are shredded then Putin and Xi Jinping get to say, with increasing truthfulness, "America is no better than us".
No citizen has comparable power to influence (and hide their tracks/sources) no matter how manically they post. It's rapidly becoming 'giant computer farms full of AI following scripts' and that still counts as 'speech', but rather than an individual's opinions it's targeted influence operations towards indirect goals.
It can be as close to 'crying fire in a crowded theater' as you like, except it's methods to coordinate teams of people all crying fire, knowing there's no fire, but intending to cause a mass casualty event through their actions.
Speech?
It does not.
The head of the FBI (among many others) said the ban needed to happen because China could use it to spew propaganda.
When Russia is heavily critical of what one of its media outlet says and then bans it because of tax irregularities or something, only Putin supporters are under any illusions as to why it happened.
And even if it did it isn't a suicide pact that forces the US to do very stupid things like let the CCP use TikTok to manipulate US citizens to the benefit of the CCP and detriment of the US.
Now the other problem is that Meta will sell much of the same data to anyone who is buying. We need to do something about surveillance capitalism from private industry too.
Foreign nationals have at least some First Amendment rights in the US. Foreign agents or countries may have restrictions on some other grounds.
<https://www.freedomforum.org/non-citizens-protected-first-am...>
<https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/aliens/>
TikTok tends toward foreign country / agent as I read it.
Usually this does not work out that well. Point in case - Central Europe after WWII.
Chinese astroturfing is a thing too, but in many cases it is legit naive people.
Yep. I call it "Chomskyism"
1.) It's pointless, TikTok is officially banned in US. Even if trump decides to find a US buyer for it, it will go under strict ownership investigation. So there's no way Chinese government has any influence anymore.
2.) This means that any future Chinese apps that get popular will get banned, and no need to go through any court challenges since there's precedent and law
3.) A lot of people already left TikTok and will not come back - why would they when they know the app could be gone at any minute? The traffic from the original TikTok will just keep getting split and syphoned, until the magnificent seven claims most of it
Edit: I think all it needs is a link from a friend to some TikTok content and they are back in.
Trying to argue about legality is unlikely to hold much sway given how other legal issues ended.
Because in the end it's always about money.
Well about power really, but money is the main means to get that.
Are you able to expand a bit?
Is it, now? He’s a corrupt convicted felon who brags about lying, which despite that was elected president. Do you think he gives a shit about anyone’s allegations? He’d sell your mother for a pack of peanuts. And why not? From his point of view he can do anything he wants and there will be no serious consequences.
I recently learned, thanks to another HN comment, that more than half of the USA population has a literacy level below the 6th grade. Suddenly it answered so many questions.
https://www.thenationalliteracyinstitute.com/post/literacy-s...
Kinda says it all.
People in polls repeatedly select stupid answer either due to confusion, trolling, bad poll design, not caring about what they select and so on.
See https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and... ("Lizardman’s Constant Is 4%")
> (a friend on Facebook pointed out that 5% of Obama voters claimed to believe that Obama was the Anti-Christ, which seems to be another piece of evidence in favor of a Lizardman’s Constant of 4-5%. On the other hand, I do enjoy picturing someone standing in a voting booth, thinking to themselves “Well, on the one hand, Obama is the Anti-Christ. On the other, do I really want four years of Romney?”)
What did they find? He was convicted for paying with his own money to pay a pornstar to hide an affair, in a case that CNN’s own head legal analyst said “contorted the law.” https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-was-convicted-...
At a certain point you gotta put up or shut up.
Where is what?
> 90% of lawyers are partisan democrats who have hated Trump from day 1 because he is a threat to the professional managerial class.
That is clearly a conspiratorial statistic taken out of nowhere.
> He was convicted for paying with his own money to pay a pornstar to hide an affair
He was convicted of falsifying business records with intent to defraud and conspiring to “promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means”.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-charges-conviction-guilty...
95% of law firm contributions in 2019 went to Biden: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/snubbing-trump-law.... This support wasn’t out of economic interest. The overwhelming majority of lawyers are ideologically captured and hate Trump at a visceral and irrational level for not subscribing to that ideology.
> He was convicted of falsifying business records with intent to defraud and conspiring to “promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means”.
Why quote the statute instead of the facts, which aren’t really in dispute? After he had already won the election, he reimbursed his lawyer for paying off a pornstar through his family business, and booked the reimbursements as “legal expenses” instead of “pornstar payoffs.”
Brilliant minds came over from top law firms to fit those facts into to a clever legal theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carey_R._Dunne. They figured it out, just like the figured out how to make Google’s profits magically all materialize in Ireland. But the underlying conduct remains a politician covering up an affair. That’s the best the legal industry could do after eight years of digging.
> It may be you who lacks the critical reasoning skills. Did you happen to think about the fact that 23% of the population is actually younger than age 12, meaning they wouldn’t even be in 6th grade yet?
This is incredibly ironic. It’s 54% of the adult population, which is abundantly clear by the provided link (in a bullet point, it’s hard to miss). It only takes a minimum of good faith and critical reasoning skills to:
1. Realise that of course the statistic will not include people younger than the level used as the threshold.
2. Click through and at least skim the link to steel man someone’s argument.
From the link.
They completely changed their post after the Tronno reply, which made the replies look out of context.
Their original post, quoted verbatim in my other comment¹, was:
> It may be you who lacks the critical reasoning skills. Did you happen to think about the fact that 23% of the population is actually younger than age 12, meaning they wouldn’t even be in 6th grade yet?
The waters get pretty muddy if we're willing to suggest that American presidents are "paid" by other nations to enact policy which benefits said nations, it's not unreasonable to ask for clarity about such claims.
What I think you’re describing is political favor, something entirely different from what was originally presented.
Exactly. Money is the decree – the concrete representation of debt. A recognizable token that can be given to someone that says "I owe you something", which can subsequently be exchanged back by the recipient to get the something of value that they are owed. Which you already know if you've ever used money before, and no doubt you have.
But, as it pertains to the topic at hand, in cases where there is no reason to delay delivery of the actual value, you can skip holding the debt. You could go through the motions of receiving money, and then giving it right back in exchange for the thing of value that you are owed, but there is no practical difference between that and cutting money out of the picture and simply accept the thing of value as payment.
> What I think you’re describing is political favor
Money might be a tool used in offering political favor, I suppose, but that is well beyond the content of my comment about the function of money. How did you manage to reach this conclusion?
I think it's fairly obvious, no? The originally presented case was that Trump had received payment for assuring TikTok's survival. I've noted a few times in this thread that this is a really poor framing, and that it's more likely his actions were motivated by politics, not fiduciary gain.
Do you think Trump's being paid by ByteDance to lift the ban?
Often this is accompanied by a public message of flattery or a donation to his "political" coffers.
An easy way is for TikTok to just promise to algorithm away any criticism of him in the US.
Politicians take political decisions, not logical ones.
There is never a need to be that direct. Republican and Democrat donors tell politicians what positions to take. Trump doesn't need to take money directly from a company. He takes it from his donors, who in turn take it from the company in some form.
In this case, the theory is that billionaire Jeff Yass (an investor in Tik Tok) has "persuaded" Trump to flip his position.
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/jeff-yass-billionaire...
My understanding now is that now we've shifted from "ByteDance pays Trump to flip" to "American businessman Jeff Yass meets with Trump and convinces him to flip"
I hope you can understand that as a non-American observer I see a lot of distance between those two claims and find myself confused when they're treated with equivalency.
Non-democratic places have more direct path for bribes but otherwise its same.
I think that local level corruption in my small town in Canada or in yours in Switzerland is pretty markedly different from what’s been originally presented, which is that DJT was paid directly by ByteDance to adjust his position.
I'd still love your clarification though - do you still stand by the claim that Trump is being paid to reneg on his position re. TikTok, as per https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42755872 ?
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
Edit: it looks like we've had to warn you about this kind of thing more than once before, e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26742673. However, the good news is that it seems to be rare in your otherwise very good commenting history (for which, thank you!) so it should be easy to avoid in the future.
Do you have some insults you’d like to sling?
To my knowledge, if I'm understanding rbanffy's position correctly, this would be the first time in history US president was directly being bribed by a foreign actor, so I still maintain it's worth seeking clarification.
Am I wrong in holding skepticism here? I don't doubt there are political points to be gained for Trump here, especially given the domestically controversial nature of the ban, but I'd really love for someone to hold true to the original notion under question that someone (ByteDance, CCP, etc.) is "paying the incoming president", as rbanffy suggseted.
As somebody coming from a third-world country, it’s a matter of fact that the people view politicians as a corrupt group. They think they are better than the people they represent, they are multiple times richer than the population and campaigns range from distorted truths to clear lies.
Proven or unproven, a claim that a given politician received bribes to influence something is not met with skepticism, but a mere “yeah, of course”!
Some say the US is a rich third-world country, or becoming one.
Why do we bother with the farce that elected representatives are better than us? They are looking for their own interests.
Certainly. The whole corruption setup is always done in such a way that there is never direct proof, only some more or less well hidden ones. So if you expect somebody here will post a recording of their bribe negotiations, that won't ever happen, Trump would directly order CIA to eliminate such person with extreme prejudice, and that's how it would have been done.
Look, he is crook, smart, properly fucked up man baby with issues that no psychologist could ever fix, but he is a crook at the core. These are facts. Enough evidence with few seconds of googling to condemn 10 such persons of highly amoral and sometimes also criminal behavior. And everybody knows it, even here. So folks understand how to deal with such currently most powerful person, so they do.
I don't get where your doubts come from. Facts are out there, you only need to connect few dots.
This is eerily similar to the Carter/Regan hostages situation
Yass has paid in tens of millions of dollars, he's going to call that in to get an unban.
I really don't know which way to bet on this though. The Trump presidency is going to be consistently unpredictable.
They know exactly what they are doing. That message is going to be effective and the person it’s targeted at doesn’t understand that it can be spun any way the CCP wants to spin it. How does he not see how risky letting a foreign government run something like TikTok in the US?
Since he was running as a Republican, why are they not also signing off on all this? Why is the completely Trump-friendly Supreme Court not signing off on all this?
If that's not foreign influence, I don't know what is.
This is the corporate version of "he quit before they could fire him".
And never mind that the majority of users on TikTok are far left woke democrats.
Why do you assume conspiracy instead of unilateral political maneuvering?
We have a TV problem, more specifically, lots of coffins on TV problem.
Circa 2003 America:
We have TV problem, a media problem, specifically coffins all over the media problem
Would you feel better if an anonymous user uploaded it to Reddit/Twitter/Tiktok?
Is there an example one could provide of this which shows members of the new generation criticizing Jewish people for being Jewish? Surely it wouldn’t be examples of people voicing criticism of the actions of people who happen to be Jewish.
I wasn’t even paying attention to the news one day and CNN was casually interviewing a Palestinian father holding a dead baby corpse in his hands, with the head covered in a blood soaked bag. On CNN, at 10am.
You don’t have to be particularly impressionable to be affected by this.
History is going to be unmerciful in its documenting of this, no one is going to forget the sin here.
https://www.newsweek.com/gen-z-infected-antisemitism-spreadi...
A state consistently using Jews to excuse its actions, behavior which is validated by US policymakers, it's just orders of magnitude worse than anything else, Israel has promoted antisemitism more in a year than every other group in the last 50 years put together.
10 years ago, no. Today? An audiofile is really easy to make with or even just a couple people in a studio.
That is, of course, unless it is true.
A denial wouldnt necessarily indicate that it is false (he has every reason to deny it, but lying is a risk) but the lack of a denial is very strong evidence that it is, in fact, true.
There is a very low cost to denying lies, so the absence of a denial (unlike its presence) is a very good indicator.
> There is a very low cost to denying lies.
So people can just lie.
See: Clinton and Lewinski, the Profumo affair, Russian troop buildup on the Ukraine border 2022, Russian attacks on Ukraine 2014+, claims by NSA execs prior to the Snowden leaks, etc.
A state-controlled newspaper in an autocratic county? It could be something they did verify as true and just happens to align with their agenda - or it could be nonsense and they know it. Or they couldn't just shrugged and said "makes the US look bad, run it."
I think most people don't appreciate the levels of internal review and fact-checking that go on when a national paper in the US ends up with a big story in its lap.
> The bigger scandal may be the reporting itself, the process that allowed it into print, and the life-altering impact the reporting had for thousands of Palestinians whose deaths were justified by the alleged systematic sexual violence orchestrated by Hamas the paper claimed to have exposed
https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schw...
Surely the NYT would verify, right?
And of course the WaPo has no conflicts of interest being owned by Bezos either
It might be the Iranians making stuff up, although realistically that sort of activity is what should be expected without any leaks at all. It has been obvious since around 2016 that the corporate media doesn't have the ability to single-handily dominate the narrative any more and that will impact national security propaganda because, you know, what military would be stupid enough to leave that sort of messaging to chance?
Oh yeah, like the verification of their stories of the oven babies
If anything, this whole ordeal has shown that all media is at some level censored and controlled by special interests behind the scenes
We’ve been living in a post-truth world for a long time, way before AI
My comment just points to the naïveté of thinking that somehow big media are big sources of unbiased truth that we can all trust
Why is it so important to you that the truth is suppressed?
E.g when Russia stopped denying the presence of North Korean troops, it was pretty much cast iron proof that Ukraine's recent videos of the prisoners were not fakes.
A denial wouldnt necessarily mean it wasn't true, but the lack of a denial is very strong evidence that it is.
You're naive and wrong.
That's extremely antisemitic given that Jewish groups have been some of the most public and vocal opponents of Israel's genocidal actions.
I already mentioned this in your other comment, but these Hasbara talking points come off like they're written by a corporate PR department and are getting stale.
Now estimate the age of the International Court of justice, the United Nations, and dozens of international aid organizations who have called Israel's actions as a genocide? lol or do you consider them to be Iranian proxies too?
It's like talking to a finite state machine that emits duckspeak
Congress can’t even agree on the federal govt budget, but they can almost unanimously agree to support war, and banning TT
The fact that they chose to shut down instead, strongly suggests, that they have interests in TikTok beyond financial.
I think it's more likely that they don't want the brand name dilution that comes from having a separate TikTok US that's probably going to be a shittier version of the original since it doesn't have the original algorithm (which isn't allowed to be exported) or the original TikTok engineers working on it.
Yes. At the time Larry & Sergey still ran the place and did have a somewhat idealist approach to running Google. When it turned out that it was impossible to bring an uncensored search engine to China, they shut it down.
Their Chinese variant of TikTok is called Douyin, so there wouldn't be any brand dilution from spinning TikTok off.
I also have doubts that the technology behind TikTok would be difficult for a western engineer to understand. It's a relatively straigtforward algorithm, and it's details have been shared in a public paper.
TikTok isn't available within China.
There's no risk of brand dilution.
Douyin is very much "available."
A financially motivated actor would have avoided the damage by spinning it out. They likely could have even kept a large minority share.
But actually, it is a standalone peice of legislation - the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.
No real anything presented to the American public, just handwaving and finger pointing
It just barely needs to make sense and it becomes the center of the conversation, derailing any meaningful or real discussion
Very effective propaganda
However, there’s been a lot of people not just signaling but openly announcing they are vying for the purchase. Like Kevin O’Leary, who said he’s offering $20b in cash to buy TT
“We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office. Please stay tuned!”
I wonder what happened behind the scenes. This gives me flashbacks of the signed stimulus checks
It seems to imply he’s not the only one who’s done something like that. In that case, I totally agree, political figures are masters of political posturing and taking credit
And that goes for any party and probably every country in the world
A media outlet not easy to censor is unacceptable to the Israeli lobby, and therefore unacceptable to our politicians.
[1] https://www.xiaohongshu.com/search_result?keyword=gay (requires log-in)
"Some wonder why there was such overwhelming support for us to shut down potentially TikTok or other entities of that nature. If you look at the postings on TikTok and the number of mentions of Palestinians, relative to other social media sites — it's overwhelmingly so among TikTok broadcasts."
I don’t imagine discussion of what’s happening to the Uyghurs is getting much traction in TikTok either.
Movement against TikTok started started with the Trump admin well before Oct 7, 2023 [1].
I think this is less Israel / Palestine and a better explanation lies elsewhere. Namely, that anti-China sentiment has been growing for a while now and Meta has plenty of money to burn (on the Metaverse, Lobbyists, etc.)
The actual law was passed after accounts of spying on Hong Kong citizens were made public [2].
———
1 — https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/ex...
2 — https://apnews.com/article/tiktok-china-bytedance-user-data-...
Only after the strong shift in sentiment by younger Americans on Israel's genocidal actions did the effort renew with vigor.
State run propaganda networks are actually a pretty good source of information; they are well resourced and have a vested interest in being perceived as high-credibility so they can tip the scale on a small number of issues critical to the state. And good propaganda is mostly done by omission and careful fact selection, although a lot of the bit-player dictatorships aren't competent enough to handle good propaganda.
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/palestinian-authority-...
The Palestinian Authority and Hamas are not exactly friends, they don't need much convincing to ban Al Jazeera.
Edit: to be honest, it is an honest question.
My guess is that the uniparty can’t afford a popular platform they don’t fully control and where there is significant dissent.
On Russia-Ukraine, the voices against US propaganda didn’t gain enough traction for them to worry about it. With Israel-Palestine, the opposition was for the first time reaching people who they previously never could.
This has been going on for years now. The Navy banned TikTok because of security concerns in 2019.
Then in 2020, the US announced it was considering banning them. ByteDance planned to divest by selling to an American company. The Chinese government disagreed.
TikTok sued and that took a while to go through the courts.
Then TikTok tried negotiating to avoid having to divest for a couple years by placing all private user data in the US, but later leaked recordings made it clear that Chinese employees still had access.
A law to ban TikTok on US government devices was then passed.
Then a law to ban TikTok unless they divest was drafted, but it took a couple years to pass and then that had to wind its way through the courts.
"If these two get into a fight, we can move on with our Taiwan agenda."
That's why Trump is pushing the EU to properly finance their defense, so the US can concentrate on Asia Pacific. He signalled this during his Notre Dame meeting with Macron, France being the only European NATO ally with a reliable army and interests in the region. To Trump, China is the new US rival, Russia is merely a bigger Iran with nukes and more advanced tech. I don't see him giving Tiktok a break.
And we know this type of thing works because we see it everyday with US internal propaganda. The last thing the US needs is an adversary with a direct line to the US populace controlling what they see. Also, I'm not even talking about misinformation, just pushing what stories are seen and not seen. Once you add in misinformation and bots it's pretty wild how easy it appears to control the population.
The point is not to push Americans towards Israel or Palestinians, the point is to push Americans apart from each other, so that each half of the political divide sees the other as supporting baby-murderers, as people you cannot be friends with, compromise with and shouldn't even try to talk to.
I am not exaggerating, each of these things I have seen being explicitly pushed.
If something can be done through the Israeli/Palestinian conflict which damages the US, you can be sure China is working on it.
There are dozens of contradictory narratives depending on who you ask, what makes your paticular narrative more compelling than the competing narratives?
The ban both could have started earlier and been pushed to completion based on more recent factors.
Lawmakers talked about propaganda potential relating to Palestine directly, multiple times.
https://theintercept.com/2025/01/09/tiktok-ban-israel-palest...
It’s a convenient narrative because it sounds like „the government“ or „they“ want to conceal the truth, and suppress the honest rebels. It’s a trope.
Again, it may well be that some parts of the government feel like the side effects are beneficial, and I’m not commenting on that. But spinning the story to say this was the whole purpose of the law is simply not the truth, and instead pushing a certain narrative.
Dismissing a frequently reported on factor that mentioned by officials requires a higher burden than vague commentary on narrative shaping. Trying to minimize it despite factual statements is its own narrative.
> But in the wake of Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel, conservatives have become hyper fixated on policing pro-Palestinian messages on the app, accusing TikTok of influencing young Americans to “support Hamas” and favoring pro-Palestinian content.
If you follow the link attached to "influencing young Americans", you'll find Palestine isn't mentioned once, but Hamas is.
Of course there's bias everywhere, and we should have by now ways to follows stories to their source automagically by now. But anyhow.
However at least one question is about whether the attacks on Israel...
Can be justified by the grievance of Palestinians
So while most questions force them to pick sides between Hamas and Israel with no option to say they support Palestinians they do get at least one chance to say whether they think the Palestinian people have legitimate grievances (though still only in context of supporting an attack).
And the Intercept article is very clear when they link that they think Palestinian and Hamas support are being intentionally conflated, just as you've tried to do again here.
Maybe the US should just create some privacy protections instead ?
That’s the opposite of fascist.
You have a risk of ending up with one or more people in congress who owns favors to the other branch of government. Or who are afraid of having a harder time defending their seat if they criticize the wrong person. And that people shrug this off as "well, that's how politics works" is really dangerous.
I'm sorry but your argument doesn't make much sense.
If money had such a large influences then why did a Presidential candidate who spent about half the other candidate win?
And then you claim the President will control the money, but the President doesn't control campaign funds. They don't even control government spending, Congress does.
> You have a risk of ending up with one or more people in congress who owns favors to the other branch of government. Or who are afraid of having a harder time defending their seat if they criticize the wrong person. And that people shrug this off as "well, that's how politics works" is really dangerous.
Ok, this makes more sense.
But the issue you raise isn't unique to the US system. It's not even unique to politics. Any human interaction can result in people "owning favors".
If you criticism is just human behavior, then I agree. But not much you can do to solve that.
Because there was more enthusiasm for the politics and/or they spent it better? But ask yourself if someone with even more support for policy but $0 could have won. And if not, why.
> Any human interaction can result in people "owning favors".
Economic favors we usually call "corruption".
When I look around the planet I find few places (among western liberal democracies) that have the same sickness with money in politics.
If you look at "democratic health" as e.g. "how many in a parliament were born to (very) rich parents", it feels like there is room for improvement.
The Enabling Act removed the power of the legislature. This is the exact opposite - the legislature still has power.
The President has always been able to veto laws. Biden could have vetoed the bill if he wanted.
And a Congress that passes a bill that says the President has a say in it's execution isn't odd either. The administrative body always has powers of execution.
And Congress is free to pass a law to reverse the law and make Tiktok legal if they want.
The parallels to Mussolini are not nonexistent.
If you mean section 2.1.a.2.a, it just allows the president to add additional apps to the ban list, not to lift TikTok, which is "hardcoded" into the law.
[0] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521...
No, but they can direct the federal government to deprioritize enforcement.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521...
But... But that would apply to Meta and Twitter as well Ö
> The Act exempts a foreign adversary controlled applica- tion from the prohibitions if the application undergoes a “qualified divestiture.” §2(c)(1). A “qualified divestiture” is one that the President determines will result in the appli- cation “no longer being controlled by a foreign adversary.” §2(g)(6)(A).
> The President must further determine that the divestiture “precludes the establishment or maintenance of any operational relationship between the United States operations of the [application] and any formerly affiliated entities that are controlled by a foreign adversary, including any cooperation with respect to the operation of a content recommendation algorithm or an agreement with respect to data sharing.”
The content recommendation algorithm is TikTok. It is developed in China by Chinese engineers. There is no lawful way for TikTok to operate under this law, and the SC has completely failed by not considering this. It's a really lazy judgement.
Probably the outcome Congress was hoping for is that it gets sold to a US buyer who would operate TikTok with the technology under license, and everyone would just pretend that now it's operated by a US interest despite that being impossible. Like sure, they would be running the servers, but the code would largely still be written in China!
Edit: Actually it would be kind of worse, because thinking about it TikTok has a lot of engineers outside China now, so how would it even work? Would they fork the code and then that would be it? It's such a crazy proposition.
When TikTok developed recommendations it was novel and on the frontier but now how it's done is much better understood and with GPUs availability can be implemented by any good ML team. Similar to Facebook, Instagram, Youtube and other, the secret sauce is content and users, not algorithm.
This feels like a fast track path to an oligarch system ? Pay enough and get your exception..
In 2028, who knows. The current president told his supporters that in four years, they won't need to vote anymore, whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean.
Also, in case you didn't notice, the world's richest man just about bought the presidential election by spending over a quarter billion dollars.
>So far, Yass has contributed $46 million to conservative causes and PACs, but nothing to Trump directly. If Trump wins Yass over, it could open the floodgates to a torrent of cash. (Mar 24, Vanity Fair)
>If you get rid of TikTok, Facebook and Zuckerschmuck will double their business. I don’t want Facebook, who cheated in the last Election, doing better. They are a true Enemy of the People!” Trump posted to Truth Social on March 7. It was a stunning policy reversal, in no small part because Trump had attempted an earlier TikTok ban himself.
>Susquehanna’s roughly 15% stake in the privately held ByteDance is worth some $40 billion (also mar 24)
So it seems quite plausible even if they haven't published details.
- -
"Sorry, TikTok isn't available right now.
"A law banning TikTok has been enacted in the U.S. Unfortunately, that means you can't use TikTok for now.
"We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office. Please stay tuned!"
- -
That last paragraph is 100% the language of authoritarian regimes.
"We are fortunate to have the Leader's personal attention!" — and he hasn't even taken office yet. Incredible.
It sounds like an authoritarian regime because it is one.
Public communications by corporations were like this in 1930s Germany and Italy, and more recently in 2020s Russia.
Trump is the kind of guy that likes to create a crisis, so that he can be the knight in shining armor that comes to save people from it. Whether it is a constructed one, or a real one, that's what he does.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/trump-says-it-could-be-wo...
> "I think we're going to have to start thinking because, you know, we did go on TikTok, and we had a great response with billions of views, billions and billions of views," Trump told the crowd at AmericaFest, an annual gathering organized by conservative group Turning Point. > > "They brought me a chart, and it was a record, and it was so beautiful to see, and as I looked at it, I said, 'Maybe we gotta keep this sucker around for a little while'," he said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/19/technology/trump-tiktok-b...
Sorry, TikTok isn't available right now
A law banning TikTok has been enacted in the U.S. Unfortunately, that means you can't use TikTok for now.
We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office. Please stay tuned!
In the meantime, you can still log in to download your data.
First, there was a generic message:
> We regret that a U.S. law banning TikTok will take effect on January 19 and force us to make our services temporarily unavailable.
> We're working to restore our service in the U.S. as soon as possible, and we appreciate your support. Please stay tuned.
Exactly an hour later, it changed to:
> A law banning TikTok has been enacted in the U.S. Unfortunately, that means you can't use TikTok for now.
> We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office. Please stay tuned!
Those with security concerns about TikTok will be frustrated, because the app will continue to operate.
Those with free speech concerns about the ban are also frustrated, because the law to ban TikTok was upheld (but might be ignored).
To top it all off, we will see an especially blatant disregard for law enforcement from the executive branch.
This seems to be the likely path, everyone loses and our system of government looks like a joke.
I’m asking companies not to let TikTok stay dark! I will issue an executive order on Monday to extend the period of time before the law’s prohibitions take effect, so that we can make a deal to protect our national security. The order will also confirm that there will be no liability for any company that helped keep TikTok from going dark before my order.
Americans deserve to see our exciting Inauguration on Monday, as well as other events and conversations.
I would like the United States to have a 50% ownership position in a joint venture. By doing this, we save TikTok, keep it in good hands and allow it to say up. Without U.S. approval, there is no Tik Tok. With our approval, it is worth hundreds of billions of dollars - maybe trillions.
Therefore, my initial thought is a joint venture between the current owners and/or new owners whereby the U.S. gets a 50% ownership in a joint venture set up between the U.S. and whichever purchase we so choose.
—-
Basically the same thing - I will extend (so I’m hero) but you need to sell.
It couldn't be because Jeffrey Yass has spent some dozens up to hundreds of millions US$ in GOP donations, could it? [1]
It really feels like the USA is circling the drain faster and faster these days...
[0] https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/ex...
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroeloffs/2024/03/18/billion...
Vs
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/iransource/iran-tiktok...
Mitch Hedberg:
My belt holds my pants up, but the belt loops hold my belt up. I don't really know what's happening down there. Who is the real hero?
Ha, is that uniparty vote supposed to be something meaningful? If the government had true concerns, they could 1) be aired to the public and 2) other senators like Thomas Massie and Rand Paul would not be speaking against the ban.
People can change their views and minds. It's only a problem when you lie and pretend you didn't. Pres Biden signed the law and could suspend it now if he wanted, but he chose not to do it as it'd be contradictory to his own signing. And of course soon-to-be President Trump will get the credit for reverting it. Nobody cares about the details beyond those invested into politik.
Have you ever gotten 36 people to agree to something, let alone 360? There's obviously more to this that we aren't aware of.
Chinese nationals are banned from even accessing TikTok within China in addition to the Chinese government not allowing America media apps to compete their market.
There isnt an argument in the world that this app isnt bad for US interests and the only reason this is emotional at all for people is that it took too long for the government to act.
While Trump has hinted at possible delay of ban, he has also made many statements that are unlikely to materialize. This is Trump for god sake - we all now what we are getting here.
In my opinion, he won’t delay the ban immediately. He’ll likely wait a few days to gauge ByteDance’s reaction. If the owners aren’t overly concerned about losing access to the U.S. market—given its strategic value beyond just financial aspects—then the ban might not be postponed.
Also, keep in mind that both Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg wield significant influence over how this situation unfolds. Additionally, platforms like Truth Social play a role in the broader landscape.
Moreover, there are classified briefings, intelligence reports, and strategic simulations—such as how TikTok’s algorithm could potentially be weaponized in the event of geopolitical conflict—that we simply don’t have access to.
The question is if people are still going to use tiktok when Trump bites the CCP bait.
I'm not a fan of the ban, mind you, but it's not like they were ordered to leave the country.
They voluntarily took it down, and now brought back up. If it remains gone from the app stores, I imagine they will eventually take it down again.
The text of the law is something you can look up yourself, we don't have to argue about it!
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521...
You are free to call Biden more principled but to me it looks like a shot in the foot.
I wish CPC could do the same thing to Telsa and Apple, or even to kidnap Tim Cook just like how they kidnapped Meng Wanzhou, gee, that would be thrilling
You're taking a decision to protect national interests that safeguards investor's interests, and here you are spinning it with "mafia" nonsense.
Pray tell, how do you address the problem of having a totalitarian regime manipulating and spying on your whole country? Do you try to shut down the operation? Or do you argue they should continue their psyops operations because otherwise it "sounds like the mafia"?
Acronyms are like variable names, we would do better to use the right one and then stick to it.
Glad you pointed out the details. CPC is the correct official name. If someone insists on using CCP, here's my speculation, it usually means they have been heavily influenced by anti-communist propaganda and narratives from the U.S. government, or they are deliberately using the incorrect name to be derogatory.
funny I just saw something similar in other thread:
> I will use the term Ruzzia and Ruzzians to identify the Zed regime and the Zed patriots, Ruzzian != Russian, Ruzzian = a Zed patriot, a imperialist Russian or Putin fanboy, proud to stick a Zed on his face,body or property
At least he's honest, I do appreciate that
Do you think there's a meaningful difference between the (official) "Communist Party of China" and the (colloquial) "Chinese Communist Party"?
It seems like if derogation was the goal, you could come up with something more effective than an equivalent translation.
There's a US federal agency called the CPC. Disambiguation could be a reasonable explanation.
it's used by the US officials by decades, and it's an old trick used by US intelligences to disturbe informations
like when you search 'CCP' and 'CPC', you'll get totally different results
'CCP' is not the colloquial name, it's the name Americans heard days and days from their government's propaganda
Let's just be honest with each other
I confess I use the name 'Amerika' to expresse certain meanings
In English, adjectives before the noun are the usual form.
Also keep in mind that the official name is not in English. And what is the standard process for nations to produce "official" foreign-language names for internal subgovernmental organizations, anyway?
Is there an official name in French, or Mandarin, for the Blue Dog Coalition?
This take is extremely disingenuous.
TikTok is a espionage and propaganda vector currently controlled by China's ruling regime. The only decision at this point is whether China continues to operate their propaganda and intelligence operation with free reign within the US. The only question at this point is whether Trump is in the pocket of the CCP.
TikTok's propaganda is clearly targeting Trump. I mean, ByteDance rejected a sale and instructed TikTok to unitalerally turn the lights off and post messages on how Trump was their savior. This is extremely transparent. There is nothing Biden could do to counter this.
What makes your take extremely disingenuous is the fact that you are arguing that Biden should fold to the CCP's pressure to continue their propaganda and intelligence campaign within the US, and you're trying to frame this somehow as keeping a major social not in the pocket of Trump. As if Trump is the issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stations_owned_or_oper...
https://deadline.com/2024/12/cable-news-ratings-2024-fox-new...
Pedantic, but that's not the same thing as the parent claim.
Consumers consuming more from one end does not mean that there isn't more of the other.
This was unnecessary and undermines your otherwise valid point.
Epstein friend Donald Trump is a rapist, felon, charity-stealing serial liar with a God complex. He is an undeniably stupid man who has a hilarious blindness to his own idiocy. His first term was one disaster after another. His second is likely to end the American Empire: If it doesn't lead to the dissolution of the Union, it will destroy America economically and geopolitically. The era of China's dominance begins tomorrow.
The majority of news media, including supposedly "Liberal" venues like the NYT, have been sane washing this corrupt trashman for the years. That he got the nomination and then won the election was entirely courtesy of a bought and paid for media. There is literally no low that is even really notable any more -- oh look, the felon conman launched a new shitcoin crypto to extract billions more from the presidency...eh, whatever -- yet any misstep by his opponents received nonstop coverage.
The US is toast. Short of a literal armed revolution or armies of Luigis, your country is done. It has been overthrown by the stupid who are being levered by the oligarchs.
And just to be clear, US politics has been astonishingly corrupt for decades. We all knew it. This is the end result. It's the Stage 4 cancer that is the end of the line for the US political system. It was an inevitable idiocracy.
Instead he signed it into law without question.
BTW, the RedNote userbase in China is 70% female, similar to Pinterest in the US. That may be why there's an affinity with a portion of the Tiktok userbase. The RedNote users are not into politics (at least were not). They cats, cooking, fashion, interior decorating, travel, sports.
The next day, they uploaded a new post saying they will quit the platform over the decision but was soon on the receiving end of homophobic comments, with some users accusing them of cultural imposition.
A Chinese user suggested that he try covering his nipples, as Chinese social media platforms generally impose restrictions on displaying them when it is perceived as sexually suggestive.
A few RedNote users also noted that posts about the Japanese anime My Hero Academia, which faced censorship in China since 2018 due to controversial references to Japan’s wartime history, have since been removed from the platform.
[0] https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/16/tech/tiktok-refugees-rednote-...
[0] https://www.xiaohongshu.com/search_result?keyword=gay (requires log-in)
I wonder why? Post about Taiwan or 89 or Winnie the Pooh and find out :)
Yes, Russian bot farms work hard on TikTok. Algorithms and bot farms have no right for "free speech".
Or is the US just too much of a moral actor to do this?
The content of the information war or different, but it's still a war, and the idea that the US would just cede all advantages to Russia because they're above using bots strikes me as faintly ridiculous.
Ridiculous is your idea that whatever Ruzzia does then USA also is doing.
Ruzzia kills journalist on Putin's birthday as presend or the deal leader then USA does it too to make their president happy
Ruzzia poisons political opponent, then arrests and kills them in prison, now they also arrested the lawyers then USA also does this (provide evidence for say just 3 poisonings and opponents killing assasinations of the USA president in the last 2- years please)
Oligarchs fall from window weekly in Ruzzia so it must be the same in USA, please provide evidence
Prigozin creates an army of cyber trolls, gets rewarded by Putin so it must be the same in USA, show me the USA version of Prigozin , a criminal /murdered nazi friend of the president that has a cyber army and a mercenary army.
Ruzzia puts weekly fake/falsified documents about Zelensky buying a new mansion or a new sports car, show me please faked documents posted weekly about Putin buying a new home/ sports car
Ruzzian groups are selling services of bot farms, they reocated after the invasion in Gerogria and Bulgaria and it is well known, so please show us the USA groups that sell bot farm services for social media.
Ruzzia downed 2 civilian airplanes and continues to not admit it, ask the Ruzzians and you will get 5 different version of the events, some ridiculous like "NATO airplanes were flying over the MH-17 to hide" , or "MH-17 was filled with corpses to make the good/kind Ruzzia look bad" , please show me how USA does this kind of idiotic mistakes and then they pretend it was the illuminati or some other bullshit.
Ruzzia sends their people in meat vawe attacks, show me in USA such low value for human live.
Riuzzia lies to their people and everyone knows it, like all drones intercepted but the debries started a fiew, or the Moscow was sunk because of bad weather or smoking accident, show USA is the same.
It is obvious for people that follow what happens in Ruzzia that the Zed regime is vary different, they want to kill their political opponents in a visible spectacular way, they lie to you and know that everyone knows it is a lie, they are a russian flavored fascist regime bettern named russcism.
But is a very typical Ruzzian stuff happening in response to my original comments
1 denial, "are the Ruzzians bots in the room with us" , trying to imply I am mad and there is no such thing as Ruzzian bot farms funded by Kremlin
2 Ruzzia has bot farm but what about USA
If UFOs are effective then USA has them too
US government has massively more oversight because of still somewhat functioning legislative and judicial systems. Also free press is still a thing (compared to Russia anyway..).
Ao any large scale program like this would inevitably be leaked and scrutinized (of course if they keep it somewhat low scale it will probably pass under the radar).
So effectively.. yes? It is?
"If germany had concentration camps and they were effective then surely US has much larger concentration camps"
Why do you assume that US must be worse than the worst in everything? US is not perfect but russia, iran, north korea etc are on another level.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-op...
The US government can barely make a comment telling people that they're not horses.
Does they also faked opinions about Isreal and Gaza?
It's horrible, how should we identify them?
This is well known but ou can contionue to pdo your job pretending it is not. Independent group also could prove this, it is easy, thousands of accounts that were created at the same time, then slept for years are activated at the same time and spread same content.
Ruzzia was very proud by the cyber troll army, did they start denying it now? And now do you belive their Mistier of Invasion ? I mean they are still reporting that they are always downing 100% of the drones but the debries sometimes hit the target, sometimes cigarrates or lighting cause fires... so please let's ignore everything those criminals say.
Do you pretend bot farms do not exist?
>It's horrible, how should we identify them?
Social Media can identify them if they want.
As a regular users in general you can spot a bot account if it is new or hybernated for years and just started posting. But the issue is with bots that vote, give lies this ones are used to boost content so the algorithm pushes that agenda in fron of real users. but having many bot accounts increase their evaluation so they are not putting effort into silencing them.
And I assume you mean woke* content not DEI.
Romney pretty much said it was Israel. They think that--but for tiktok--zoomers would be supporting the genocide in gaza.
My guess is that Trump will negotiate with China that tiktok sticks to the party line on Israel and then it's allowed back in. Possibly it will come with some kind of verification system for someone in the US to pre-vet narratives going forward. Fortunately China already has sophisticated systems for this pre-vetting which they are currently using on their own population.
What is freedom, anyway? Surely it can’t include allowing a foreign adversary access to a knob to twist on an important demographic of society. A foreign adversary who is actively compromising the network infrastructure of that society [1] but definitely wouldn’t touch infrastructure around an app owned by a Chinese company.
There’s no such thing as a free lunch. One person's portal to a better world is a state's vehicle to shaping it in the state's interests.
[1] https://apnews.com/article/united-states-china-hacking-espio...
To a degree... I'd say western sanctions targeting the population as a whole were at least as effective in supporting the autocracy.
the entire ethos of our country is antithetical to this notion of well-educated, affluent urbanites deciding what information diet is ‘correct’ for the dirty masses to consume.
It's a question of freedom for whom and freedom from what.
I understand that people spend a lot of time doomscrolling on it, but even with millions of daily users the optimistic side of me really wants to believe that it won't affect anyone's mental health in any measurable way.
Nothing specific to TikTok either. PUBG mobile was also banned here around the same time, and people just moved to Call of Duty mobile.
This is the first largely used anything online the government has banned, and I'm personally still upset it even got this far. The internet was supposed to be free speech incarnate, and banning apps and websites for Americans on it, isn't something I honestly thought I'd ever see
As they should be, because they stupidly made their lives dependent on a single platform that anyone with a brain could see was likely to run into trouble sooner rather than later.
The lesson for the is: don't put your eggs in one basket.
I listened to the final, farewell videos of several people. Some have leveraged TikTok on other platforms, but for a great many, TikTok was the only platform that let them reach an audience.
TikTok was eating the competition because it was simply better at matching content. It is a completely different beast in that regard.
Calling people stupid who leveraged an unrivaled technology to build a community and/or a business feels particularly anti-human.
I'm not calling them stupid for that, I'm calling them stupid because they didn't have a back up plan. Public policy should revolve around what they need or want (e.g. I'm sure some farmer somewhere could make a sob story video about how growing opium poppy has been so good for them, so heroin shouldn't be banned, but it's not about him).
It’s worth knowing I don’t go seeking new music on TikTok. Music that resonated with me was brought to me while looking for other things.
Topics which I found interesting lead me to books by new authors I didn’t know were authors on topics I didn’t know I wanted to read about. I’m not even much of an avid reader
A new year's resolution to go cold turkey and a chance to change a cure their own addictions.
It is not the end of the world. Just the end of someone's supply of a brand of digital drug.
And tell "go fuck yourself" to FB, Instagram, X ... etc.
There were vibrant communities, subcultures.
Real issues were aired there. Real people connected. From the early days of Covid it provided a window into a broader world.
While platforms dominate, instead of content dominating (see podcasts where this seems to be happening), you will always be a prisoner to what happens on the platform.
As one of those people, I definitely hope I can find somewhere else. It's essentially the only way I can play live anymore
If you are an "influencer" build a following on multiple platforms.
If you are a business owner engage in marketing on multiple platforms.
If you need a video to tell you how to bake cupcakes or clean a kettle, learn to use Google.
If you are bored, learn to read.
If Hacker News disappeared, people would be sad because it was a unique place. And others would say "just go on Reddit it's the same thing."
And those people would be mistaking functionality for community.
Yes, all things pass. But if you read what I said at the top, it's not that we should expect things to last forever. It's that people are flip about TikTok in part because they don't seem to have more than a surface level understanding of it — or a completely different idea of what it was than the people who really used it.
Luckily they're comprised of humans (mostly? Probably another discussion), and the ability to migrate is component to their nature; the good ones find greener pastures and adapt as necessary to define their next generation.
A lot of those people have actively tried to build communities on those other platforms, but those platforms algorithms actively work against the emergence of the types of groups we've seen on TikTok.
I agree whole heartedly, along with a horrendous dearth of empathy but unfortunately I find very common in Hacker News comments. Regardless of whether or not you feel that 170 million Americans all fell for Chinese propaganda, there is still a profound sense of loss.
For me personally, I've been writing and performing music on TikTok for about 3 years now and frequently found community and collaboration the likes of which I've not even come close to seeing anywhere else except maybe YouTube 10 or 15 years ago. Community they gave me the confidence to release music for the first time and folks who would actually listen to it.
I had a rather small following, but orders of magnitude of more than anywhere else IRL or on the internet
People say "you can just post on xyz" and yet none of those places surface these kinds of creators.
Many of the other sites are either pay-to-play at this point, or surface content that aligns with something they're looking to surface.
I truly feel a loss. I have changed aspects of my daily life for the better due to TikTok.
And I also watched too many cute animals and "don't talk to cops" videos.
Music accounts like Rare The Nanas who put me to sleep many nights with amazing VHS finds of obscure 90s music performances.
Tons of music theorists, weird quirky bands and musicians who built huge followings there, film makers, game devs, and on and on and on.
TikTok may have been too effective and addictive, but it undeniably worked. I started watching many niche and interesting content creators that the other platforms wouldn't recommend to me.
This sounds great at first. Now imagine you are not just into wood working, indie bands or travel logs, but instead slightly interested in right wing or islamist ideology. Within a short time you are flooded with political or religious propaganda. In Europe that has been a real problem. See for example https://www.derstandard.at/story/3000000231964/auf-tiktok-re... or https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/innenpolitik/tiktok-afd-100... (Sorry, German only.) The right-wing AfD politician Maximilian Krah became so "popular" on TikTok that the platform had to artificially limit his reach! (Kudos to them, but it shows the extent of the problem.)
To be clear, FB and YT have the same problem of creating filter bubbles, but the algorithm is less effective and therefore less dangerous (but still dangerous enough!)
What's so good about tiktok is that it keeps my interests thoroughly mixed. I'm bilingual and I see content from multiple countries about different interests and it keeps me in touch with all of them plus presenting topical and trending content. It also seamlessly measures my interest so if I naturally skip a couple of videos about a topic I'll see less and less until I see none.
That's true. I got pretty frustrated by YT's recommendation algorithm. The front page got pretty bad and repetitive. However, there's always some good stuff in the right column when you select "similar".
But you know what you can also do? Actively search for stuff! I wouldn't feel comfortable putting my media consumption behavior into the hands of some addictive algorithm. (HN is already bad enough :)
> It also seamlessly measures my interest so if I naturally skip a couple of videos about a topic I'll see less and less until I see none.
Sure, but while you are interested it keeps feeding you the same stuff, like YT on steroids. This is all fine when it comes to hobbies, music, travel logs, etc., but it gets dangerous with other content. People don't really think "I'm not really interested into this right wing or IS propaganda videos anymore, I'll give it a break".
Success on one platform doesn't always mean success on all.
How much money has MrBeast made outside of YouTube? (excluding Amazon)
Information is the gold of the 21st century. Whoever controls the flow of information has all the wealth and all the power. Therefore, data is the greatest currency in the world.
This outcome was never intended to happen, but ByteDance is taking a chance that the American government will relent. We’ll see in a few months who wins the stalemate.
TikTok has an immense amount of cultural power. The concentration of power scares me, no matter who holds it. But China ultimately having that power scares me more than an American company having it.
Again, this outcome was preventable, but ByteDance is hoping Americans let them continue with the status-quo. We didn’t and we shouldn’t.
Instead this says it’s fine to spy on and manipulate US citizens and concentrate media power, so long as you’re “American”.
When it is a foreign platform controlled by a foreign government, the US government can't do shit about it.
It boils down to national security. We live in an age where (dis)information campaigns have real consequences.
I generally view "data is the new oil" arguments as a sign that the journalist doesn't know what they are talking about, especially if they can't characterise what data they are referring to or why it is valuable.
More likely, this is about control of the recommendation algorithm, and therefore control of the narrative.
In the US, for the most part, the app must do both surveillance and coercion, which is why the kids prefer the Chinese app.
Oil isn’t useful in its raw form either. Do you think we’d be plagued by cookie banners on almost every single website if they didn’t think collecting data was crucial to their business? Not to mention AI, where the analogy is reinforced for obvious reasons.
So data being the new oil is not a terrible analogy. However, I have to agree with you that the reasoning and justification from journalists is often fluffy and completely off-mark. I’d cut them a bit of slack, they’ve been through a complete economic massacre and talent exodus precisely as a result of this new economy.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/why-people-think-us-effor...
Some lawmakers built momentum for the bill by holding hearings to introduce their colleagues to arguments against TikTok, Helberg said. He also co-hosted a hearing that focused in part on TikTok.
It was slow going until Oct. 7. The attack that day in Israel by Hamas and the ensuing conflict in Gaza became a turning point in the push against TikTok, Helberg said. People who historically hadn’t taken a position on TikTok became concerned with how Israel was portrayed in the videos and what they saw as an increase in antisemitic content posted to the app.
Anthony Goldbloom, a San Francisco-based data scientist and tech executive, started analyzing data TikTok published in its dashboard for ad buyers showing the number of times users watched videos with certain hashtags. He found far more views for videos with pro-Palestinian hashtags than those with pro-Israel hashtags. While the ratio fluctuated, he found that at times it ran 69 to 1 in favor of videos with pro-Palestinian hashtags."
linked in the article https://www.wsj.com/tech/how-tiktok-was-blindsided-by-a-u-s-...
Don’t mince words. Meta absolutely has issues with data collection but it’s comical to think they somehow China is better.
Who is more likely to give my data to my government to adverse affect?
Who is more likely to lobby my government to adverse affect?
At the end of the day you are the outgroup when it comes to the CCP and it'd be best to remember that.
[0] In the dictionary sense of the word: https://corp.oup.com/news/brain-rot-named-oxford-word-of-the...
Dude, the concern is that allowing TikTok is quite literally allowing the CCP to indirectly lobby. It's how this whole thing got started in earnest.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/07/business/tiktok-phone-cal...
The geopolitical utility of the app is to give the CCP more power to manipulate and hurt you. They want to get closer to the level of power that domestic US powers-that-be have. I'm blown away that this seems to lost on so many people commenting here
Your interests are probably not aligned with the CCP. The American public's certainly aren't. The Chinese government wants to achieve a hegemony and export their economy and culture by undermining the US wherever they can. We don't fit into that in a way that won't result in a markedly worse life for us.
TikTok would boost content about how Israelis making target practice out of Palestinian children is great and needs to happen more often if it made the US look bad. That you can't see that, or can't separate that instance from other possibilities, is exactly why TikTok is under scrutiny.
Using "CCP" shows your ideological bias.
The issue is ability to manipulate people. However, should not the NSA monitor how the algo is working, and be empowered to cut off TikTok if for example you start seeing a million videos saying "Taiwan, the eastern province of China". I am sure we will still have control, we just need to be smart enough to "tap" into what content is being fed.
The risk with TikTok is that it presents media entirely algorithmically, and that algorithm is controllable by the Chinese government and is opaque to everyone else.
British Petroleum (total settlement was 20b, but the Clean Water Act penalty was only 5.5b): https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-and-five-gulf-states-reach...
Wells Fargo: has had so many scandals, some of which were over 3b: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wells-fargo-agrees-pay-3-bill...
In the article you linked, it mentions that this fine was 2.75b, or, 4% of Alibaba's 2019 revenue. I'm not knowledgeable enough in finance to state this as fact, but it looks like BP had a total revenue of 222B in 2015 [1]. 5.5b/222b = 2.47%. The total settlement would be 20b/222b = 9.01%
Now, obviously there are many examples of companies being fined paltry amounts for massive violations in the US, and I'm not sure how to reconcile 5.5b for destroying an entire ocean ecosystem vs roughly the same fine for anti-trust violations. But I don't think it's true that the US never enforces its laws against large and valuable companies. Do you know of any good sources that compare the history of corporate fines in China vs the US in more detail?
[1] https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/c...
The true threat to our democracy is a foreign power. It's just not China.
They also profited heavily from picking favorites. Senator Cotton mysteriously increased his net wealth by 2 million in the past year.
This isn't a battle of moneyed interests vs. penniless altruists. There is plenty of money on TikTok's side here.
If you find yourself buying into a simplistic narrative about a single organization buying the exact law they want, you've been had. It's never that simple.
AIPAC wanted this.
They threaten congressmen who buck them with being primaried. They reward compliance with money. This is not behavior we see routinely from other special interests.
It has nothing to do with the AIPAC besides that they happened to support the "well duh" position on this.
I get that "it's the jews" is the preferred cope of people on TikTok who don't want to think about this too much, but it really has nothing to do with this. This all started years before the middle eastern omnicause du jour.
"Please share a source that the allied powers are going to invade the beaches of Normandy". You can't, because people are working incredibly hard to keep that secret.
It is perfectly reasonable to infer what might happen based on past actions by the specific powers, and on world history. Attempting to gain geopolitical influence through propaganda is nothing new.
In one case it was "we have specific evidence of something that should cause us to go to war".
In this case it is "we can infer that a hostile foreign power will use a straightforward conduit to push propaganda to our populace if we come into conflict".
It's defense, not offense.
Maybe I'm being naive because I don't use TikTok, but all the partisan misinformation I see is being spread by either Americans on American social networks or maybe Russian disinformation bots operating on American social networks.
Answer this: who has genocided 10s of millions? Who has crushed Tibet and threatens Taiwan?
CCP or Zuckerberg?
(Please don’t ask naively how US controls mass-media, no desire to follow up on that.)
Not substitution, and you somehow missed the fact that it's China's CCP, not ByteDance. It's China's CCP that acts through a de-facto shell corporation called ByteDance, the same CCP that stands behind the Uighur genocide, Tibet annexation, threat of invasion of Taiwan, etc. That's who you are defending as the desirable option.
https://www.fcc.gov/proceedings-actions/mergers-transactions...
https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/biden-admin-delays-enf...
https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/6/21168079/grindr-sold-chine...
Are you even aware of the context of the reasons why Tiktok went dark? Did they do it with no provocation? By accepting the US's arguments for the Tiktok ban we're just aligning ourselves with the same ideology of "the enemy" you're trying to malign.
The US has done plenty of that sort of thing in south America and the middle east, but it has always had the extra burden of maintaining a narrative under which it was not doing those things. If we let the US ban services that are contrary to its narratives, what's left to stop the US from behaving like China even more than it already does?
By that standard, Norway, Sweden and Denmark should be shunned for their slavery, raping, looting and imperialist colonizing abroad -- in the 10-11th centuries.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014067361...
Trying to mix and match is obviously just disingenuous here.
Just like one person getting vaccinated is useless, I want the country to be inoculated from insidious propaganda outside of democratic control and review.
And it is within my rights to point out the hypocrisy of those who cry freedom
https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/16/tech/tiktok-refugees-rednote-...
Both sides of the strait want the status quo in Taiwan for various reasons. Detent would be the correct approach instead of further military armament. It would be like if the Soviet Union continued to militarize Cuba from the Cuban missile crisis until the current day.
I'm more concerned about the genocide in Gaza than some CIA assets in Germany playing make-believe.
You probably know some that have enough non-China presence.
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/16/tech/tiktok-refugees-rednote-...
This … you are right in that West has issue … where you are wrong is that the issues are just as dangerous (if not A LOT more) than China. I quoted “US-owned” cause one of the biggest social media platforms that everyone considers “West” is owned by an African
If the capabilities of these services are so dangerous, we should have laws and rules to control the danger. Instead we’ve done some nationalist cowing to send a message, and we’re arm-twisting Zuck to adapt Facebook to the political expediency of the moment.
The issue has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. China's CCP spying and conducting psyops is not free speech, and forcing China to sell it's controlling position on TikTok has nothing to do with free speech.
That's, amusing enough, the propaganda that's being pushed onto you, which even forces you to criticize a policy that you failed to even be informed about it's rationale and main points. You're fooled into believing that eliminating one of China's attack vectors is somehow an attack on free speech.
Where does it stop? Should my company by eyeing a switch to Oracle services because SAP is German?
> offensive to the notion of free speech
And, something about New Law (vs Policy enforcement by administrator of agencies or political elected leadership positions), to prevent damage from speech .. via Facebook.
I wanted to fast-forward past this second question, as I think it's a red herring here -- Facebook Management and their operation in the USA is not legally beholden to the government of China. Tiktok is, so it's different. So I rejected the second question.
Then back to the first, the notion of free speech and taking offense. I recognize free speech is not total, as I understand my rights here in the USA. And I see corporations as existing Only by sanction of government. Therefore the authority still rests within the State to moderate corporate behavior.
Tah dah .. that's why I think it's the correct point.
What am I overlooking?
Then, the hypothetical (?) about Oracle and Germany, yes. If your company reasonably can expect to be seen to be working with a partner, that's offering services similar to Oracle, and which is legally obligated to the worldwide operation constraints of an enemy of the state of your company's incorporation (USA), like China, then yes.
I’m all for controlling propaganda. Where are the rules?
There's also a problem of food coming from Ukraine - initially Poland allowed Ukrainian trucks to enter Poland as a transit through EU, as the sea passage was blocked by russians. That passage is no longer blocked, however, and there were incidents where it was detected the food was actually bought and processed in Poland.
China controlling the flow of information is the same. The only difference is China is upfront about what information they are feeding everyone.
Perhaps. It might feel that way because we have multiple sources of propaganda and interests trying to sway us while places like China only have one. We have political party propaganda, government propaganda, corporate propaganda, special interest group propaganda, religious propaganda, grass roots propaganda, etc. China has government propaganda that encompasses all of that.
I also think the US apparatus' are just better at hiding which information is propaganda and which isn't; this makes it harder to spot. China has full control so it doesn't really matter if its propaganda is believable. Once you bring up a generation on it, the propaganda turns into reality.
So what is the tiktok ban really about? If it's about the lack of narrative control, we should see the same ban being applied to RedNote.
Probably part protectionism of our social media sites, part retribution for China banning our social media sites, part an attempt to control the narrative from at least a foreign competitor perspective.
An interesting thing that might happen is the influx of US users switching to RedNote will be difficult for the Chinese government to sensor. This could introduce some western culture and values into everyday people in China.
>we should see the same ban being applied to RedNote.
Good point. I'm not sure the government is equipped to handle this sort of thing without creating an agency with pretty broad powers. I would prefer that didn't happen.
You are very wrong.
I mean, I get that the "pledge of allegiance", "the Texas History curriculum", and the "POW/MIA" flags aren't "propaganda", they are just "completely normal things that any country does to maintain a cohesive citizenry".
Control of information is not a legitimate function of the state. The only real reason to ban TikTok or any other platform is establishing control over narratives, and the government must never in a free society put a thumb on the scale of ideas.
So what if the Chinese can boost this message or that message? Is our society so fragile it'll fall apart if people are exposed to the wrong ideas?
The TikTok ban is awful not because TikTok is great, but because it's the state arrogating power to control what's in people's minds. It was no right to do that!
This reductionism to "exposure to ideas" is absolutely absurd. TikTok and any other algorithmic feed isn't problematic because it exposes anyone to anything. They're problematic because those feeds can be used to actively shape behavior.
Shaping behavior is not very difficult if you have a lot of information about someone and control of what they see for hours a day. If shaping behavior didn't work no social media company would make the billions of dollars that they do. TikTok fads wouldn't exist if it was just a simple exposure to ideas.
TikTok in particular is worth targeting because of the way state security laws work in China. There's no legal issues with the state apparatus accessing company data. There's no judicial review. The state just has access to companies' back ends.
Since we know social media feeds can shape personal behavior and China can exert any control they want over Chinese companies, it's not a logical leap to realize a state hostile to interests of the North America and Europe having control over something people use for hours a day is a bad thing.
There's a whole cohort of the population for who TikTok is their primary source of "news". Their world view is shaped by what's presented to them. They're not "exposed to ideas" but targeted with specific narratives. Because all users have different targeting you may never see the same sort of feed as the person sitting next to you.
If you look at the arc of that very motivated thinking, and if you look at the work that the US government did to try and implement the kind of control you're describing here, I feel the only correct conclusion is that it's almost impossible to actually fabricate what folks think with any systematic success.
The best you can do is, maybe, "Coke is it", and even that is more of a product of peoples' material tastes and dislike of New Coke.
I don't think there actually is much evidence to support the idea that "social media feeds can shape personal behavior" in the granular and targeted way that you (and many folks) are implying here, in which someone's worldview is shaped for the short-term goals of XYZ actor.
I think you probably understand this, which is why you hedge into the abstract idea that social media is simple "shaping" via altering a statistical means.
I agree that it is possible to expose extant impulses as "legitimate" in ways that open folks to acting differently (I certainly wish I had understood how flexible gender expression could be when I was 14 instead of 40- I would have probably led a much different life). I think that kind of exposure to larger communities really does have an effect on people, because it certainly had an effect on people.
However, I find that to be very different than creating impulses that aren't there- I think that kind work requires, for instance, a system of bullies in school to beat folks when they don't conform to "accepted" gender roles.
But even if it were true that actors could create ideas, it begs an obvious question: how do you tell the difference between your "authentic" views and the "implanted" ideas of the media you consume?
I (personally) don't think that you (personally) have completely had your opinions actively shaped by some state actors.
I think a historical dialect merges our lived experiences with the communication we get from the folks around us: fundamentally we are drawing conclusions based on information from our surroundings in toto. Since it's very difficult to get people to ignore their lived experiences for very long, and the cost of doing that work requires the largest military and prison system in the 300k year long history of homo sapiens, I have a hard time believe that "media" can do that work very effectively. Doubly so in a world where there are multiple televisual streams and no one takes the NY Times seriously.
But if it were possible to easily, through media, manipulate whole populations, it really does beg that question stated above:
if "brainwashing" is possible, why haven't you assumed that you personally, have been the long-term target of those kinds of programs by the state which rules you?
> So what if the Chinese can boost this message or that message
Propaganda is effective. Let's not pretend it isn't. This isn't freedom of speech from an American citizen being censored. This is a militarized, industrial, foreign nation exerting influence over the people of its chief rival while it actively blocks American companies from doing the same within its borders.
Yes.
At the same time, we’re still not equipped to fully understand the complex and often hidden ways that information can influence people online. Some critics go as far as attributing mind-control capabilities to TikTok, yet everyone’s “For You” page is different—driven largely by a user-led algorithm rather than top-down editorial control.
So we've stripped back a genuine outlet for the masses. And now must accept prescription/participation for any similar digital experience or large-scale information sharing in our country.
But do you really know this? Just because your homepage is different from other people, doesn't mean there isn't a thumb on the scale.
Of course, Meta and the like also tweak their algorithms, in their case to maximize engagement and profit. Who knows what TikTok might be optimizing for?
I personally think we should regulate the shit out of all these things, especially the hyper-addictive short-form video brain rot, and especially for children.
They did however manage to ban one of the brain-rotting apps. Not even remotely a majority, but one.
I don't need one line of CCP propaganda to know the American government is a fucking joke.
That fact is relevant to the issue. This comment is the most “State Department talking points” comment you could make and the finger is put on the scales to elevate it.
That’s exactly what Google and Meta do with content via recommendation algorithms and comments.
And it’s what TikTok doesn’t do, which is the exact reason it was banned.
Oldheads will remember when comment karma was public. Its hidden now basically to hide just how manipulated comment rankings are.
It’s also true it’s never been a strict ranking by net votes either. Getting a lot of upvotes quickly will elevate a comment.
It’s also suspected that certain users will have their comments upranked or downranked based on their history as well as manual intervention.
Organic ranking still exists but there are many, many thumbs on the scale. Hiding comment karma just makes that less obvious.
I don’t normally engage in HN meta-commentary. In fact, it’s highly discouraged. It’s somewhat ironic that an obvious, egregious case of content manipulation here is directly relevant to the issue at hand: the TikTok ban.
I just felt compelled to state what I thought was missing from the conversation.
But your case gives us a window into that. 28 karma from 3 comments, none of them grey, puts a really low ceiling on the karma this comment has.
Again, nothing against you personally.
Why?
These liberties are built into the U.S. Constitution. And, while the U.S. government makes mistakes, this is the ideal we strive towards.
Btw, lots of nice stuff is in the Chinese constitution too. Doesn’t really matter if it’s not followed in practice.
EDIT: example critical post: https://www.instagram.com/p/DEYK037S2N-/
China has never in its history practiced imperialism. They don't have a burgeoning and entrenched oligarchy.
What good is democracy when popular initiatives never see the light of day? What good is it when political parties ignore court ruling and continue to hold elections on Gerry meandered maps? What good is it when people are continually enslaved by debt and taken advantage of?
I'm not arguing for China here but we have a handful of social media properties controlled by one man who can change the narrative on anything with the drop of a hat.
We don't even really promote the individual (liberal democracy) anymore. The rich and powerful leverage ignorance to hold power. It is disgusting.
And for the record, I still hold onto American exceptionalism as principal and believe America is the light of the world. This experiment has allowed many to ascend from poverty and make something of themselves despite what they were born into many, many times over.
A better read I think is just Trump paving the way for Musk and his supporters to monopolize control of data and attention. First step for a silent oligopoly of democracy.
Biden flat-out admitted he was not going to enforce the law once it passed, and Trump is pushing for a 90 day "Extension" because "finding a buyer" has proven more difficult than initially expected. this statement is intended to save face as bytedance has repeatedly refused to sell.
What we are watching now is US leaders in both houses of the oligarchy (democratic and republican) scramble to undo policy that was written by people who think the US still has the type of pull it had in the sixties. banning Tiktok in the USA would mean one of the largest social platforms of more than 150 nations combined would have zero US presence.
the US must constantly and vehemently evangelize western values and hegemony in order to protect and maintain the international neoliberal hegemony it has come to enjoy. Washington realizes they have effectively and accidentally cut themselves off from a system of propaganda they benefit from domestically (election rhetoric and stumping) as well as internationally (hearts and minds doctrine of diplomacy and soft power.)
Its bad to operate in a contested environment with china, but its worse to endure a denied environment where the only voices are not yours.
It also helped that Hungarian candidate when tiktok was used by Russia to push him...
It should be gone. I wish we would ditch FB too. And SEO. Kill all the algos and let me find stuff via regex.
> Kill all the algos and let me find stuff via regex
I love this. As someone who increasingly feels old and dissatisfied with what computing is turning into, I'm going to start using this along with things like "you'll have to pry local accounts, passwords, and plain text email from my cold, dead hands."
That's actually misinformation and narrative invented to support coup by Romanian security services/supreme court to cancel elections. No Russians were involved. TikTok campaign was financed by center-right party but backfired in unexpected ways.
https://www.politico.eu/article/investigation-ties-romanian-...
Whatever dude.
While I have you, could I ask you to please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html? Note these two of the guidelines:
"Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, bots, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data."
"Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."
It's in China's interest -- not a small population -- for tiktok to continue to influence American thought.
So I speculate we are witnessing HN being influenced by mis/disinfo.
Eg I see here many repeated "Free Speech" being a corporate mandate claims, and other easily discounted factually unsound claims, misleading the conversation.
Well for people not from US, China having that power is absolutely better. After all, unlike the US, China hadn't invaded another country or instigated coup for the past 40+ years.
Sometimes, we overcorrect or under-correct - or are slow to address things.
But we admit them. I think that counts for a lot.
I think it is unfair to point to military mistakes as undermining all of U.S. credibility.
We make mistakes and learn nothing from them.
US didn't invade Iraq and other countries "by mistake". Same with all the coups and regime change operations. If you think these many instances are mistake, well then I have a bridge to sell to you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
Because in the first half of last year, pro-Palestine discourse has been occupying heavy majority of my social media feeds (twitter, reddit, ig, etc.) without me even engaging with any of that content. Not even mentioning all the pro-Palestine protests outside that I got to witness myself. And I had a chance to witness plenty of anti-Trump protests (both irl and in the media of all kinds) during his first presidency as well. Open any social media, and you will see tons and tons of people talking plenty of very strong anti-Trump and anti-Biden rhetoric.
How well would any of that fly in China?
P.S. If pro-Palestine content was “suppressed in US public spaces and social media platforms,” they were doing a really poor job of it. My IG and twitter feeds were just filled with it, despite me hitting “not interested” on most of it. Meanwhile, TikTok algorithm was actually respecting my preferences, and my feed there was filled with stuff I actually cared to see (like 3d printing projects).
No need to invade when you can do neo-colonialism to take over Africa, social media to influence the vote of your primary rival, and forcing a puppet government in Hong Kong (i.e. a coup). Not to mention destroying coral reefs to build artificial islands for military outposts in other nations' waters and blatant sabre rattling against Taiwan and even maritime attacks on peaceful neighbors.
China is regularly swinging their fist within range to tweak noses and crying foul when they're called out on their aggressive behavior. The only reason a war hasn't started is because their victims haven't stood up to their nonsense yet.
I'm no expert on Hongkong, but I'm pretty sure it's nowhere as bad as a genocide where 50% of the victims are children funded and supplied by the US. So yes, China is better.
> Specifically, every one of us who worked in an emergency, intensive care, or surgical setting treated pre-teen children who were shot in the head or chest on a regular or even a daily basis. It is impossible that such widespread shooting of young children throughout Gaza, sustained over the course of an entire year is accidental or unknown to the highest Israeli civilian and military authorities.
Edit: Also reaffirming my position the parent commenter is a combative CCP apologizer using irrelevant comparisons, as all the sibling conversation clearly points out.
Edit: text of the bill: https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr7521/BILLS-118hr7521rfs..., which references a different part of the statute for the list of countries here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/4872
The court of appeals thought about it and decided it wasn't. Start on page 59 of their ruling [0].
They tried to appeal this to the supreme court, the supreme court declined to hear that part of the case. See bottom of page 34 on their petition for a writ of certiorari [1].
[0] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40...
[1] http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335257/20241...
Reading the appeals court case, it appears that they did agree with it being a bill of attainder but decided the national security implications overruled it?
Not how I would phrase it.
A bill of attainder is two things, it targets a specific person, and it punishes them.
They decide the bill definitely targets TikTok, which is possibly close enough to a "specific person", but it doesn't punish them. Thus it doesn't satisfy the second prong and they don't have to even finish deciding the first prong and left the "possibly" in there.
National security really comes in when trying to decide it was a punishment. It's not a traditional punishment, but one of the other ways they could decide it was a punishment would be if it didn't further any purposes but punishment, and in this case the purpose it happens to further was national security. As far as I can tell this analysis would be the exact same if congress passed the bill instead because they decided TikTok was harming schools ability to keep order. It just has to be any non-punitive purpose.
There's no dispute that this bill exists specifically to target TikTok, and that it will likely result in at least a temporary shut down, permanent if they choose not to divest.
Apparently there are a bunch of prior rulings on the meaning of "bill of attainder" though which say that that isn't within the typical meaning of punishment as used to define it. To quote just a bit of the courts recitation of previous cases
> See BellSouth I, 144 F.3d at 65 (explaining that although “structural separation is hardly costless, neither does it remotely approach the disabilities that have traditionally marked forbidden attainders”); see also Kaspersky Lab, Inc., 909 F.3d at 462–63 (comparing a law requiring the Government to remove from its systems a Russia-based company’s software to the business regulations in the BellSouth cases)
I'm not really knowledgeable about bills of attainder, but I think it might be useful to understand the distinction they're making to be one between "punishing" (the bill is, it hurts) and "punishment" (it's not because that's not the purpose, it's a side effect). There also appears to be a higher standard to qualify as punishing a corporate entity than an individual, which strikes me as a bit strange, but if I'm reading this right is settled law.
Perhaps because US government wanted to do it despite TikTok not breaking any serious provisions of law this law has been made.
It feels like a sleight of hand from government to ban something that has broke no (serious) law (yet).
Did the SCOTUS go into the necessity of having this law to achieve what government wanted, if existing laws would have sufficed, provided that government met the standards of evidence/proof that those laws demanded.
If not, it is as if government wanted a 'short-cut' to a TikTok ban and SCOTUS approved it, rather than asking government to go the long way to it.
What this line argued in the Supreme Court in the oral arguments or in the opinion or in the lower court?
Obviously TT could not have brought this up, but the court could have brought it up while examining the government.
Only the appeals court (and presumably the district court below them) heard arguments about it being a bill of attainder. The supreme court chose not to. With regards to being a bill of attainder the appeals court appears to be of the opinion that it is enough that it isn't a traditional punishment, and that the justification for it was something other than punishment, without analyzing whether the government had a legitimate interest in achieving their non-punishment purpose. Of course they had already found that they did have a legitimate interest because of the first amendment analysis, but I don't believe their opinion with regards to it not being a bill of attainder relied on that.
Was it established that existing provisions of law is not sufficient to deal with the issue(perhaps not so easily as by fiat as in the new law, but requiring stricter standards of trial and evidence), necessitating this new law?
For one, it targets a class of companies operating from a collection of countries, not an individual person (and SCOTUS has never ruled on corporate personhood for the purposes of being a bill of attainder).
Secondly, the law in question does not declare a corporation guilty of any crime, it just offers restrictions on foreign control of certain businesses.
Third, the law targets non-American holdings, making it less likely that it could be considered a bill of attainder, since laws directly targeting foreign countries and agents thereof have been accepted in American law.
No. That is even more manipulative way to put it. No one was "loosing fundamental rights", that part is a lie. What ruling did was to make corruption legal, if you create a corporation by virtue of corporate personhood.
The actual case of Citizens United had exceptionally bad facts for the camp that thinks it's a bad ruling. The DNC should never have pushed it as far as they did, because it came right back at them like a ton of bricks.
In contrast, bringing it back to this case, communication over the internet involves many different business agreements to get internet service, rent computing, etc. Those relationships are within the US's power to regulate and legislate, especially when they cross its borders.
If there is one steel monopoly and you ban being a monopoly then we can apply the same logic you have there.
To be completely fair, the “illegal part” of being a monopoly is not generally in the existence of the monopoly itself, but in the monopolistic actions the company may take. However, those actions may be a fundamental part of the function of the company, and I’d argue that country of ownership is another property that should be eligible for restriction.
Second, and _far_ more importantly, it is not clear to me that it’s unconstitutional to make a law that a foreign company can’t operate a certain type of business in America.
Restrictions are fine, but they need to apply broadly -- this law was specifically targeted at a single US entity, owned by a foreign entity. To me, who has only coarsely read up on this due to his account being cut off because I originally signed up with a US phone number when I lived in the US; it seems as though a bunch of rich people got mad that someone else in another country was getting rich.
Keep in mind that I am just now even caring about this situation, so I'm coming in with fresh eyes and limited history. In any case...
> it is not clear to me that it’s unconstitutional to make a law that a foreign company can’t operate a certain type of business in America.
Of course they can. My only issue is that they are targeting a specific entity and punishing them for being owned by someone in another country, which seems unconstitutional. If they targeted all companies, big or small, it would be different. I may not like it, but it wouldn't be questionable.
Please explain in layman's terms why do you believe the 14th amendment applies to the federal government rejecting a corporation owned and controlled by a totalitarian regime from operating within the US.
I believe this applies to the USA as a whole as well, not just to states (Bolling v. Sharpe (1954) according to ChatGPT). One could argue the law is unconstitutional because it applies a punishment without due process.
The 14th amendment applies to US citizens and persons. The law requires ByteDance to sell it's TikTok position. Who do you think is the US citizen or person in this case? China's CCP?
ByteDance Ltd. is a Chinese internet technology company headquartered in Haidian, Beijing.
> First, TikTok incorporated as a U.S. company speaking in the United States.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcr...
The company being targeted is ByteDance, not TikTok. The US government wants ByteDance to sell it's controlling position on TikTok to someone else, or else TikTok can no longer operate in the US. ByteDance is a Chinese company that is a de-facto shell corporation of China's CCP. For the 14th amendment to apply, you would need to argue that either a Chinese corporation or China's CCP would be US citizens.
The EU banned Russia Today (correctly in my opinion) and that was nothing compared to TikTok. Propaganda isn't free speech.
The problem is that right now the power is yielded by the CCP, which is clearly unacceptable. The problem is not TikTok per se but how a totalitarian regime that has a long track record of actively engaging in espionage and psyops against the US is controlling that platform. Forcing the CCP to sell it's position mitigates or eliminates the impact on the remaining shareholder's interests. The fact that the CCP opts for scorched earth tactics is already telling.
A company in Hungary starts manufacturing cars. They become wildly popular in the US. Everyone and their aunt is driving one. Then the US demands a sale for national security reasons. Does that sound reasonable? Instead, you address whatever the security gap is (data privacy, scanning for backdoors, data residency, etc) and enforce compliance.
In the case of social media, that would be mandatory tagging of paid content, advertisements, political ads (or prohibition of), along with measures to slow down/limit the dissemination of information so no single person can sway public opinion with the wave of a hand (cough cough X). In many countries, influencers are now subject to advertising rules, as it should be. At some point we'll need to get a grasp on how to do the same for news/opinion pieces.
Just dropping the whole thing into 'more reliable hands' without changing any of the rules of the game accomplishes very little.
Who decides what is propaganda and what is not? EU commissariat? And propaganda coming from EU is fine I guess?
Like most things in the EU it’s overly complicated, but I think sanctions are decided unanimously by the Council, which in this case would be assembled national ministers of foreign policy or security.
If ycombinator wants to show HN to somebody in Germany then they would have to spin off a company owned by Germans to be able to show HN there? Same for France and the other 170-200 countries in the world.
This is obviously an unreasonable way for the internet to work.
Just like how all normal people love free speech until it comes to CP and death threats (which of course should be banned).
If everyone under the age of 30 was using an app run by Nazi Germany would you be okay with that?
Propaganda is a weapon and no principle says that you should let an enemy army into your country.
First answer: I would ask myself why people are using a nazi-made app, first.
OTOH: the history of nazism in the US is more complicated than you think
A glimpse of it is summarized in the wikipedia page about it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism_in_the_Americas
After all the US arrived first to the Moon thanks to "operation paperclip" and a a former nazi scientist.
I would say I would totally be fine if the nazis made an app for kids to publish their goofy dancing videos instead of this [1], yes, absolutely yes.
You mean like all the US social networks banning or severely restricting the content on the slaughter being perpetrated in Palestina, mostly against innocent people and kids, while tik tok allowed it?
The answer is still yes, instead of the holocaust I will gladly take an app with just a bit of antisemitism, that, BTW, is not lacking on the platforms we all use and originated in the USA
https://www.forbes.com/sites/petersuciu/2023/07/14/antisemit...
Now, that's not what's happening on tik tok, that's what's happening in your mind, as a thought experiment I would accept nazitok and tell my kids to not use it, instead of the holocaust and having no power to stop it in any meaningful way.
Wouldn't you?
Would you really reproduce the holocaust, just so you don't have to educate your children and explain them the right from the wrong?
that clears things up.
Since we are speculating, a modern day Germany has not perpetrated the holocaust, or it would not be allowed to exist in the European Union.
> Nazi Germany that's just as awful as the real one, and whether you would allow their funny dancing app. There's no either-or.
But what tik tok has to do with that?
If nazi Germany was still alive and kicking, it means we would all use their apps, because we would all speak German.
It would be what the USA are today.
We in fact use American apps or buy American devices even though they allow very bad content or are produced where labor protection laws are inexistent and worker are treated like slaves.
But hey, you want an answer? of course I wouldn't be onboard with whoever is committing a genocide, just like I'm not on board with Israel and I boycott them and their products, as I am not onboard with the US foreign policy of the past 80 years (CIA was responsible for more than 90s changes of regime) and if it was for me US social networks would be banished in my Country.
I don't see many differences between the modern US and the nazi germany, besides the holocaust (which is not a small feat, I know, but hey, dangerous ideas are dangerous too)
Nazism is an 100% western creation, had many supporters in the west and in the USA, and Hitler himself was inspired by the segregation laws in the United States for his reich.
You said all, I never said all, I just said instead of the holocaust I prefer tik tok.
You are the one that prefers the holocaust to tik tok and has to live with it.
> where do you draw the line?
I'll gladly answer: I draw the line where illegal or seriously dangerous stuff is happening.
For example I would have banned any social network that promoted the so called "challenges".
But the tik tok case has nothing to do with that, it has to do with the fact that if the US cannot control the narrative, they do not want Americans to use it.
Which is the exact same thing the nazi did, back then.
They did not trust their people to make the right choices.
isn't that the codename for X these days?
If free speech has exceptions it's not free speech. The government will keep adding exceptions.
When did the US citizens become so subservient to their government? I thought distrusting the government was American tradition?
I understand all these principled stances and I do support them ethically, but sometimes you have no choice but to choose the lesser evil.
Technically speaking, they did in 1789. As to the practicality of it, the US government expanded massively from 1900-1950, so maybe during that time period. The FCC was formed in 1972, so on the issue of permissible purveyors of brain rot, maybe then.
The black box algorithms that are at the heart of TikTok and Instagram are very powerful and have the potential to be very dangerous mind control weapons, quite literally. It should all be blown up, but keeping that weapon from China is good.
Or at least you're supposed to
Free speech should only stop on those trying to attack free speech. If anything, it applies in reverse here.
This. As a nice clear-cut example see the propaganda being pushed on how Haitians were somehow eating everyone's pets. Even if someone somehow ignores the extremist call for violence, the fact that this propaganda campaign was targeting perfectly legal and legitimate immigrants should be very telling.
By the way, where was this meme pushed? TikTok? X? I don't think it has much to do with who controls a particular social network.
Unfortunately, our Supreme Court unanimously disagrees with me about what our Constitution requires.
If it was just about content then yes, it'd be unconstitutional.
But security/trade concerns about a geopolitical opponent are not the same thing, have never been the same thing, and it would be crazy to treat them as the same thing.
Not to mention that as a trade issue, China already bans basically all the popular American social media sites, and just a ton of popular US sites in general. Turnabout is entirely fair play and expected when it comes to trade.
I don’t see where that’s in the constitution.
ByteDance is a Chinese company with it's headquarters in China. The so-called TikTok ban is a call for ByteDance to sell off it's controlling position over TikTok, otherwise TikTok can no longer operate in the US.
The fact that China is spinning this issue as a TikTok ban is telling.
Our government gets to decide the terms under which businesses operate in this country. Always has and always will. This is not a constitutional question.
This data treasure trove may be stored in US, but it isn't protected from Chinese govt access. It is the same for data by American companies, which US Patriot act lets the US govt access.
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/05/16/1...
We don't allow own telephone system to be foreign owned, and those laws have been around for 90 years, and nobody is crying about free speech over that.
Also, censorship has been allowed by courts time and time again if it's narrow focused to satisfy compelling government interest and not overly broad.
We take the global world for granted, but it is made up of sovereign states many of them have their own constitution.
If platforms can do censorship, so can the government.
The US sees China as an existential threat and TikTok is one of its key weapons. Tiktok is getting banned for the same reason Cuba can't have nukes. It's a national security concern.
I don't endorse it. But I understand it.
America blundered in the 80s by allowing technology transfer to then and still hostile foreign power. It has woken up to its stupidity 45 years too late. But better late than never.
It's not fair.....but love and war Yada yada.
I dunno. I wouldn't say the EU has done an amazing job of actually twisting companies arms enough to get them to a) provide the actual fucking product, not some bastardized version that's intentionally bastardized to make people voluntarily keep using the evil version, AND b) not be evil. At the same time.
Look at apple with the payment shit. They managed to do neither a NOR b! The data privacy stuff usually has companies just opting out of serving the EU.
So, there's clearly a very hard problem here, of how do you make these entities whose sole goal is to maximize profit, who have managed to figure out a way that makes tons of profit while having the only "pollution" be the damage we do to our culture/dopamine receptors. Which is a lot harder to get people mad about compared to oil in the ocean and smog in the air.
In the meantime, I don't mind us just trying to keep things at least vaguely geopolitically aligned. Look at what russia is doing to US politics with very basic tactics (reddit comments etc). Now imagine China trying to do something actually subtle.
To underline the difference I'm referring to, just look at tiktok vs rednote. Western users immediately getting banned from rednote for posting the "wrong" kind of LGBT stuff. There are some fundamentally different cultural expectations about freedom of speech. Can you imagine how censored talking about vietnam would be if the US took the same approach as China did w.r.t. Tienanmen Square?
It takes a lot of time to open political eyes, break through lobby barriers, and get sufficient awareness on the deep issues. Then it takes an age - in business terms - for governmental action and regulation to follow. But if that is ramping up inertia builds and prolonged policy follows, hopefully as unstoppable tide. Other than some decent government regulation and old-fashioned unfair competition protection there's talk talk talk and not much that restrains Big Tech and the maddened billionaire class.
Really this is about not allowing China to do things and then not retaliating in kind. This is what China does to American companies and so no American company can really survive long term in China. It creates an imbalance and will eventually lead to China’s complete domination in most key industries. America is finally catching on.
Having a direct adversary control what young people consume for hours a day with a black-box algorithm is very dangerous.
Also note that TikTok has been banned in Hong Kong for years now.
I also think it's dangerous for domestic companies to do this, but obviously the US gov't is going to prioritize China because politicians can take bribes (in the form of lobbying) domestically.
This is a reductive and misleading analysis. The US has already prohibited foreign entities from holding broadcast/common carrier licenses, or from owning significant chunks of equity in holders of those licenses [1]. It should be kind of obvious why a country would not want their biggest media providers to be foreign-owned.
You could argue that if the US wants to update the 1934 telecommunications act for the 21st century, it should do so more thoughtfully and comprehensively (I would agree). But the TikTok ban, however poorly written or haphazardly targeted, is fairly in line with a legal doctrine that has been commonly known and accepted for 90 years.
[1]: https://www.fcc.gov/general/foreign-ownership-rules-and-poli...
But you don't need a license to put something on the internet. And Americans don't want everything on the Internet to be regulated and censored the way TV and radio are.
It IS wrong for them to determine what we can and can't be influenced by. By saying bad countries "influencing" us is bad for democracy, they are saying democracy isn't really up to us, the voters, it's up to them. And I'll never accept that.
Whether you _should_ need a license to distribute a media app in the US under certain conditions, and whether “Americans” (which ones?) really do want no limits on who controls their media, is the correct debate to be having. The person I was responding to believed the issue to be “US demands local ownership of TikTok just because it's successful and valuable” which is clearly wrong.
The end result of your line of thought isn't the return of TikTok, it's the creation of an internet hosting licensing scheme in the US.
Tt's obvious why the state would not want it. It's not obvious why "country" would not want it.
By extension focussing on the negative impact on an individual is very small, but the overall impact on society and culture is massive (which in turn impacts individuals).
Taking that a step further I think you can argue there is some tragedy of the commons occurring which indicates govt. regulation should exist. Govt regulating media is tough, but as the US showing here, a rule getting rid of foreign actors might be a good idea for many countries.
0. The neo-Nazis in question are the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD). The AfD has many high-ranking members with neo-Nazi pasts, such as the leader of the party in the state of Thüringen, Björn Höcke, who used to write for a neo-Nazi publication under a pseudonym, "Landolf Ladig" (remind you of any other name?). This guy now runs the AfD in the state of Thüringen, the state where the AfD performs the best, electorally (33%, making them the largest party in the state). There are many other high-ranking AfD members with similar neo-Nazi pasts and affiliations. Then there are those who merely go on and on about immigrants, foreigners, minorities, but who are smart enough not to have explicitly associated themselves with open neo-Nazis. Needless to say, the fact that this sort of party is reaching 33% in some parts of the country is hugely concerning in Germany.
The next round of regulations, NIS2 for example, is starting to get up steam. This year we also have the Digital Services Act. Time will tell if US media platforms continue to develop EU-versions, and in what forms, or if they give up.
In term of national security I would be a bit more afraid of Microsoft 365 than Meta.
Maybe its time to go back to a simpler MySpace or FriendsReunited style setup for actual social media. The problem is theres not much money in that, nor are people likely to visit as regularly.
Digital borders should only be open and allow free traffic between allies.
edit: since it won't let me reply to posters under here. What I mean is in stopping foreign propaganda and interference. Elon Musk can't spend hundreds of millions to influence e.g. the Chinese people in ways that benefit the US.
I don't think many people separate out the "incoming" and "outgoing" aspects of firewalls, and conflate firewalls with censorship. Most of the countries that employ firewalls do both, censor as well as protect. But it's not a requirement that you must censor your own people in order to stop foreign agents interfering in your society.
This is quite literally what banning TikTok is about. Suddenly the US has decided that they don't like it when other countries do to them what the US routinely does to others.
Oh, how far we have fallen.
> Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather.
US owns most of the social networks, video streaming platforms and most of the classic media (tv,...).
The diffrence is, that countries like US (and many EU countries) point a finger at china/russia and accuse them of censorship, claim themselves to be free, and then do the same censorship that russia/china do.
And yet many countries have no objection with letting their citizens use US FAANG services?
In your view:
a) what is a megacorp (criteria), and
b) why do you think they should be destroyed?
For reference, the largest 15 companies in the world, by:
- Market cap are: Apple, NVIDIA, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Saudi Aramco, Meta, Tesla, Broadcom, TSMC, Berkshire Hathaway, Walmart, JPMorgan, Eli Lilly, Visa
- by # of employees: Walmart, Amazon, Foxconn, Accenture, VW, Tata, DHL, BYD, Compass, Jingdong, UPS, Gazprom, Home Depot, JD Logistics, Agricultural Bank of China.
- by earnings: Saudi Aramco, Berkshire Hathaway, Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, NVIDIA, JP Morgan Chase, Meta, Amazon, ICBC, China Construction Bank, China Pacific Insurance, Exxon Mobil, Agricultural Bank of China, Toyota
B)
- Small business should be the driving force in the economy. They are the wellspring of competition and the bastion of the middle class.
- Megacorporations seek to destroy the ability for small businesses to compete with them, leaving buyout or vassalage as their only possible endgame. This shuts down true competitive threats to the megacorporations' dominance. They are trying to pull up the ladder behind them.
- A company should not be so large it can afford to ignore its customers.
- A company should not be so large that it can treat regulatory fines as merely a cost of doing business.
- A company should not be so large that it gets to write the laws and regulations.
- The Monopoly standard is not strict enough. Cartel-like oligopolies cooperate on the important political issues while maintaining a facade of competition.
- Our political systems are not equipped to handle the centralization of such large amounts of wealth. While the economy may not be a zero-sum game, power is, and power follows money.
- ADDED: A company must not be too big to fail.
- ANOTHER: A company should not be so large it can use loss-leaders to bully its way into other markets.
E.g. back to Meta, etc: they scraped everything, everywhere for a long time, and it was a big factor that lead to their rise. Now they seek to control all the data in their fiefdom, and use the power of the legal system to enforce EULAs to prevent others from doing the same.
Why? Because economic entities with market power underproduce, overcharge, and fail to innovate and meet their customers' needs. They cause deadweight losses through their inefficiencies. And an excess of concentrated power is just plain scary, whether an individual, a corporation, or a government wields it.
Of course, reducing some of the edge of market power at scale will result in a smaller maximum company size.
Europe may be an exception, but that is what you get when the US is your suzerain.
Hopefully the next 4 years help change that.
It’s not always a slippery slope. And China's use of soft power via strict governmental control of its corporations isn’t an imaginary boogeyman.
> (d) The Secretary of Commerce shall evaluate on a continuing basis trans- actions involving connected software applications that may pose an undue risk of sabotage or subversion of the design, integrity, manufacturing, produc- tion, distribution, installation, operation, or maintenance of information and communications technology or services in the United States; pose an undue risk of catastrophic effects on the security or resiliency of the critical infra- structure or digital economy of the United States; or otherwise pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons. Based on the evaluation, the Secretary of Commerce shall take appropriate action in accordance with Executive Order 13873 and its implementing regulations.
This was a bill only against China, North Korea, Russia, and Iran. None of whom allow particularly free access to the internet.
For example the Facebook article on "Censorship of Facebook" lists all of those countries as well as Myanmar, Turkmenistan, and Uganda as the only countries that "continually ban access" to facebook.
You're talking out of ignorance. The European Commission has been putting together initiatives to allow European cloud providers to emerge as credible alternatives to the FANGs in terms of providing infrastructure.
https://european-alternatives.eu/category/cloud-computing-pl...
"Eleven EU countries took 5G security measures to ban Huawei, ZTE "
https://www.euronews.com/next/2024/08/12/eleven-eu-countries...
To me this makes more sense since a back door in network infrastructure allowing governement communications to be intercepted is far more serious than some kid using TikTok.
The US is not banning TikTok. The US is forcing ByteDance to sell it's controlling position on TikTok or else the company is no longer able to operate within the US.
How come the critical bit is repeatedly left out?
ByteDance instead opted to shut the company down in retaliation, because it found it was desirable to just crash the whole company than to have anyone else control it, and in the process is fooling useful idiots into believing this has nothing to do with China's interference.
Saying "It is not a ban because if they give it to us then we won't ban it, but if they don't we will ban it but it still won't be a ban because they had a choice in the first place" sounds so ridiculous to me that I don't even know how to argue here.
On that note, I wonder if the same approach should apply to Elon Musk's Twitter takeover.
"Twitter cannot be Chinese (or NK etc) owned."
OK, done.
That is not the reason at all. I highly doubt if it was made in Europe, it would be banned.
China would never allow a TikTok equivalent to operate in China, which is smart. We should do the same.
What are you talking about? No US corporation can operate in China without granting China control over your data. I mean, anyone with a cursory understanding of the topic can tell you how China effectively forces internet companies to design their China presence as completely siloed operations with very tight requirements in what personally identifiable information they store.
The US government should just go ahead and say it like it is: they'd like to hold as much power as the Chinese government does, and they're taking the steps to do so.
The American oligarchy feels threatened because the empire is crumbling under their feet, so they're finally taking their masks off.
Playing fair is fine, so rather ask for level playing fields. Where there aren’t, apply pressure. Compared to arming other countries this is barely worth a big argument.
That’s a thoroughly disingenuous spin on the reasoning.
There is no movement to prevent foreign companies from having popular apps in general. The law is narrowly targeted. TikTok could continue to be foreign-held as long as they separated from the government of a specific foreign country.
I’m amazed at how many commenters are twisting themselves into pretzels to try to make this some generic imperialist move or use whataboutism to downplay the reasoning behind this move.
A decade ago it was common knowledge on the internet that China heavily controlled and shaped internet discourse within their reach, to push government agendas in an extreme way. There is no parallel to their cultural control in the US. Did everyone suddenly forget this, or are they just ignoring it for the sake of argument?
Whether you agree with the move or not, the storylines being pushed in hundreds of comments here don’t even reflect the reality of the law, let alone the reasoning behind it.
It’s also ironic to read all of the commenters that don’t realize that China already controls social media use within their own country to a degree far more strict than this. The amount of control that China exerts over everything from Facebook to Google within their country was a well known topic for years online. Here on HN people were disgusted that FB and others were giving in to government censorship in those countries. Now it all seems to be forgotten? It’s weird to me to see all of the narratives in this comment section being built on top of imagined realities with no regard for how other countries have been operating for decades.
> The free market is great, but only if we hold all the cards.
I think that's the actual reasoning. Be mindful that USA is our ally but they'll always prefer their own interest and that's normal.
I don't think I'd support a ban if ByteDance was a European company or Indian or South Korean or Japanese. China is a unique threat given the totalitarian turn they've taken over the past decade combined with the fact that no Chinese company is truly private in its day-to-day operations. All Chinese companies must have CCP influence as a matter of Chinese policy. It would be like if T-Mobile (the US mobile division of Deutsche Telekom) was required to have the influence of the German government including the monitoring and reporting of phone calls to senior party officials.
Look at Germany and Europe in general , they pay money to arm their aggressive neighbor, still not able to shield themselves from China. And asking US to protect Europe .
I don’t think Europe , giving the situation is in position to suggest about national interest protection. It’s like drug addict talk about healthy lifestyle
To protect Europe from who...
Let's look at where we are with cold eyes (I'm European). Russian direct energy supplies to the EU have been cut, raising energy costs, all EU industries are affected, making it more difficult to compete with China and the US. Energy, which now comes also in part through expensive ships from the US, whom -surprise- is now able to threat to cut it off, increasing influence over EU politics, energy that it is now also paid with dollar currency, at the same time EU economic resources -that should be used for the internal development- are being asked to be diverged to buy US weapons through NATO.
So I would suggest to avoid the "US saving heroes" discourse. The reality sounds more like the US elite has benefited from the war (a big industry for them), so much that should be included within the suspicious list.
What pockets planned and backed up the Maidan rise that removed the Kremlin's puppet from power? Who aimed and intended such country to join NATO along years before this event?
Because can be guessed this aimed the psychopathic Putin to increase the violence of his mafia things, maybe someones expected this violence in invasion form, or another form that would drag Europe into the same position it is in now.
> Still not able to shield themselves from China
It would be interesting to read how one country has protected itself from China's dumping, among other things, considering the massive industrial companies and seaports the Chinese government already bought around the world, including the US.
Did you notice something similar about those companies, of which TikTok is included?
Social media is not normal capitalism - it’s defense industry psychological warfare tooling. We’re seeing this play out big time in the Israeli and Ukrainian conflicts right now and it’s time to take a wartime approach to the issue.
1. https://www.businessinsider.com/jd-vance-nato-support-eu-reg...
Can you even own a company in China? Not to mention anything uncensored?
If Zuckerberg, or Musk (X), or Reddit, or Snap, or HN, or any Western platform would want to operate in China, they'd have to hand over control to a Chinese company. Instead, they simply don't operate there.
> "The free market is great, but only if we hold all the cards".
It's been blatantly obvious since the beginning of time that the free market isn't a thing.
Foreign ownership of massive media platforms has been awful. The other way around as well. Would be fantastic if the EU banned Meta, for one. Instead they're suddenly scared of continuing to fine them for their continuous illegal data harvesting and gatekeeping to cozy up to Trump.
Just consider Rupert Murdoch. Every country he's been active in would have been better off if he'd been straight up banned from owning local media companies.
China, BTW, is censoring or blocking all Western social media platforms and online publications. Why should we accept their online services when they are blocking ours?
Say what you will of USA, but they are allies and Europe needs to grow the f* up and stop being so tolerant of despotic countries, because our money and resources are fuelling their wars.
I understand that you're afraid of the US yielding so much power online, but then propose a European alternative, not a Chinese one. Let's innovate instead of complaining about US's tech hegemony, as right now all I'm seeing are complaints and regulations for tech we aren't building.
I mean it has always been like this anyway, just with some gloves. There is no law above the states(elites).
International courts should settle disputes based on law
Actually, why do you pay tax if you don't have to and there is no IRS or whatever agency chasing you?
These sorts of bad faith comments are so tiresome to read.
We all know that if the foreign country in question was Japan or France then nobody would really give a shit. Even a more neutral country like India or Brazil would likely be completely fine. It's specifically an issue because China is a geopolitical opponent of the US that we're engaged in a sort of new cold war with.
Not to mention, China blocks basically every popular social media site from the US already, and a bunch of other websites and apps besides. Tit-for-tat is very common in trade, you can't expect other countries to leave your foreign ventures untouched if you heavily restrict theirs.
> Not to mention, China blocks basically every popular social media site from the US already
And the US is usually pretty good at criticising that. But apparently not so good at accepting when other criticise the US for doing the same.
Personally I'd love for the US to ban or restrict more things from China. Not because that's the end state I want, but maybe it'd get China to loosen restrictions so that we'd get closer to parity.
If Huawei smartphones are a national security threat that justifies a ban, then Xiaomi smartphones are as well. But those are not banned. Why? Because the ban is more for protectionism than for security reasons. Just own it, that's fine.
Agreed, it's a trade issue. And anyone who's been paying even a hint of attention to trade knows that China is WAY more protectionist about foreign companies than the US is.
Reciprocity is or should be part of trade. There is nothing hypocritical about responding to trade restrictions with trade restrictions, any more than responding to an invasion with your own military force is "hypocritical".
That's right, but that's not what I said. I keep having to explain it so I'll do it again: what feels hypocritical is that the US don't call those bans trade issues. They call them "national security". If you keep saying "we're the land of the free, China is bad because of their protectionism" and then you do protectionism and say "no no no, we are not doing protectionism, it's national security", then it is hypocritical.
Imperialism is a part of life-- whether it's mold in a petri dish, prides of lions or chimpanzees raiding neighbors.
We live in the wild where strength conquers. It's just that we forget that when we're insulated from reality by convenience, comfort, concrete, and naivete.
No one should be ashamed for conquering or for exercising their own strength to their own benefit. Only those unable to do so are the ones to complain. And the complaints are futile-- Resource Competition is a fact of life and it is not going away.
> U.S. officials have repeatedly warned that TikTok threatens national security because the Chinese government could use it as a vehicle to spy on Americans or covertly influence the U.S. public by amplifying or suppressing certain content.
In other words, US officials are scared that China is going to do what the USA has been doing with American social media apps in various countries
And if the U.S. does ban TikTok then it sets a precedent that other countries can ban U.S. and Chinese social media apps in the same manner. Europe for example.
Yes, and? It's naive to think that this is anything new or surprising -- a country attempting to further it's own interests ahead of other countries that it is competing with.
Americans usually whined and complained that China banned US social media
Also, American social media companies and all others need far more regulation. But that is really a separate topic.
If russia were to try to buy meta, that deal should be blocked. If china were to try to buy meta that deal should be blocked.
I personally know musicians, actors, and artists that got a lot of work through TikTok. People who actually create things, and people who just used the app to make ends meet who probably aren't going to make ends meet this month
And let's not pretend that TikTok is filled to the brim with high quality products and small businesses. Yes there may be a couple of feel good stories about a local pizza place or small band that got their big break because of TikTok, but 99.9% of the advertising there is for the same junk/scam products that are on every other influencer-driven app.
TikTok's algorithm was amazing, as was the community.
You can't just recreate communities. They're alive, organic, fragile things.
I cannot count how many times minute I’ve been the first to see or comment on a TikTok video.
It let small creators be shown to lots of people in a way no other platform does.
For example, there’s a company called “Cerebrum IQ” which scams people out of hundreds of dollars for fake IQ tests. We are painfully aware of this issue because we own cerebrum.com, and we receive at least 100 furious support requests per day from people who have been charged $80.00+ for a subscription they never agreed to, and they somehow confuse us with “Cerebrum IQ”.
They get most of their users from TikTok ads.
We’ve reported them to TikTok many times, with no action taken. Meta at least restricted their ability to advertise.
youtube shorts and instagram reels seem like they do the same thing on the surface, but they're so much more focused on showing you content that they are certain you'll like, and from people in your network or people who you normally watch. they're a whole lot more focused on keeping people in their existing content silos.
some of the fediverse alternatives seem appealing but have less content.
i'm sure something will replace it if the ban remains in place but at the moment there's nothing nearly as good for me
Handwaving TT away as "another social media platform" is like comparing Friendster or MySpace with the ad machine that FB has built. There are countless businesses that will be impacted by this.
I don't give two shits how many leads these platforms drive, just like I don't care how many farmers the tobacco industry employs.
We utilize every platform equally. TikTok organically grew at least 5x the followership for our business, meanwhile Meta gouges us for advertising to be seen at all and we see worse results and interactions there.
The ban of TikTok will have resounding effects even if people are utilizing the alternatives. I've seen far too many people who haven't used TikTok and the alternatives for their business, or are not business owners at all, declare their opinions as facts when they have no actual experience in this space.
I'm not saying this explicitly includes you, I don't make presumptions about your experience in this space.
I think people overestimate how much local businesses relied on it, sure a few were booming making "me too" content (looking at you pressure washing companies). But you will still find the goods and services you need.
And now you won't have dozens of bad temu ad's "OH I feel bad for whoever bought this vacuum yesterday because now its 57% off!!!"
“You play the guitar on the MTV // That ain’t workin’, that’s the way you do it // Money for nothing and your chicks for free”
Also, unblocked as of now. Told ya.
No, these options are not truly equal, and many businesses will suffer.
While I disagree with the ban, I'd rather have a sensible fine just like the ones for Meta, Google (YouTube) and others. At one point it also might have temporarily saved someone's chronic addiction to the platform, then they'll just find another platform to get hooked on.
But for now nature is healing.
Indian on contrary are cheap, their profile are worth close to nothing.
Or are you arguing that no operating system can exist without tracking and sharing all of this data?
I remember reading this in my mid-teens and it really speaking to me.
Sometimes we tend to forget: nobody is forcing us to use the crap that "the Internet" has become home to.
The Internet isn't the content, it's the network - the map is not the territory and the underlying architecture hasn't changed all that much.
There will always be room to carve out your space and find your people.
That's definitely true. However, what changed is that you didn't really need that 20 years ago to achieve the same thing. It definitely needs more energy and time to get that. 20 years ago you had to go to bullshit sites, now the bullshit comes to you.
During and before StumbleUpon times, when I visited a random site, there was a good chance, that I could trust in the information on that, at least on some level. That's basically 0 for a while now.
Then I started to carve out that space on some selected social media. In the past 5 years, most of the smart people just simply left. Also those spaces (especially when those places became more popular) are slowly flooded with unusable information/misinformation/simple lies shared by others, even from people who I trusted.
Now, even that kind of "carving" is even more difficult, with keeping the possibility to get to know new people. For example, TikTok's, YouTube's, BlueSky's, and Twitter's algorithm are terrible. I tried to teach them with brand new accounts, but they became either very boring quickly, or couldn't filter out even very obvious misinformation.
My point it's just really moved to the periphery and is a subculture (and tied to crypto, which has a lot of shady things associated with it). The mainstream tech culture seems extremely nationalistic and terrified of the possibilities of a supranational unregulated unmoderated internet
In retrospect what is surprising is how long it took for such a disruptive new technology to register with existing power structures (at least explicitly).
Why are we trying to build a single unified platform for everything?
Maybe the friction of having different networks/applications based on the specific subculture/group you wish to associate with keeps them all a little less mainstream? Maybe this is a good thing?
I just wouldn't have guessed thing would have gone this way. I'd argue that the early Google was a bit of this nerd ethos going mainstream. And the degeneration was not top down from MBAs as one would predict, but seemingly from the bottom up from a new generation of programmers that don't seem to be in that supranational mindset
Being non mainstream also does present some issues. For instance I'm in China traveling at the moment. Github isn't blocked here but the connection is very flakey and some days it doesn't load at all. But effectively all OSS dev happens on github so I'm just out of luck. It'd be cool if there was some way to torrent repos for instance, but I don't think that's a service hooked up to github in any way
There's a middle ground where you get the worst of all worlds bc the current kinds lame/oring solution works for 90% of people most of the time
Anyway, it is what it is. You don't choose the jungle you live in
Cyberpunk was already a well established genre in 96, if you didn't see what the net was going to turn into you were already high on your own hopium.
...and then he wrote Mother American Night, which is way more radical and prescient than his declaration. If you are suggesting that John Perry's work tended toward statist notions of internet control later in life, you are mistaken.
John Perry has tons of fans who came up through his songs and have since connected those dots.
Chinese business crying foul over simply forcing an app to change owners is the pinnacle of hypocrisy.
Now days we have way more advanced self-media platforms, but each one is just an island of (both platform-imposed and self-imposed) isolation.
Look at how the US internet fuelled the fires of the Arab Spring / HK protests / Jan 6th / Any number of colour revolutions in Europe. Even today, we see X being used as a platform to encourage protests against governments in UK and Germany. National sovereignty is contingent on digital sovereignty - everyone is going to need a firewall.
It's reasonable for governments that don't entertain the notion that their citizens have freedoms of association, speech, etc. For countries where those concepts are legally enshrined in the country's own founding documents, no, it's not. Part of living in a democracy is having the responsibility to inform yourself and make voting decisions based on your own understanding. Letting the government tell people who they can and cannot listen to flies in the face of the very idea of democracy.
But that's not what this is doing.
People are still free to hear the same thing on other platforms (which they can considering how much is crossposted).
It's like getting rid of AM radio because you want to use the spectrum and claiming it violates freedom of speech because stations have to close down.
And anyone is free to fly to China and have conversations.
Or read the state-run media from China.
These free speech arguments seem to have the prior that TicTok is literally the only communications channel.
Giving an enemy a direct medium to feed information to your constituents at will is just a bad move, and no amount of free speech will change that.
“we should restrict the information environment because the masses can’t handle it and it causes chaos and instability” is the exact same argument that well-educated Chinese use for why their country can’t be a democracy.
I don’t care how effective propaganda is, I am in a liberal democratic society and should be able to read what I want. Outcome-based reasoning for why I should have my reading restricted so I vote for the apriori correct things is entirely illiberal and anti-democratic.
J.S. Mill decided these arguments over 150 years ago and the arguments since have not gotten more compelling.
Maybe, once the inflammatory platforms like X & Facebook are banned in the EU, then we can also get a social network that is not fueled by VC growth and engagement metrics; but can be run by a nonprofit or something. A man can dream.
Just because we can have fact-checking doesn't mean we get to participate in the decision making process. A news station in a country is not the same as voting or having representation in legislation.
That doing an interview with a controversial politician is "applying pressure" and is seen as "a danger to democracy" (quoting German media) is all you need to know about the German media landscape and German politics.
>but can be run by a nonprofit or something
There are high profile celebs on German "state" television unironically being in favor of a state-run social network.
TL;DR Communication technology has changed the relationship between rulers and the ruled, and we are just beginning to see what that might mean for the future of civilization. The book promises a lot but doesn't quite deliver. Still interesting reading.
It’s not perfect, for cancer treatment a family friend had to drive 100 miles to the nearest major hospital, but that’s more of a rural thing.
The no 1 reason the US is banning Tiktok because they are protecting against the war on the minds of their population.
https://time.com/7208112/what-happened-when-india-banned-tik...
I guess you missed the nine million articles over the last few months about how the head of TikTok has been palling around with the new admin and is going to be proudly at the inauguration.
Zuck is not the scapegoat you're hoping for.
Meanwhile, the greatest grifter in the world is installing his kleptocracy cabinet, pushing more neoliberalism economic policies, tax cuts for the ultra wealthy at the cost of public programs.
This country is absolutely cooked man.
It seems to me the only recourse the US would have is building The Great Firewall of America.
This is pretty much how US internet services operate in the rest of the world: YouTube have no physical presence in, say, Nigeria, but Nigerians watch YouTube just fine. That’s what the internet was all about. We’re connected by default, unless a government actively implements a firewall to stop it.
Then they are also likely to find themselves banned. Pretty silly to think the US would just throw up its hands and go "oh, you found the loophole, congrats, you win!"
Complying with the ban doesn't just mean that ByteDance can't do business in the US. It means other entities that might have a US presence also can't do business with them without risking being treated the same. I doubt Shein, Ali...etc will want to risk being kicked out of the US market for ByteDance's benefit.
Agreed. It would be an act or law passed to force ISP's to null route anything to ByteDance networks and if they play whack-a-mole then it would just be a great-wall null route of China.
In my understanding this law in question requires US-based app stores and ISPs to stop hosting for Bytedance. Assuming they comply with this fully, your packets can still reach arbitrary address in China due to the technical nature of the Internet. US would have to examine every outgoing packet and block a lot of organizations' IPs around the world (e.g. a Brazillian CDN that has no presence in the US) to make Tiktok inaccessible.
It's very much a technical problem is the point I was making. Significant portion of Chinese users bypass the ban to access American services. There is a wide spectrum of possible GFW implementations the US can choose from. Anything short of the North Korean one, Tiktok is not going to be completely banned.
Case in point: I saw another commenter managed to access Tiktok by remotely operating a Windows server located in Canada, should their ISP / cloud provider they rented server from / Tiktok Canada be held liable for serving this user? What about users who simply alter their DNS / use socks proxy / VPNs to gain access? The US could develop technology to ban all this, then it would end up exactly the same as China.
It's only partially a technical problem -- most of the issue lies in the rubber hose.
On sufficiently long time scales, which will win?
And why are we so afraid to admit the answer to this question?
How can it get any more obvious that nation states are no longer a compelling organizing principle for peaceful, civil society?
The argument for TikTok ban is that it's a Chinese propaganda machine.
I don't know whether it is true. But assuming it is, propaganda usually costs money.
Anecdote says the app is currently having network trouble, so I expect there's some devops minions having a sweaty moment, but the ban is (to be) postponed (and in the meanwhile not enforced).
Such hypocrisy given that the non-China version of TikTok is banned in China.
The public discourse in the US appears very distorted. The rececently elected legislative heavily tampers with the executive/judicative and somehow this is stil democratic?
IMO the tiktok ban is only about media control, no morale or legality, just political power and somehow there is still free speech for all?
All this is so bizare to me. I dont expect reasonable answers.
You have been misinformed, it is not illegal to publish biased media.
> The rececently elected legislative heavily tampers with the executive/judicative and somehow this is stil democratic.
What are you trying to say? The majority passes something, and the Supreme Court chose to allow it to continue.
> IMO the tiktok ban is only about media control, no morale or legality, just political power and somehow there is still free speech for all?
You're right that it's about media control, namely a foreign adversary being able to completely control media widely consumed in the United States. Framing a content-neutral conditional ban, which could've been avoided without any content changes, as being against "free speech" makes zero sense when the platform being banned is controlled by a foreign adversary that doesn't have free speech. The argument is that a foreign adversary shouldn't be allowed to censor and manipulate our media and farm our data.
So, the problem seems to be _foreign_ biased media and not biased media in general. General media bias could be made punishable too but this would take away influencial powers.
> a content-neutral conditional ban.
So TikToks content or bias is irrelevant? The only thing left is the adversarial ownership, which is ban worthy. How?
That literally is the purpose of the ban. It’s not like you have happened across some kind of novel “gotcha” here.
Vast difference from the typical notion of book burnings and such.
"Objective" media exists (NPR, PBS(?), CSPAN) but just isn't as popular because biased media attracts more attention through confirmation bias and flashiness.
Red panic is back. I’d be careful honestly.
If Hacker News were to shut down for just the US users and people were told to go continue the conversation on Facebook do you think that it would feel the same?
Part of what makes TikTok and Hacker News great is the interaction with people all over the world. What's going to happen to the diaspora? Are they going to all end up in one place?
Again, if Hacker News kicked out all of the Americans living on US soil then would the rest of the users follow the Americans onto Facebook to continue the conversation?
Same thing could be said of the academic side of Twitter. It’s now fragmented across Twitter, Bluesky, mastodon, and the level is discussion is very diminished
This was also tested in practice in India, when the country banned TikTok in 2020. Rest of World published a report in 2023 with the conclusion that most users simply switched to Instagram Reels or YouTube Shorts without much complaint, just as the previous commenter predicted: https://restofworld.org/2023/america-india-tiktok-ban/
I was browsing r/TikTok and the comments there certainly don't seem to imply that everyone is eager/interested in going to reels/shorts. I hardly even see those platforms mentioned in https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTok/comments/1i4p6s0/rip/ but it could just be sampling bias since I'm reading Reddit comments rather than looking for discussions on YouTube/Instagram.
Still, it takes time to habituate to a new app's UI and culture. Even if people are willing and able to shift to a new platform I think there will be a lot of shared frustration in the short term.
Opinions on Reddit and HN are almost always from the 5% most engaged, most online of any subgroup. These are not regular people. Is every software developer you know represented by the opinions that get upvoted on HN? Thankfully, no. Similarly the kind of people posting to /r/tiktok aren’t your regular TikTok user by a long shot.
404 did an article on it: https://www.404media.co/a-tiktok-ban-is-a-gift-to-meta-and-i...
Even Trump, who we know Zuckerberg had donated to, claims he will try to “bring back TikTok”.
This case was argued and won on the basis of national data security.
But I see through it because once again, I'm not an idiot.
When far more sensitive social media apps like Grindr were sold to Beijing Kunlun Tech Co Ltd, nobody went crazy because it didn't threaten FAANG.
There's many swiping and dating apps owned by chinese firms. You also have chinese capital firms being the primary investor in cloud and photo sharing apps. Plenty of sensitive stuff going through the spindly fingers of the shifty orientals without a peep - for like decades.
There's even Chinese finance apps like WeBull that hold things as sensitive as American's retirement accounts. Apparently also not a problem.
People have Wyze doorbell cameras and TCL smartTVs and Eufy security cameras. They have TP-Link routers and Hisense computer monitors. Chinese cameras, WiFi, and microphones are everywhere in the modern home.
But once something came around that was a plausible competitive threat to FAANG then all these reasons just materialize and get applied to that thing specifically.
I mean seriously. Give me a break.
We like to look back 100 years ago at protectionism and racism and tell ourselves that we were dumber back then and wouldn't fall for it now.
And yet, here we are.
It's not (just) that it poses an economic threat to one of the biggest US companies (which as you said, I'm sure plays a big part in why it's suddenly relevant), but that it allows a government-influenced foreign media channel to influence policy indirectly by means of mass dissemination.
As for why now and not before, it's because of how apparent the possible effects are now that there's a very direct and widely spread channel that can pump OUT information, which is vastly more effective and obvious than passive surveillance through cameras or other hardware. (Also cybersecurity people have been calling out this sort of stuff for hardware since time immemorial)
The framework is progress moves fastest with a global leveling and elimination of friction between markets.
Fundamentally I see this as American companies using government cheat codes instead of sharpening their game, just like with the Chinese electric cars 100% tax.
It stems from my critique of neoliberalism, the failure to invest in foundational societal systems that give an affordance to such positioning: education, mass transit, health care, maternity leave, preschool funding, scholastic enrichment, the stuff that most of Asia is great at we're lousy at.
Chinese people aren't like genetically superior, they just spent the past 50 years investing in their people instead of taking things away and fighting stupid wars.
And these are the chickens coming home to roost just like they did for Hungary, the UK, and Spain.
We've been fucking up for decades and racism isn't going to fix it.
This. TT's US popularity plus its fully algorithmic approach to content selection makes it potentially one of the most effective mass influence systems ever. People are easily influenced - especially young people - and the root of that being in China is a clear risk to US sovereignty.
I mean, look at what Xi and his allies would like to see happening in the US, and look at what's happening in the US today. Coincidence?
They were faster to clone Twitter with Threads.
Wasn't that because they hired a lot of ex-Twitter employees with an obvious ax to grind ha ha?
Yeah yeah. Cattle customers. Bla bla bla.
I must be missing something blatantly obvious or there is some conspiracy here?
- IG Reels are limited to 90 seconds compared to 3 or 10 minutes on TT;
- Youtube Shorts can now be up to 3 minutes but that's relatively new (October 2024 IIRC);
- Tiktok moentization is better than these other two platforms, both in terms of ad revenue but more importantly, the Tiktok Shop;
- The comments on Tiktok are truly a league above IG or YT. The latter two are just full of random drivel and vitriol;
- The recommendation algorithm for scrolling on TT is miles ahead of either platform;
- Tiktok is the only platform where people went there for short-form videos. They're native to the platform whereas they were bolted on to both IG and YT as an afterthought, a real "me too" Tiktok response. And they don't quite fit. The user experience on Tiktok is so much better than IG or YT.
- A huge chunk of Reels and Shorts content is simply reposted Tiktoks.
Sundar and Mark may think they'll simply gain Tiktok's user base. I honestly don't see that happening. I'm sure there'll be an uptick in YT and IG but now 170M MAU worth.
- you can't watch at 2x on reels
- you can't pause a video while watching on reels
- you can't seek in a video either, you just have to watch the whole thing over
- reels interrupts your experience with awful ads every 2-3 swipes
- YT shorts probably has awful ads too, I haven't tried it
The time limit is probably going to be the biggest issue for YT and reels, but the ergonomics of both are so awful that I can't use them for more than a few minutes. I could scroll TikTok until the little video about scrolling too long came up (an hour I think).
- You can seek in a video too. Again, awful UX, the line is super small, but you can. Depends how large the video is, I believe.
Like so much else on Tiktok, this originated elsewhere. In this case, Twitter.
You’re being downvoted. But you’re correct. The vocal minority inflames about this are mostly ideologically offended, based on the calls and letters I’m hearing both blue and red electeds receive.
If it were this simple then Rep Ro Khanna wouldn't still be posting about TikTok. As far as what happens, as with everything else, we'll see. There's a million variables and Hacker ``Social Media was tantamount to the Fall of Man'' News is not the place I'm expecting particularly fruitful, unbiased analysis.
Eh, I canvassed for privacy bills and that was a total disaster. I believe in the TikTok ban, but I’m not passionate about it.
> then Rep Ro Khanna wouldn't still be posting about TikTok
If I were advising Ro I would absolutely insist he tweet about it. Particularly off cycle. Anyone in Silicon Valley or a district with rich libertarians, for that matter.
And very likely to not be paying attention to him right now to the degree they’ll remember anything come election. Not for tangential issues. Donors, on the other hand, can give now.
https://old.reddit.com/r/TikTok/comments/1i4puyg/pov_tiktok_...
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/tiktok-us...
For example, my feed was full of electrician and HVAC content, philosophy, skiing tutorials, constitutional law, international news, physics, etc.
You have to use the app with intention to arrive at and maintain this state. I actively press the "not interested" button on videos that are mindless or just not in line with the kind of experience I want (rage bait, suggestive content, brand content, etc). That's a skill that many non-TikTok users don't really understand as well I think.
The algorithm is very much like an AI companion in some ways, which can be good or bad depending on the user's maintenance and steering of that relationship.
My wife, in her mid-30s, has friends who will share or send her links to TikTok videos. She says that she can't view them because she doesn't have an account, but she doesn't want to create an account because she "knows she has an addictive personality" [1] and has read about the power of TikTok. Anyway, I imagine that this is how it starts for a lot of people: not wanting to miss out on stuff sent by a friend, creating an account to check it out, and then rapidly getting sucked into the addictive user experience. And it keeps spreading the same way from there.
[1] She does, and I'm thankful that she recognizes this. She's already a heavy consumer of Facebook Reels, by the way.
I checked out TikTok first because someone had posted a link to - shudder - another Israel Palestinian viral video. I am none of those, in fact I have Indian non-muslim non-jewish origin (but been American for a long time). While scrolling through over the days, there were a couple of things I liked and which eventually got me hooked
- There was this brother sister video (not sure I can name names) where they are just running through a house while filming, and end up in front of the bathroom mirror dancing, and then you realize that one of the persons in the mirror is the cameraperson all along. Very well done movements, awesome music, and 100s of copycats, maybe 1000s. I watched almost all of them I guess :) Goes with a song - "taking a picture of you, ramalama bang bang". The brother posted another draft of the same yesterday (from 2019) just before the ban, and I spent another 15 minutes scrolling through the variations. Quite an experience. There were videos by ordinary people that were just so well done.
- There were 2 Indian songs which were copied / parodied really well in those days. Nowadays the copycats do not seem original, but those 2 songs - the variations people created were amazing. And this was before India banned Tiktok so there was a lot more "Indian Indian" content rather than "Indian American" content. Maybe it was the first time I was watching these, but these were joyful, and there was no going back after that.
Over time, you get familiar with many creators. You engage with some of them. Yes there is a lot of people trying to build their "celebrity/influencer" profile but there are a lot of genuine connections. I mean, why do I need to only watch my family's birthday pics, when I can track some musicians, follow some amazing cosplay artists, see some parodies and standup comedies. Everything was there. My latest follows were 1) a UK guy traveling through India eating street food, and 2) 2 magicians based in Berlin similar to Siegfried and Roy but different. I even posted some singing videos there not for follows or likes but because the platform gave good tools to create videos, even without lipsyncing.
But you know you can easily get sidetracked and also step out of bounds. People use it to earn money just by talking, people use it to link it to places where only fans will go (but no direct links). You can go down many rabbit holes, I attended lives a few times, but not ordinarily (lot of people do), and I only engaged in 1:1 conversation with 2 people - over 5 years. I just was not comfortable talking to someone I would never meet in person and be able to assess only based on their fake TikTok persona, but people do engage in discussions. And I did buy from the TikTok shop in December because they had a product with an appeal and a price I could not refuse :) So I guess I tried it all.
Could the same be done on IG / YouTube Shorts - I used them occasionally, but no, they are quite subpar. But now that they are the only alternative, so maybe ... after waiting for a few weeks. Right now, Red Note is engaging enough.
About availability of TikTok and ByteDance Ltd. apps in the United States - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42754130 - Jan 2025 (80 comments)
Edit: Nevermind, it works from an incognito window. So it's just my account they banned.
Has anyone suspected foreign interference in our social media during the height of the culture wars in the last decade? We had people encouraging civil unrest on the Left (whenever there was some police shooting or event where racism was suspected), and we had people encouraging civil unrest on the right (an immigrant committed a crime, or similar). We had puppet trolls in Twitter, Facebook, Reddit etc.
Russia and the United States have been doing this to each other - stirring civil unrest with propaganda - since the 1950s. It's an old war.
Does that not merit consideration in this conversation?
From your examples de difference is that we've witnessed police brutality in the us with countless examples of excessive force (the hood and the knee to the throat are example. Whereas the same cannot be said for immigrants, first because I think it's an opinion that wins votes for these anti-stablishment ultra right wing, second because it's totally different to compare immigrants and the police as an institution.
I am aware of the irony here. I'm Brazillian and the vice president based his entire campaign on the false threat of an internal actor distabilizing the country, in this case the communists. It's the same thing in US but it's a foreign actor to blame. Curious how the narrative always fits the agenda.
Rule of thumb, if the political geist points one way the problem most likely lies in the opposite way.
Just because of your Brazilian example of fake (who knows) internal threats, doesn't mean what I just said in this thread is fake:
"Update: After this story published, Facebook took down two of the five troll-farm pages we identified.
In the run-up to the 2020 election, the most highly contested in US history, Facebook’s most popular pages for Christian and Black American content were being run by Eastern European troll farms. These pages were part of a larger network that collectively reached nearly half of all Americans, according to an internal company report, and achieved that reach not through user choice but primarily as a result of Facebook’s own platform design and engagement-hungry algorithm."
https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/09/16/1035851/facebook...
I'm not claiming anything you say is false. Troll farms and external interference is indeed a problem.
But Musk just bought the election for Trump. If that isn't an indicator that the imminent threat is internal and not external, I don't know what is.
Not impressed whatsoever with this.
This is not what the internet is all about.
If nobody takes a stand against situations like this, it's only going to get worse.
Enact laws that require app makes not to be allowed to harvest so much data and/or hold onto it for more than 24 hours perhaps.
But don't just kick some massively successful company off of your country's internet because you're afraid.
Maybe another open source library will fix it.
And what exactly is preventing China to launch a new app withjin hours (that is the point of cloud infras right?) under a new company using tiktok source code and allow easy importation of dumps from tiktok to facilitate their migration and get a head start?
As for the one's they've missed, typical government incompetence. They have trouble differentiating what is, and is not a "Chinese app".
"And what exactly is preventing China to launch a new app within hours..."
No users. TikTok's massive userbase wasn't created in 7 days.
Anyone who uses TikTok, knows China can’t really gin up any propaganda through it.
Propaganda only works if it seduces, not if it bludgeons and China as a country never seems to be able to seduce. It’s Hollywood that gets exported to China, Xi Jinpings daughter studied at Harvard, not the other way around. China is a fashion victim of US propaganda if anything. The worst China could do, was artificially boost “how cool China is” TikTok’s, crudely ban TianMen Square TikTok’s and this does not convince anyone. It only encourages even more subversive TikTok’s, weakening its power further.
In fact I would claim, China not only has no power over those that use TikTok, but in its current regime, it has no pathway to ever influence those that use TikTok, even in the future. The Chinese regime is practically capable but culturally uncool. All that the American Regime has succeeded in banning TikTok, is embarrass the American Regime and reveal itself to be equally uncool in the eyes of Gen Z. If you browsed TikTok recently, you have seen probably all the ironic TikTok’s of Americans saluting the Chinese National Anthem. This irony from the younger generation, itself shows how uncool Congress has become. A culturally dominant regime, would have no reason to worry about enemy’s propaganda, and America didn’t realize it but it was very culturally dominant, now however it’s own insecurity has harmed its prestige significantly.
In fact in a very real sense I think it’s impossible to be neutral. Similar to running a newspaper and picking which articles are on the front page. There is no neutral outcome: the owners of a feed inevitably make editorial choices on what gets shown.
The best way to deal with teenagers, is if you are cool in their eyes, then they will naturally try to copy you. This is hard for most parents, try too hard to be cool and you will be relentlessly mocked. In fact if you can’t be cool, it’s best to just be neutral and let them drift the way they drift, because if you try to impose too much, you just encourage their natural rebellious streak and get opposite results.
The Chinese government has always been in the position of the uncool parent who is trying to take control by being a disciplinarian. Thinking they can control US public through some hidden levers, is like thinking the parent secretly is making the teenager do his bidding by playing 5D chess. It is a fantasy. The US regime was more cool, maybe not as cool as actual Gen Z, but cool enough that they were not relentlessly mocked. Unfortunately this act, just exposes them as uncool after all, and makes them get relentlessly mocked. If the goal, is to win hearts and minds, US could not have scored a better own goal. That said, maybe this was going to happen anyway, the newer generation seems the most ironic and the quickest to mock existing social mores and ideals, and this act just sped up the process.
This is studied and proven to be happening already: https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/A-Tik-Tok-ing...
Just before the ban product price tiktoks were huge: 2 usd corn in China VS 6 usd in the US where comments pointing out that Americans have 5x on avg higher wages were clearly down ranked.
It is a tool of chinese propaganda and surveillance.
US is a hypocrite. How about Meta and other US companies? Those companies does the same if not worse damage to your citizen.
No, it's not. The point is about who's doing the damage. Ultimately, you can't really drop a ginsu telephone pole or send a 3-letter agency for a late night visit to a China-controlled company's leadership, but you can do that with US-based companies. From a geopolitical stance, US companies can be wielded to further US' interests, not so much for ByteDance.
If you're another country consuming Meta, etc. then you should probably be wary about dependence on a foreign platform's influence. The biggest difference however is how close the platform is to the government. In the US, it's getting closer, but still has some separation; in China it's rather close to one-and-the-same due to the pressure that the govt can exert on companies to do their bidding.
Today we are shown that the US government can't tolerate a single non-American service becoming mainstream after all. I fear this will become the norm and in a couple years' time, all countries will block all foreign internet services by default, only homegrown apps will exist. Think Canada, France, the UK each having their own versions of Google, Instagram, Reddit, everything.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521...
Spirit of the script seems to be stolen straight from the former USSR
Truly bleak.
Geroge Orwell - Proposed preface to Animal Farm, first published in the Times Literary Supplement on 15 September 1972
https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
I don’t get how can Americans be so insecure about themselves and have such fragile trust in what they can achieve as a country. This idea that foreign authoritarian regimes should be respected as much as their own people and system is just baffling.
The country is constantly on a knife edge. It takes only a tiny shift to cause a radical change in the power structure, and good reason to think that power structure will be used against you.
It is indeed remarkable that the country has achieved anything at all when it spends so much time cowering. Nor is that new, but modern media seem to give it more immediacy.
I disagree based purely off of my own life and experiences. The shift rightward over the past 10 years is palpable. It's not surprising historically at all - the US has always been composed of almost entirely conservative, individualistic attitudes and then little pockets of progressiveness here and there. They never last, rather the hope is just to get as much done as fast as possible in that time frame.
Certainly, policy that would be unthinkable 15 years ago is par for the course now. I think that's just undeniable, and speaks to the radicalization of the US.
Take a deep breath, we're all gonna be okay.
Maybe you should try to get out of the technofacist mindset?
While you are preparing brisket they are expecting to lose rights and have friends taken away. For them it is not going to be ok.
Everything will be okay, nobody is losing their rights. Try getting out of California/NYC some time.
Moving the goal post there isn't it?
I believe it's arguably clear the right to privacy and freedom of movement have been attacked/stripped though and those are constitutional rights.
Respect doesn't mean that you have to agree. If you believe that something is wrong, use arguments, educate, inform... It's hard to implement pathological behaviour in well informed and educated society. Fragile society, however, is easier to be manipulated with and lead to hate, violence and wars.
What's wrong with this solution?
An example of an anti-solution is lowering crime by making something that was illegal no longer illegal (see: public transit vs automobiles). Or, reducing the incidence of something by making it illegal while simultaneously increasing it's necessity (see: abortion). Or, solving wage inequality by protesting minimum wage increases.
I think imposing certain limits on various freedoms, including speech is required for a functioning democracy. I also believe that there are deeper issues if the populace of a nation no longer respect the decisions made by its highest court of law.
We've got the whole world wearing blue jeans and listening to our music, mostly communicating on our tech platforms. English is the default language for international business. One Chinese social media company and its game over? Have some faith in your culture.
Every bad thing we’ve been taught to believe about China or Russia, it turns out we do too and often worse. So what loyalty should we have? What has democracy and capitalism done for us but bankrupt our seniors with medical debt and addict our children to iPads and amphetamines?
I’d love to be able to trust my government and the American ideal again, but don’t tell me I’m weak for second-guessing the whole con game this century is turning into.
Radicaly increased wealth. I guess you have access to drinking water, food, place to sleep and be warm at cold sessions. It wasn't a standard few decades ago and still it is not fot most in the world.
"I’d love to be able to trust my governmen..."
Do you really believe that government solve your problems?
“Radically increased wealth”, for who? Government has never solved my problems, only created more. My point is that I would have been doing better under China’s system than ours.
I’m not sure how you can say this with a straight face. China hit rock bottom after the cultural revolution and they had a lot of “the only place left to go is up!” going on. This is like someone saying their salary increased 5X from $10k to $50k and calling that better than someone’s salary only going up by a third from $200k to $300k. Yes, the improvements have been great, and while your life would have improved more under Chinese rule (velocity), do you really think your position would be better off? (And imagine only making $50k or $100k/year and houses still start at a million bucks!)
If you don’t like government meddling, China probably isn’t the place for you. Yes, they might not pay attention that you aren’t following some rule for awhile, but the rule exists and they will eventually hit you with non-compliance.
Years of TikTok usage
Let's be honest: "Democracy" in the USA is and always has been a game for the rich, especially since the 1908s when Reagan and Thatcher decided that China should be the top dog in the world order.
People just want to live happily. Simple as that. TikTok gives a lot of people a feeling, a snippet, of a little bit of freedom and connection with others. All US media makes people fearful - FOX "news" is literally just fearmongering for boomers and their children who can't afford homes of their own. CNN and MSNBC is just fear mongering against boomers who watch FOX "news". Facebook/Meta/IG/WhatsApp is an extension of these fears into the virtual world and TikTok offers something better.
Jokes on the USA though. RedNOTE is gonna close the cultural divide between America and China and Americans will realize just how far the boomer generation and those who have been elected to uphold boomer beliefs really left younger/current generations behind.
China has won technologically and now begins the cultural victory.
I can foresee, sadly, that there will be an unnecessary loss of lives in the short term however for both the USA and BRICS nations. Hopefully I wind up being wrong.
TikTok is not some bastion of freedom, they did win with critical mass and a vastly superior algorithm. All media makes people fearful, you speak so highly of China but have you consumed mainland Chinese media before? It is like Fox on steroids, packed full with stories that paint China as the victor and America as a dangerous and silly country.
Calling a victory in technology is laughable, mainland manufacturing is incredible, one of the best in the world. Products in China have caught up and in some spaces exceeded western brands. China is still missing out on innovation in high-tech, thats why they have been caught so frequently trying to steal corporate secrets.
RedNOTE is not going to prove anything to americans except the disdain the Chinese have for Americans joining their social network and the level of censorship that exists in a mainland app.
It is like you are a propaganda machine and ironic enough it reads just like a mainland Chinese news article. If there was a conflict everyone would lose out. I am surprised anyone would foreshadow it. China unlike Russia seems to still think through the lens of economic interests, I suspect nobody in the current regime would want any type of conflict. While they may have a military its entirely untested both equipment and men.
It is only when a system is failing that it becomes susceptible to destruction by indifference.
You might have a point, though. With the new administration and its explicit focus on short term populism, it’s hard to stand up for anything.
Similar story with Huawei.
The politics of this are exactly the opposite of that you're saying. This is about restricting democratic rights.
Senator Mitt Romney put it very bluntly [0]:
> "Some wonder why there was such overwhelming support for us to shut down potentially TikTok or other entities of that nature. If you look at the postings on TikTok and the number of mentions of Palestinians, relative to other social media sites - it's overwhelmingly so among TikTok broadcasts."
Or maybe Mitt Romney is just another conspiracy theorist?
0. https://www.axios.com/local/salt-lake-city/2024/05/06/senato...
The people who formulated the ban failed a few times previously, both because they couldn't gain enough political support to push it through and because it was legally shaky. The Gaza issue was what led to overwhelming support for a ban in the US Congress and Senate (as Romney says), and the ban was intentionally formulated in such a way as to try to legally sidestep the First Amendment question (in a highly dubious manner, but the SC isn't going to overrule Congress here).
> mentioning democratic rights for a CCP app is hilarious.
It's the most popular app in the United States. Calling it a "CCP app" is just braindead. Of course banning the most popular means of expression in a country because the people are expressing themselves in ways that political leaders disapprove of is anti-democratic.
I sympathize with you and agree the initial support definitely utilized the conflict in Gaza but it goes beyond the conflict and centers itself around the ability for the CCP to influence how the algorithm works. To not understand how much control the CCP has over mainland entities is surprising.
This completely depends on the company. There's no evidence that TikTok has been used as a Chinese propaganda vehicle, and the issue that led to TikTok being banned in the US was TikTok's refusal to bow to pressure to toe the line on Palestine/Israel. Unlike Facebook, TikTok did not suppress pro-Palestinian content, and that led to broad Congressional support for a ban.
You keep latching on this idea of Palestinian content. You do realize this is much larger than that conflict?
I have absolutely no direct line to them, never given them any kickbacks, and I visit the country once or twice a year.
I have no doubt that there are businesses that do have significant dealings with the CCP, I would never believe otherwise, but the idea that every company has to have a direct line to them is objectively untrue. I know many other people who also do business with China and its mostly the same story, none of us deal with the government and frankly I would be very uncomfortable if ever I had to.
It’s likely you have and didn’t know it. The “political officer” or otherwise-embedded party official often has another title or “non-official cover” as they say. Communist governments have operated this way since 1918.
The people pushing the ban say it's about Israel. Other Senators and Congresspeople say that's why they and their colleagues supported a ban. There were always some people who wanted to ban TikTok, but they were never able to get majority support in Congress until the issue of Israel came into play. Banning the most popular social media platform in the United States, a platform that more than half of Americans use, is a big deal.
Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn: "It would not be surprising that the Chinese-owned TikTok is pushing pro-Hamas content"
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.: "We’ve seen TikTok used to downplay the Uyghur genocide, the status of Taiwan, and now Hamas terrorism"
And of course, Romney's explicit statement as well, when in context, it's actually far worse because it seems he is very concerned about lax fact checking on TikTok (which American social media platforms announced they are doing away with): https://xcancel.com/ggreenwald/status/1880979821901332773#m
I fundamentally disagree with all of these representatives. Americans are allowed to view all sides of every geopolitical issue and make up their own minds and vote according to their own beliefs. We should never ever be "shielded" from propaganda because we are smart enough to vote for and lead democracy, so we should be trusted as smart enough to ingest any geopolitical information existing in the world.
If 999/1000 tiktoks you see are of one particular viewpoint, you don't think the audience is going to draw specific conclusions? Our species now has mis-information tools that we couldn't have possibly imagined even just a decade ago. We're in the midst of a real struggle to work out how your average person can identify it. It's disheartening how little progress has been made in this area.
So what? If you watch InfoWars all day you'll also draw specific conclusions. If you watch PressTV all day you'll also draw specific conclusions. The point is that Americans can draw whatever conclusions they want, and that limiting info to only "approved" sources is authoritarian
Of all the social networks, Twitter is currently the most concerning, given the far-right sympathies and political connections of its owner.
Would you allow an unfriendly adversary to buy up your ports, critical infrastructure, and food/water supply, or would you block certain transactions in the name of national security?
People being convinced to change their countries geopolitical policies seems to me a perfectly legitimate thing to do in a democracy.
If the american people would like closer relations to china and vote accordingly that seems to me to be the whole point of democracy.
China engaging and supporting that is also a perfectly legitimate means of achieving its goals, no? Or would you prefer that instead of convincing the american people of that, they should instead bribe or coerce their politicians behind closed fdoors?
Unanimous decision to ban TikTok from a divided Supreme Court, 2025.
In both ways, users do it voluntarily, by agreeing with terms of use. You don't have to use those platforms.
- Meta - Facebook et al
- Stasi (an abbreviation of Staatssicherheit), was the state security service and secret police of East Germany from 1950 to 1990. It was one of the most repressive police organisations in the world, infiltrating almost every aspect of life in East Germany, using torture, intimidation and a vast network of informants to crush dissent
The privacy / data protection angle on TikTok is a red herring.
There are other ways China, or anyone else, including any one of us, can get their hands on vast amounts of personal data about anybody. It just costs more than operating a profitable social media platform.
All you need to do is flash a few bucks and talk nicely to a data broker, or Meta (remember Cambridge Analytica?) and there's nothing the US Government or you can do about it, because it's entirely legal. The minimal barriers that are in place to protect the data going into "wrong" hands are trivial to bypass.
And if that doesn't work, the next level up in difficulty is hack the same organizations. China has made an industry out of that.
Yes, all domestic media has also been corrupted by various agencies that wish to psychologically manipulate the masses. Some of this manipulation is to get you to buy things, while other wants to get you to think, act or vote a certain way.
The difference is that when a foreign adversary has the ability to do the same, it becomes a matter of national security. Allowing that adversary to also control the platform itself is beyond unsafe.
The tricky thing is that the US built these tools, and opened them up for everyone to use. This libertarian position is what will ultimately be its downfall. They can't just go and block access to these tools for everyone outside the US, or heavily regulate them, as it will cause an internal uproar, but that is what they must do in order to survive this war. China is in a much better position in this conflict since the government has total control over the media its citizens consume (barring the rampant use of VPNs, which they can shut down at any point). They have no external but massive internal influence.
I feel like everyone should watch this 1985 interview of an ex-KGB agent[1]. It's more relevant today than ever before, and explains the sociopolitical state of not just the US, but of many western countries as well.
Can you understand how others might disagree with this assertion? It doesn't matter if a foreign adversary has the ability to say words. They're just words. Democracies run on words. If our society is going to fall apart because the Chinese say words, it's going to fall apart anyway.
Can you understand that many of us see state steering of narratives on the Internet as a fundamentally illegitimate activity for a government to be undertaking?
I can understand it, but it doesn't make it any less true.
> It doesn't matter if a foreign adversary has the ability to say words.
It matters when those words cause internal social division to the point where it starts destabilizing the nation. This is what we've been seeing in the past decade+, particularly in the US. One of the effects of information warfare is confusion in the victim, where they're not even certain if they're under attack, let alone by whom.
> They're just words.
Words are never "just" words. They're powerful and in the Information Age they can be weaponized at a massive scale thanks to the global platforms the US pioneered.
> Democracies run on words. If our society is going to fall apart because the Chinese say words, it's going to fall apart anyway.
Perhaps. But not at the rate it's falling apart as the subject of these attacks.
> Can you understand that many of us see state steering of narratives on the Internet as a fundamentally illegitimate activity for a government to be undertaking?
You can think of this however you want. But the fact of the matter is that those same freedoms you enjoy and require from your government have put you in a worse position geopolitically than countries that don't have them. Maybe it's time to rethink your priorities as a nation and sacrifice some of those personal freedoms for the greater good. Is watching silly videos really worth witnessing your country tear itself apart from the inside out?
I'm not taking sides in this matter, BTW. The US has been the perpetrator of many atrocities around the world, some of which have impacted me personally, but I think the world would be in a far worse position if other countries were policing it. I'm just pointing out that from this outsider's perspective... you're screwed.
> sacrifice some of those personal freedoms for the greater good
No. That's not what this country has been about and it will never be what it's about.
Really? How has that approach worked for us so far on the open internet? Do you feel that societies have been able to converge on the truth? We can't even agree on what that means. When everyone has the ability to spew their version of "the truth" with equal reach, what you get is a cacophony of signals that makes it impossible to separate the signal from the noise. And if that wasn't enough, we're in the process of adding generative AI to this mix. Insanity... But I digress.
I'm not arguing for censorship, mind you. I'm with you in spirit in this argument, even though I don't really know what the solution might be. What I'm saying is that the utopia of an open and connected world that the internet, web, and, later, social media companies have promised us is clearly not working. Instead, it has allowed interested parties to propagate their agenda for personal, financial, political, etc. gain, playing the masses as pieces on a game board, which has only served to further drive us apart. It might be time for people to realize this, and actively reject this form of manipulation, but I'm not holding my breath for that to happen anytime soon. It just seems silly to me to fight for the freedom to consume digital content on specific platforms, without even considering the global picture of what might be at stake.
> There are no information weapons --- only narratives inconvenient for this faction or that faction.
That's a very naive perspective. If inconvenient narratives can't be censored, then counter-narratives can be just as—if not more—effective. With the ability to reach millions of eyeballs via influencers or by just running ad campaigns, anyone with enough interest and resources can shape public opinion however they want. We know how powerful this is because we know that advertising and propaganda are very effective, and we've seen how democratic processes can be corrupted by companies like Cambridge Analytica. So, yes, information can indeed be weaponized.
Information warfare is nothing new and has existed long before the web and the internet. The internet has simply become its primary delivery method, and is the most powerful weapon of its kind we've ever invented. I urge you to read up on the history and some of its modern campaigns. Wikipedia is a good start.
> No. That's not what this country has been about and it will never be what it's about.
Great. Enjoy it while it lasts. :)
Nope. Unanimous decision that the First Amendment does not prohibit banning TikTok.
The fundamental issue is ByteDance ownership. Forced divestiture due to legitimate concern for potential abuses is perfectly acceptable whether by a financial or national security rationale.
———
1 - https://www.axios.com/2024/04/27/biden-tiktok-sale-grindr
All data that they collect are given by user voluntary, by agreeing with their terms of use. Instead of banning, educate about how data harvesting works and why it matters. No one is learning from censorship.
0: https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
While it does contain some criticism of the the UK, quite expected as Orwell was a socialist, it also doesn't claim that Animal Farm was really about UK, European, or US governments.
EDIT: I found the primary source[1] of the unpublished preface, it does list Orwell as its author.
0: https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
1: https://archive.org/details/TheTimesLiterarySupplement1972UK...
Here’s one that flies in the face of the Orwell’s:
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. [...] We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
- Karl R. Popper
In practice we’ve seen both ways play out badly. So clearly we can’t just hope that full freedom is good, and good guys will win.
https://www.persuasion.community/p/yes-you-do-have-to-tolera...
Lots of respect for this guy and his writings but it’s naive to believe people are thinking independently because they can watch TikTok. It just becomes a different propaganda vehicle; the thoughts will still be dependent on the messages they see.
Sure, but even you would agree that if you have even less venues to discover said messages, it'll get more and more heterogeneous?
Maybe TikTok isn't "The last standing beacon for Freedom of Thoughts" exactly, but banning it certainly doesn't get you closer to plurality of opinions.
I think keeping it around is worse. While we’re at it, we need to go after American social media, including entertainment news. People should commune in person and get their opinions from interacting with their community.
It's weird to me that that idea could be such an important part of culture as to become a common saying yet have so little impact on actual discourse.
Not all of it. Just some of it. No need to see everything in such a black and white way.
Also Orwell was obviously not talking about major entities run by other countries. Do you think he would have opposed stopping newspapers directly run by Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union from operating inside Britain?
Let’s JUST invent practical nuclear fusion and sentient AI while we’re at it. Both would be probably significantly easier to achieve..
How are you supposed to manufacture consent if it works?
Massive part of YouTube is about teaching critical thinking for those who can’t attend for many reasons.
Still doesn’t work because of the many roadblocks and mostly laziness in general.
Critical thinking is somewhat more subjective and harder to evaluate (i.e. I wouldn’t give a passing mark for your comment).
For starters me and you (let alone other people) probably have a very different of what “critical thinking” even means besides the very basic stuff.
It’s like “world peace”…
Which is the problem. You can’t just impose your understanding of “critical thinking” (based on your personal context, experience, ethical/moral/social views, prejudices and biases) on everyone and expect it to solve anything. In fact if you did it would likely lead to something truly terrible..
TikTok's manipulation of the feed has been proven through extensive public studies: https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/tiktok-is-just-the-beginning
The pressing need to ban it on security grounds likely extends further into non-public knowledge - Let us not forget that in the current political landscape it's pretty hard to get both major parties to agree on anything, then to actually also vote that way: but that's what happened with regard to TikTok.
There is no behavior that TikTok exhibits that isn't equally applicable to every major social media.
I don't particularly care whether right now, the CCP happens to use that manipulative potential for its own ends more than the US does. It shouldn't be hard to take a principled stand against dystopian surveillance.
I don't understand people who correctly point out that TikTok is a "vector for influence of public opinion", but somehow think that's only a bad thing if it's controlled by a "geopolitical adversary".
By your implied logic, the US should allow Chinese police to function on US soil as the US already had US police on US soil.
Of course
As exposed by whistleblower Frances Haugen, Facebook's algorithms favored content that generated anger and division, which in turn increased user engagement. Facebook now wants to return to that algorithm.
I think a lot of normal and applicable arguments aren't entirely valid when the company in question is more or less an entity of a political adversary.
1.) It's pointless, TikTok is officially banned in US. Even if trump decides to find a US buyer for it, it will go under strict ownership investigation. So there's no way Chinese government has any influence anymore.
2.) This means that any future Chinese apps that get popular will get banned, and no need to go through any court challenges since there's precedent and law
3.) The traffic from the original TikTok will just keep getting split and syphoned, until the magnificent seven claims most of it
except this is not what's happening, the opposite is true: the "manga" (make american nato...) supporters are screaming that China and Russia are finally defeated in the propaganda war, while China and Russia do not care about the tik tok ban.
It's already a victory when the enemy castrate itself and goes against the sentiment of their population, especially the young ones, out of fear that something might happen, but there's no evidence it has happened yet not that it is going to happen anytime soon.
When you think that tik tok is so dangerous that your democracy could fall because of it, well, you got bigger problems on your hands.
> goes against the sentiment of their population
If you read this thread you’ll see that it’s pretty divided. I for one don’t care that it’s gone and even welcome the ban. I dislike that China has a firewall for American companies, but will gladly enter our market.
Isn't Red Book pushed by angry titk tok users, just like blue sky was the reaction to Musk buying Twitter?
> I dislike that China has a firewall for American companies, but will gladly enter our market.
China was invited by the USA in the USA market.
In exchange for their cheap and educated labor force and growing market.
Ask Apple if it was good or bad for them to exploit the Chinese market and labor.
It's the USA that pushed to invite them in the WTO.
Is it too much to ask to the USA to reflect a little before acting?
They can't do that with offices that are parties offshore, owned by non-Americans.
Additionally, I'm not convinced that the US is actively investigating such things, at least formally, on domestic social networks anyway. Twitter's algorithm at some point was tweaked to amplify Musk's posts. Was there a formal investigation or certification process, or were any controls put in place, to ensure that nothing Musk Tweeted would ever be subject to foreign influence, and thus enable amplification of foreign propaganda or ideology? I quite doubt it.
I didn't think Twitter was even required to inform the government that his Tweets were being boosted. Researchers discovered it. (And I think there were some leaks from Twitter developers, via journalists.)
It just seems weird that we seem to put very minimal effort into verifying that domestic networks aren't pushing foreign propaganda, but then our logic was excluding foreign social networks is that they might push propaganda. We don't even know that the American ones aren't, and we don't even seem to care very much.
The PLA took huge lessons from the first Gulf War that the way to fight the US was to fight everywhere but the traditional battlefield.
Their means and methods have been absolutely brilliant.
The most brilliant thing to me is to fight on a time frame that is so long, that even the idea the PLA is at war with the US sounds ridiculous to most Americans.
If this is true, Douyin will never divest of Tiktok in the US. They would rather it just shutdown in the US. They won't let the US dissect an information weapon from the inside. The company valuation can't include the information weapon value so the offer price is always going to be a joke from the Douyin side.
Not the entire U.S. population is on TikTok. Even if a significant percentage are, your argument is that they cannot think for themselves? It is widely known that TT is Chinese owned/controlled yet Americans still used it. Even a regulation requiring disclosure of that fact each time you open it would be fine. But an outright ban on the app itself? This is a huge "feel good" moment which will not improve any aspects of the social media environment in the U.S.
we don't let any foreign citizens work on missiles and stuff (ITAR), we shouldn't let adversarial countries own and control communications infrastructure
this doesn't get enough attention. ByteDance could have easily partitioned off the US environment and made bank selling it. but the influence potential was too juicy for CCP to let ByteDance sell it. even if the CCP wasn't manipulating the algorithm to sway US public opinion - I don't know whether they were or not - having that option open was far too valuable to part with it.
and I think they were playing a game of chicken, honestly. they bargained for the US government being too dysfunctional - and TikTok too popular - for the ban to happen.
I think that's kind of trivializing the position they were in. Would you take the same tone if it were an American startup that were forced to sell a big chunk of itself pre-IPO? Would you roll your eyes at them for "being greedy" at any indication of pushback against such a requirement?
I don't think the law is necessarily bad, considering the national security implications, but it's a cop-out to dismiss the burden of being forced to sell a major part of an enterprise as no big deal and the owner as just stubborn.
to be clear, I don't think ByteDance was greedy. I suspect ByteDance would have been happy to cash out. but it wasn't up to them, they needed approval from the CCP.
if a US social media startup somehow got extremely popular in China, I'd understand and even empathize with China requiring it be sold. they'd be right to mistrust us.
China avoided this problem by ensuring that never happened in the first place.
Then China requires the company's operations in China to be more than 50% owned by China. The TikTok thing is very much "what's good for the goose", but it's also the US acting more like China the authoritarian country.
I couldn’t figure out if that is actually true
But the distinction is somewhat redundant with their government structure anyway. If they want to force you to do something there, how much does it matter if they say "you have to because we have majority control of this company" or "you have to because we have a one-party system and control the law"?
If the US government e.g. orders a US company to censor criticism of the US, the company can sue them and plausibly win. If you can't do the same in China, you don't control that company, they do.
You can both believe that the requirement is justified and that it comes at a big cost for the org that would have to sell. They aren't mutually exclusive.
> let adversarial countries own and control communications infrastructure
This is an exaggeration that a social media platform for short form content is communications infrastructure, akin to a cell tower or fiber optic line. I'd the say the same for your mention of ITAR in a thread about, again, a social media platform.
If we were serious, there would be regulations for all social media, not just forcing of U.S. ownership then saying "all good, this can't be bad since Americans own it"
if "we were serious" about what? the issue of foreign control is not relevant to domestic companies. we could have some other regulations too, sure, but this one is reasonable.
I think people should be able to decide which social media apps they want to use. They're not even close to reaching the levels of the "infrastructure" box you're forcing them into to justify this decision.
TikTok isn't "infrastructure", TikTok is software. TikTok exploits the infrastructure of the internet across the world, it is not infrastructure itself. The servers TikTok runs on is technically "infrastrucutre", but those same servers could run anything else, the hardware is not "TikTok". I could run "TikTok" the software on any hardware, even if it isn't connected to the public internet, and that would not qualify it as "infrastructure", at least not in the sense that it's servicing any population.
why should China obey to an US request?
Of course they are against selling it, like the US government of course is against Google selling to the Chinese.
But that speaks volumes on the sad state of our democracies, they are so brittle that students protesting against the slaughter of Palestinian kids can trigger a cold war and the revanche of the authoritarian doctrines of a not so distant past.
Suppose that is true. Then why are you ok with Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, or any other American oligarch wielding even more influence on US culture? When it comes down to it, it's just jingoism, isn't it? China man bad, America man good.
Not wanting authoritarian shitholes to have influence on people isn't really all that crazy of a stance, IMO, even if the world isn't perfect and shitheads like Zucc have similar influence.
If you don't like this, you are free to forgoe your citizenship and the benefits of the protection of the state to live statelessly.
It's not arbitrarily discriminatory. It is intentionally discriminatory. As a citizen of USA, Elon Musk has sworn total allegiance to the United States and abjures any loyalty to any previous sovereign. Now whether you agree or not on his interpretation that he is acting within the interests of the USA and it's constitution is the function of the political process, of which his allegiance is the prerequisite to participate in, and his acquisence to the monopoly on violence by the US Gov.
A Chinese oligarch living in China has not sworn his allegiance to the United States, his allegiance explicitly lies in total loyalty to the Sovereign of China, and by extension, the CCP. If the interests of China and USA were to be opposed, by definition the Chinese Oligarch will support the interests of China over the USA. And right now, the CCP and USA are very much in strategic competition. Nor does the USA have any ability to enforce on it's laws on someone living in China as opposed to USA.
Ever since the Code of Hammurabi justice has been based on the principle of equal treatment. That is, if you commit a crime the punishment should be metered out based on the crime and not your identity. The TikTok ban violates this principle because it discriminates based on identity. It makes no sense that it would be a greater crime for a Chinese businessman to own a social media network than it is for an American businessman.
In fact, if we look at the evidence, Musk has leveraged his control over Twitter to bolster neo-Nazi propaganda, silence his critics, and promote European right-wing parties. No such evidence exist for TikTok. If you are willing to overlook this evidence because "China man bad" then that indeed does make you a racist.
Ban 'em both for all I care, my whole point is that pretending as if the west is being evil or whatever for banning these obvious propaganda channels is absurd to me
please stop spreading lies.
The Romanian supreme court presented no evidence and instead cancelled the election results while the election were still going on (citizen living abroad were still voting)
It was just an excuse to stop something NATO did not like from happening and I am saying it as a very left leaning person, anti-fascist and anti-Putin.
What happened in Romania is a pure and simple coup d'etat with no military intervention.
Besides: if tik tok could really win elections in EU, it means our democracies aren't remotely as strong as we like to believe.
And if that's true, imagine what the US can do, having by far the largest budget for these kinds of operations in the entire World.
They had 10 parties and 4 independents that split the vote. In that particular election there were 6 right wing parties that collectively got 47% of the vote. The top 3 of those got 19.18%, 13.86%, and 8.79% of the vote.
The highest non-right party got 19.15% of the vote.
Georgescu's TikTok campaign just needed to get more than 19.15% of the vote to get to the top 2 round. He got 22.94%.
With the number of parties they have and the lack of any parties that come anywhere near majority support they really need to be using ranked choice voting or something similar.
replace Tik Tok with any other social network, that serve much more people, have much more penetration in Europe and have much larger budgets at their disposal and you will see how Tik Tok is a red herring in Romania.
It's just that democracy is good only when the "right" candidate wins.
In my Country the USA have controlled the results of the elections for 50 years, often relying on blackops, infiltrated intelligence, fabricated propaganda, reactionary movements, funding terrorism and in the process killing hundreds of innocent people.
It's nothing new to us in Europe.
I think you meant to say that it is not the job of any supreme court to cancel free elections without evidence.
I dare you to quote the documents that link the win of Georgescu to Russian propaganda.
I am not saying Georgescu wasn't helped by Russia, I am saying there is absolutely no evidence, and if an election can be bought with a couple hundred thousands dollars spent on tik tok, are you implying I could win the elections in Romania?
It is that weak the state of democracy there?
Imagine what the US could do there, having tens of billions at their disposal.
Again, it's not the job of any court anywhere in the world to present evidence
Allegedly.
It must be noted that
On 2 December, following a court-ordered recount of nearly nine million ballots, the Court validated the results of the first round of elections, certifying Călin Georgescu and Elena-Valerica Lasconi as the candidates for the second round.
The Court emphasized that annulment under Article 52(1) of Law No. 370/2004 requires clear evidence of fraud or irregularities capable of altering the assignment of mandates or candidate rankings, a threshold not met in this case
---
The votes were already re-counted and validate, moreover the court said there are no evidence of large frauds, not enough to justify an annulment, the same court that few days later actually annulled them. Isn't it suspicious to you?
And again: you're trying to move the goalpost here, the court doesn't have to provide evidence, they have to evaluate the evidence, and, by their words, *there is no evidence* of fraud.
In other news, Trump broke elections laws too (allegedly), are the US elections irregular?
In my country at every election turn there are accusations of breaking the election laws, and some irregularities are effectively happening, that does not invalidate the elections.
The will of the people is paramount and the supreme court is a servant of the people, it's not an absolute emperor nor it's their dad.
I would chose China, which is on the other side of the globe, has no military bases in my country (USA have 3! two of them with nuclear capabilities) and probably what they gather from me make little or no sense to them and can't really influence me the same way (not even close to it) content in my language, repeated day and night from the top government bodies to the least popular piece of media that then spread from mouth to mouth and becomes a discussion topic at family gatherings, can.
No way tik tok remotely has that power, no way China could really do anything like that, they can at most insinuate through the cracks already present in our contemporary societies hoping it will work, but banning tik tok will only widen them.
It's one of those situation where having a common enemy should reunite people with opposing views, but it's not evil aliens trying to conquer earth we are fighting, it's social content (mostly entertainment) that this time will take people with opposing views even more apart.
Sometimes, public opinion can be swayed very easily, by igniting the first spark with something outrageous; this is especially fruitful in times where the president of the United States openly opposes journalism, spreads lies, and generally fosters distrust and doubt. Lots of people are more inclined to believe a random TikTok than a professional journalist with decades of experience; what do you think were to happen if the Chinese government sees immediate value in the US government making a specific decision to their benefit, and one of the tools in their toolbox is playing a flurry of short videos to millions of American citizens, made to influence their understanding of an issue?
Most people will follow a reasonable opinion if it's the first time they're confronted with a complex situation. TiktTok is the perfect tool to exploit this, by delivering this opinion to absurdly narrow target groups, in a matter of seconds. Just because you don't notice this right now does neither mean the capability doesn't exist nor that it isn't already happening—which may be one of the reasons there is a bipartisan effort to pull through.
and that makes it different from IG, Facebook, X, YouTube (etc etc) how exactly?
With all due criticism, there are still checks and balances in place in the US that make it a very different place. We're not talking about an objectively "correct" decision here, but what is in the best interest of the USA and its allies, and that certainly makes a difference when it comes to foreign influence on the own populace.
All that being said: American Tech companies are dangerous in their own right, and nothing in my post was defending these either. But that doesn't make TikTok less of a threat.
This is actually false.
The USA are a Republic, not a democracy. By constitution.
> there are still checks and balances in place in the US
If you are rich, maybe it's true.
I give you that.
> but what is in the best interest of the USA and its allies
The US has no allies. My Country is a vassal of the US, we cannot decide anything geopolitically relevant on our own.
Can we for example exit NATO? Of course we can't! They got military bases here, with atomic missiles, recently updated.
We can't even negotiate the release of one of our own independently without the US giving the thumb up/down.
So, please, before saying that what they do it's in our best interest, please, ask us.
It's usually not, BTW.
> But that doesn't make TikTok less of a threat
My point: same threat should result in the same response to the threat.
We should ban any non European propaganda machine on our soil.
One simple example: we all know what went down with Cambridge Analytica and yet if you look for it, you won't find any reference to trials or convictions, because there was none! it had a massive influence on shifting political view of the people in UK and in the US, but you'll only find vague scolds to bad apples that unilaterally abused of one - with a clear conscience - social network, unknowingly to the management. Despite a ton of evidence of the contrary.
How can you explain that?
But that is not the talking point here. The current situation is the USA effectively banning TikTok in the USA to ensure national security.
The particular interests of other foreign countries are not being considered here, and I honestly don't quite understand why you think they should be? It's not like the USA is forcing this decision on everyone else.
> How can you explain that?
Now look; I'm not an American myself. I'm also appalled at what Meta and X are doing; it's all awful. But this particular decision? It's just not about us, and yet I can still try to understand why it was taken, and how I think it is the correct one, from the perspective of the USA.
the best oppressor is the one who's far.
That's why the US dominion over Europe seems better than the ones before, the USA are on the other side of an Ocean.
In my case, China influence is not an influence, I've studied China, I come from a long tradition of socialism and in particular "the Chinese way to socialism", I see them as a field of study but I think their way it's the new way of the World, capitalism the way it is implemented right now, especially in the US, it's not working anymore for the 99% (it's a meme, I know, but it's a fitting metaphor) and yet I don't buy their propaganda, because I despise propaganda, wherever it comes from.
OTOH the interest of China in me is minimal at best, they have bigger fishes to fry, while the declination of the various American social networks in each different western country (including mine) have a strong interest to sell me something, so they can make more money through ads. I am very much a good target for them and that bothers me much more.
> The current situation is the USA effectively banning TikTok in the USA to ensure national security.
And yet the POTUS himself promised to relieve the ban.
He didn't like tik tok, until he did.
And I know, you know, we all know, but don't say it, it's a move to piss of the democrats and the previous administration "with me, things will change" regardless if tik tok really is or it is not a threat to national security.
What does that say about the US actual political situation?
And what does China reaction says?
Singaporean corporations controlled by the Chinese government in China does not have FA rights.
America man friend of president.
It assumes that we must prevent public from accessing some thoughts/propoganda as they may not be able to make right decision themselves. This is rhyming with 1930s Germany or other authoritative regimes since then.
Actually it’s more like preventing your wife to talk to other men, just in case. We know what the world thinks about these kinds of husbands…
It’s a clear example of how leadership can skew the algorithm to try to influence things.
Now, in twitters case they are wildly obvious about it and everyone is starting to think they’re a joke.
Tik tok isn’t run by a buffoon so anything they do would be far more subtle
Twitter is also showing why these type of companies need far more regulation applied. But that doesn’t mean it’s bad to take other actions in the meantime.
I’m not making a point about the usefulness of the law, only the _definition_ of it. In the context of the ban Musks American-ness is more important than his South African-ness and both are more important than his wealth.
america and americans should be able to view any media and still come to the best conclusions. banning media is a lack of trust in americans ability to formulate opinions. what the point in having media and democracy if you dont think people can make good decisions based on it?
I’m rather confused how do you think that is somehow connected with:
> horrible crutch that suggests america is already dead and gone
If you believe that then surely you must also believe that it was never “alive” in the first place?
Americans certainly didn’t have unrestricted access to any type of media in ta past. In fact it was heavily centralized and controlled by a small number of entities. One might argue that the decentralization starting with cable television/etc. and then internet led us to where we are.
Everyone used to be watching the same handful of television channels (which were relatively “apolitical” anyway) and a small number of available newspapers. It’s rather obvious why it was much easier to reach societal consensus on most issues compared to these days…
I'm sorry, but this is not a good assumption. It has not been the case historically.
As does turkey or Germany or whoever when it comes to US socials operating in their countries.
All you need is a court order and all socials will delete whatever content is requested.
No, this is about kowtowing to the new powers that be.
China's rule of law is generally very weak. "Ultimately, no matter what the laws say, it would be difficult for any Chinese citizen or company to meaningfully resist a direct request from security forces or law enforcement, and the courts cannot be relied on to provide a remedy." https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/what-the-national-intel...
This is particularly obvious with the number of senior executives of key Chinese companies who have simply disappeared, at least temporarily, when they displeased the government. Again, nothing comparable in the USA (yet).
We have freedom of speech in this country — and for the boogeyman that China was somehow weaponizing their platform, we just removed the voice of countless communities that had formed on TikTok.
Imports of firearms and ammunition from China to the USA have been banned since 1994 [1]. IIRC Chinese companies were caught selling rifles and other gear to known gangs in California and that motivated the law.
Firearms imports are also much more restricted generally than most other categories. More than one manufacturer has reincorporated in the United States because of the regulations.
[1]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/3355...
there is no First Amendment right for Chinese companies to operate within our market. there is no First Amendment right for RT to be carried on US cable networks.
if TikTok were a website, it'd be different. it'd be one thing if the US were blackholing tiktok.com. but TikTok is an app that sells ads, and they're not entitled to sell ads to US businesses or publish on US app stores.
There might be, but it would be the cable network's first amendment right to carry them, not RT's right to be carried.
The argument in court was kind of backwards, nobody violated TikTok's rights by taking them off the app store, but you could fairly easily argue that Apple and Google's rights were violated by telling them that they can't carry it. That would, presumably, require either Apple or Google to bring a lawsuit though, and they seem to want to play nice with the incoming administration.
China is a dictatorship where people have no rights. America was built on the principle that the government shouldn't have the power to tell the common people what to do.
It's not true, just to clarify it.
Many foreign corporations operating in China, only if they:
1. Keep all user data within the border. 2. Cooperate with censorship
TikTok meets the first condition in the U.S., and I think the issue lies with the second condition.
so Azure in China can only be ran by a Chinese entity
If you look at it from the other side, it's like Tiktok must be hosted by Microsoft/Amazon but not datacenters in China
They just move to new place. Loads of online communities have died/migrated for various different reasons over the years.
> We have freedom of speech in this country
This doesn't impose on your freedom of speech at all.
Just because you have the right to say anything, doesn't give you the right to say it where you want.
By this logic, the US government should be able to ban any newspaper that is publishing articles that they don't like: it doesn't encroach on the freedom of speech of the reporters of that newspaper, they can just speak somewhere else. They don't have the right to say anything at that particular newspaper, just in general.
Of course, in reality, banning a publication (TikToK) because you think they may publish stories that you won't like (propaganda for Chinese interests) is an obvious violation of the first ammendment and a form of government censorship.
Freedom of speech is that an American person cannot be blocked by the government saying what they want.
There is nothing in the first amendment that protects you from where you can say what you want, nor is anyone entitled to give you a platform.
That's why the US has "freedom of speech zones" which are basically cages far away from where they should be protesting.
TikTok was banned because it's owned by a foreign government, not freedom of speech. If the Chinese government had removed their connection to it, it would not have been banned.
The reason TikTok being owned by China is considered a problem is because it could allow China to control what American citizens see on their timelines - the content.
> The reason TikTok being owned by China is considered a problem is because it could allow China to control what American citizens see on their timelines - the content.
It's the PRC control part that's the key here though. There's nothing banning even blatantly pro-PRC content on other platforms. You can find plenty of tankies praising China over the US to high heaven on places like Reddit.
Then it's just virtue signaling. If the message is not a problem, then who says that message is irrelevant.
Note: to be clear, I'm neither a tankie nor in any other way supportive of PRC policies. They're a horrible genocidal dictatorial regime with imperialist tendencies who are propping up other similarly horrible regimes like Russia or North Korea.
Just to give an example of what would be concerns of the platform aspect of TikTok, that would be concerns about the ability for the app to deploy malicious code to users' phones, or the amount of data that it siphons off legally. But those are de-emphasised in favor of their control on content, which is precisely what's supposed to be protected by the Constitution.
If we banned China from importing video games into the US, that would be a trade issue.
It's very ironic you bring this up though, since China is famously very strict about what foreign media it allows in, and really about how foreign businesses in general are allowed to operate there.
They would not be allowed to own the publishing company.
> How about guns?
This doesn’t have anything to do with media.
> Can they release major motion pictures?
They would not be allowed to own the publishing company.
> Video games?
They would not be allowed to own the publishing company.
The people in these communities still have a right to assemble and say things to each other. It’s more difficult to do so on TikTok after the US distribution ban but it’s ByteDance who made it impossible with this play; this service shutdown is not a requirement of the law.
Both are publishing stories written by others (reporters for the newspaper, subscribers for TikTok), and taking decisions on which stories to publish (through direct editorial control for the newspaper, through the algorithm + some direct editorial control for TikTok).
The operator doesn’t necessarily have to be American. A European operator would be sufficient. But it can’t be an overtly hostile nation.
All of these arguments have been made ad nauseum.
All social media companies controlled by the CCP will be banned in the US. And since all tech companies in China are controlled by the CCP that means all Chinese social media products will be banned in the US.
It’s not all that complicated. It’s not even that controversial.
The issue isn't money going to CCP. The issue is data and CCP control of the algorithm.
You can say what you want and don’t go in prison, sure, but nobody owes you the platform.
The exact same content on TikTok could be replicated by another company coming from some other country and it would be totally fine and unbannable. Which means it's not actually about speech.
Why does who runs the app matter? Stopping someone from saying something is still silencing them, even if someone else saying it would be okay.
This is just setting the groundwork for the government controlling social media even more than it already does, because they know how influential it is.
I'm not defending the PRC in the slightest. I fundamentally disagree with the government forcing a sale of a company due to its social media app. This is different from every other example of banning PRC-backed companies (ex: Huawei, TP-LINK, etc) because there is genuinely a plausible argument for natsec. With TikTok there just is no such argument, other than the video content being controlled by a foreign hostile entity. And I just fail to be convinced that that's enough to ban it. Do we ban Russia Today?
When it crosses international borders? I'm sorry, but duh?
Do you think websites and apps somehow aren't trade? I'd love to hear your reasons for internationally used online services not counting as trade somehow, that's gonna be fascinating.
I'm sorry, what? You realize they're still making money off you, right?
I don't think "if the product is free, then you are the product" is 100% right, but it's not entirely wrong either.
A business' offerings being ad-supported doesn't somehow stop them from being commercial in nature. Hence: trade.
> If TikTok was made ad-free, would that change your argument?
I think as long as TikTok is generating revenue -- or even plans to in the future, as sometimes happens for startups -- it'd count as trade yeah.
>USA has showed it is perfectly okay with this daylight robbery and piracy.
Why? They didn't steal TikTok, they forbade it from operating in the US with the current ownership.
The rest of your comment has so many falsehoods in it I don't really know where to start.
Are you being sarcastic?
The place to protect against this kind of threat is in English class, and by regulating in favor of transparency (re: the algorithm), not by censorship.
The latter will just create a fight for control over the censorship infrastructure, and given our cyber security track record and habit of letting companies do whatever they want, that's not a fight I think we can win without becoming all of the things about China that we find objectionable.
It all just smacks of protectionism and isolationism to me.
Personally, I think it’s a bit of both. There’s definitely concern about Chinese control but it has also been seen as a business opportunity.
That sounds pretty geopolitical adversary to me.
Rather you don't remember the agenda and just roll with the flow.
Trump and Boris Johnson are both total arse clowns, much smarter that they appear to be, and masters of throwing a dead cat on the table.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_cat_strategy
Trump is a _very_ good carny grifter, he can grab attention like few others can.
Remember that pledge to fix Ukraine within a few days of taking office? Probably not - he tangented off on seizing Greenland and the Panama Canal.
Meanwhile, that basket of deplorables is being sworn in.
but yes, there is some evidence but of course its very controversial
Your comment makes me quite alarmed, to be honest. Are people really this clueless about what goes on in the world? Do they not already know that American platforms are already banned in countries that are adversarial to the US?
If America were a hostile nation to a European country, then said country probably would (and should, heck) ban an enemy nation from running a social media company in their borders. As it is, America is on friendly terms with “Europe” and so the worry isn’t really there.
This is why it’s important for nations to not get to the point where relations are this bad in the first place. It results in isolationism and distrust, which is a slippery slope that results in zero-sum outcomes that are worse than if we had open trade. But that ship has sailed long ago. China has openly declared itself to be in utter opposition to the US and has been engaged in grey zone warfare with us for a decade or more. The next Cold War has already begun.
You mention Europe, which is ironic: China is allied with Russia and is openly funding its invasion of Ukraine. Something the EU hasn’t really done anything to help with, because of a complete lack of resources spent on an independent military from the US’s which they have always counted on to defend them. The idea of EU states souring US relations so much that they welcome China, the very country that is funding the invasion of their continent, is utterly insane. If Germany/UK/France/etc had any kind of sense they’d ban TikTok too out of solidarity.
The word "Adversary" is literally the most important word of GP's sentence. They're a country that we're in a cyber cold war with, and they have god mode control over our public opinion.
It would make about as much sense to let Moscow buy spectrum in the 1950s and broadcast TV directly to every American's home. In what universe does that make even the slightest bit of sense?
To take this further, they would be beaming specific content tailored individually for each American.
This is why social media is so damaging for foreign adversaries to control. They’re beaming personally tailored propaganda.
Edit: from your comment history it looks like you’re from turkey. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if turkey banned instagram/fb/X. In fact I’m kind of surprised they haven’t already.
What an odd thing to say. Why should a company that started the biggest social media app in a decade "divest" it to US oligarchic interests when it's a global application? It makes no sense.
This is the largest affront to American freedom since the patriot act, and the fact that people are celebrating it on some red-scare bullshit is terrifying.
I am personally disgusted that my government thinks it should be in the business of telling me what apps I can have on my phone. I am a grown adult, and a taxpayer, and the US Government has no fucking business telling me where I can watch and/or post videos.
Maybe it's time to build a decentralized alternative so this never happens again.
The US is just reciprocating.
we are the same now
The CCP is not some weird thing that's wrong 100% of the time, so the US must always do the opposite thing.
The CCP banning Google/Facebook was wrong, but not for the reason of removing something a "geopolitical adversary has control" over, it was wrong because it was part of their extensive and illiberal censorship regime. The US has nothing similar.
> we are the same now
No.
You can't say without hypocrisy that China blocking US social media is censorship but US banning Chinese app is national security.
It could, but that's clearly not the reason they are banned in China. IIRC, foreign websites were perfectly kosher in China just as long as they fully complied with its illiberal censorship regime.
For instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China:
> "In January 2010, Google announced ... they were no longer willing to censor searches in China and would pull out of the country completely if necessary."
> ... On 6 August [2018], China Communist Party's official newspaper People's Daily published a column which was soon deleted saying that they might welcome a return of Google if it plays by Beijing's strict rules for media oversight.
----
> You can't say without hypocrisy that China blocking US social media is censorship but US banning Chinese app is national security.
I can without hypocrisy (see above). Your ignorance doesn't make your false equivalencies true.
this reminds me another brilliant comment:
> China bans US businesses because it has an autocratic, ethnocratic government. The US is banning a Chinese business for obvious national security reasons.
In the 1950s, China forced private enterprises to sell half of their shares to the state In the 1990s, it required foreign companies to establish joint ventures and share intellectual property as a condition for entering the Chinese market.
Congrats, you just walked in the primary stage of socialism
> this reminds me another brilliant comment:
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Because all the stuff you were reminded of has nothing to do with the kind of "illiberal censorship regime" that I was referring to in what you quoted.
> Congrats, you just walked in the primary stage of socialism
I feel like you're trying to taunt me, but you're doing a pretty poor job of it. Your mention of joint ventures, seems to confusing walking back from socialism with becoming more socialist, somehow.
With Tiktok, US is designed to disgust, it is not giving you an option to comply. If you don't sell yourself, you lose all the business, if you sell yourself, you lose even more business because others will get invention you created. But since USA showed this is perfectly legal, let's use this on USA companies, sell yourself or get banned. Looks like you are perfectly okay with this. Facebook was worth $25B when 15 years ago, let's force Facebook to sell itself and pay Facebook $25B, it will worth $3T today, you still won, and original inventor, the business owners still get screwed. When Apple was weak and worth millions in 80s and 90s, force Apple to sell itself. Steve Jobs gets $100M. Today, you will have $4T brand, technology, ecosystem and company. Yep, this is totally moral and totally American values.
>> China gives you a list of requirements to operate in the country, if you meet it, you can operate.
Some US companies (like Google) choose not to operate there because they don't want to put up with harassment and intellectual property theft that comes with having offices on the mainland.
However, Document No. 107 has not lifted restrictions on foreign investment in services related to information content security, such as public communities, instant messaging, search engines, news publishing, live streaming, short videos, and online games. Generative AI services, which also fall under ICP services, show no sign of opening up to foreign businesses. This reflects the Chinese government's cautious stance on opening internet information service businesses to foreign capital, given these services' relevance to China's ideological security and social stability.
https://www.geopolitechs.org/p/china-removes-foreign-ownersh...
Terrible precedent for global trade, thing is Silicon Valley pulls hard for deregulation, and it's common wisdom here that regulating tech would be slowing down the only economic sector we have that's still growing, so we cannot write any rules that might make for a fair playing field, protect Americans from data leaks and disinformation or whatever, only tool we have is ban competition.
We have a lot of people like that, who used to believe in America's free trade, democracy, fair competition, and innovation. I used to be one too
now things are changing...
I’m not concerned so much about TikTok as spyware or data gathering or a vector for influencing young minds… though it is all of that, to some extent.
The real problem is the one sided nature of the U.S.-China trade relationship.
Some people believe that not retaliating stops cycles and systems. Some of us have principles beyond the very childlike, "well, they did it first".
If you believe state censorship is bad, you should oppose it when it is deployed, even if it's deployed against someone you think is also bad.
Like, I think using slurs is bad. I oppose using slurs, even against people I loathe. I have a principal, and I do not violate that principle even if it would hurt people I would consider my opponents.
Same here. My commitment to my principal that "state censorship is bad" far outweighs any feelings about China.
I think some progress was made getting TikTok on US servers and the US hires etc. Maybe more transparency in how the company operated or observers within could have been good next steps. Maybe some mutual concession with some version of US media operating within China.
Ideally finding benefit to nation states competition benefits global citizens in some way such as the green race transition to renewables is good ... Can we have privacy and democratic media race somehow? ... Maybe not possible :)
I am shocked that so many seem to root for China pointing a mind-control weapon at hundreds of millions of people? The Chinese government wants Europe and the US to fall to them. The good does not outweight the bad, in my opinion.
One doesn't have to support the existence of Instagram and Twitter to definitely not support the Chinese control of TikTok. I think the world would be better without closed-source algorithm-controlled short video feeds.
Do you believe this in your heart? Or how about this: do you believe that Europe wants China to fall? Or that the US wants China to fall?
I feel there’s some uncontroversial stuff like China wanting absolute control over messaging about itself, in the context of avoiding organized resistance in its internal affairs. And it goes to extreme measures to do that.
But (glibly) “we want no criticism to be mentioned of us” does not lead to “we want the US to collapse”! There’s a whole texture to the Chinese position here, one that is different from, say, Russia actually taking more or less direct control of various places during the Cold War.
Have you been repeated this for years that now you take it at face value?
I'm no fan of the Chinese regime, but as an European it's my biggest ally spying on me, lying (Iraq/Lybia) and manipulating me.
China is on the other part of the world and it's history it has never bothered neither Europe nor US. In fact it's our troops that conquered and killed Chinese in millions, not them.
What makes you think that, it's just an algo and network effects.
>I love the us vs them argument. Because it's baseless. Why don't you stop buying everything that's made in China. Let's see how far you get.
Because that would be harmful to US consumers. Lack of short video entertainment reccomended in a particular way is not very harmful. No microwaves or fridges for a couple of years is.
>Nobody is brainwashing anyone.
Influence operations on social media by nation states and others is a verified and ongoing concern. The US and others have been doing this for decades. If China is not doing it via Tiktok already, they would when the invasion of Taiwan starts.
>Except women the world over getting everything for free because they have holes. Nobody complains about that.
Touch grass please.
> Because that would be harmful to US consumers. Lack of short video entertainment reccomended in a particular way is not very harmful. No microwaves or fridges for a couple of years is.
And it wouldn't be a bad thing to "stop buying everything that's made in China," but it's not something anyone can do suddenly. It would require a massive political project on par to the industrialization of China. China makes pretty much everything now (IIRC, they have 30-40% of the world's manufacturing capacity), and that is not a good thing for anyone who is not an authoritarian Chinese communist.
Any suggestion that TikTok poses no real threat to U.S. interests is staggeringly naive. Imagine if CBS, NBC, FOX, and ABC were all owned and operated by the government of America’s greatest adversary—that’s essentially what we’re dealing with. Meanwhile, Chinese citizens are explicitly barred from accessing TikTok in China, and American social media companies are shut out of China’s market altogether. There’s no credible argument that TikTok doesn’t undermine U.S. interests; the only reason people are reacting so emotionally now is that our government took far too long to address this blatant national security risk.
The real danger is indoctrinating teenagers. For example, China could spread extreme wokeness and tell girls (indirectly via influencers) that having children is oppressive. This sort of propaganda is easier and well known to US adherents of Bernays. The US is world leader in this.
But considering the statistics at that time, one could say that it was reasonable. It is better to limit the birth of children rather than, after some time, let natural selection to kill the weakest for starvation or lack of proper environment.
China itself had the one-child policy because the country is full, like the EU. The US has declining birth rates.
That analogy falls apart by making use the hyperbole of comparing ownership of one social media application to the ownership of all major broadcast media television channels. Or is the U.S. so socially conflicted and institutionally fragile that it not handle one single social media application being owned and operated by 's/the government of/a private company from/' its greatest adversary?
The broadcast TV analogy may be more applicable if Instagram, X, YouTube and Twitch were all operated by the oligarchy of a single geopolitical adversary... which arguably could become the case for the E.U. from tomorrow 20th January 2025.
Why are you so afraid of China?
Do you think there will be a war with the US? I find that extremely unlikely given both nations have atomic bombs and nothing to gain from war.
Do you think the US is gonna get economically bullied by China? Well, that’s what the US does to the rest of the world right now. Ironically, that’s why most of Africa would rather partner with China for economic development than with the western powers. But even then, the US is big enough that it can insulate itself from most of that.
Are you afraid that China will start a war in Taiwan? They might, but didn’t the US start a war in Iraq as recently as 20 years ago. Not to mention all of the other middle east conflicts the US is involved in.
You can’t stop China. They have 4x as many people as the US, and just as big a landmass with plenty of resources. China will become the top global power. But that doesn’t mean that your life will be any worse.
It means that your politicians won’t be able to act with impunity as they have for the past century. It means your billionaires will have to compete with China’s billionaires for investment. It means companies will have more competition.
But at the end of the day, your life won’t change. It will probably get better if we’re being honest. China is not your enemy.
Here's what would happen: Nothing. People already think America is a terrible country to live in. Sure, certain interest groups would be preferred, probably Palestine over Israel. Maybe something instead of Saudi Arabia. But for the average American? Why should they care?
A bit over dramatic. I don’t foresee soup kitchens overflowing from TikTok influencers suddenly unable to house or feed themselves.
I suspect many people see that as a worthy cause. They may not understand what it implies, but dammit, they don’t want none of that foreign spyware.
This is the perfect time for Twitter / X to relaunch Vine again.
> Rather than have some sort of further regulation for what data any application can collect and present to Americans, we've just brought the hammer down on the millions of people that use this application for their livelihood.
That's why we have our existing regulators to issue fines against Meta, Google (YouTube), X, Snap, etc when they violate their user's data in the billions.
> Truly bleak.
Life in India appears to be functioning well after their TikTok ban with its 1BN users so even if this is temporary, it is not the end of the world.
This is a chance for TikTok users in the US to reflect on their addictions and hopefully change for the better. There is life after TikTok.
I'm not that educated on the subject (I think most people who are making claims either way about this aren't), but all my priors indicate to me that China's government collects data from and controls content (to be shown only to the western populace) in TikTok much more than the US government with US social media companies.
I understand the comparison, but I think the magnitude of the problem is very likely to be much higher with TikTok.
Control comes in different flavors. Is the US government covertly and directly compelling corporations like they did during Snowden era? Probably less today if I were to guess, and certainly less than China.
I think today the threat is not government overreach but rather that the tech industry and government have so many shared interests and back-channels that coercion is no longer needed, and probably the big ones would throw hissy fits if so. Instead, I think it’s a mutual back-scratching operation. During covid, the infrastructure was laid out, with corporations running the information errands. I think both sides found that to be much more comfortable, and yes I do believe that became the prevailing MO afterwards.
Race riots? Palestine protests? Luigi support, and similar current uncomfortable issues transcending culture war daily jabs? ”Lightly suppressing” such speech has corp-govt incentive alignment, and frankly might be necessary to keep people in check given the growing inequalities and dissent. Any large uncontrolled social media operation is a risk, even without amplifying or suppressing anything inorganically and deliberately.
Those apps aren't controlled by a foreign adversary with a history of ignoring data privacy laws (example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Personnel_Management...)
Some money could possibly be made by some people legitimately.
The bleakest part is people who didn't recognize how extreme a gamble it is if that's what somebody wants to pin their entire livelihood on.
Whether they wrote the app or not.
The "house" just drew the winning hand, and all the gamblers lost everything they had on the table at once.
That can happen at any time, and almost always happens eventually, that's why they call it gambling.
It's not so bad if you don't bet everything.
Posts that get 5m+ views on one platform may only get 5000 on another.
https://dailycaller.com/2025/01/14/tiktok-forced-staff-oaths...
You combine that with the lack of reciprocal access for American and European social media apps to the Chinese market, the mental health issues TikTok causes, the lack of safeguards in TikTok that inexplicably Douyin has (China’s TikTok from the same parent company), and on and on - banning isn’t just justified but the only sane thing for all countries that aren’t China to do.
TLDR TikTok is not comparable to the other services you mentioned because ByteDance is required to comply with Chinese intelligence, and China has made many public statements in recent years to the effect that it is a hostile, rival power to the United States. Allowing ByteDance to operate TikTok is granting a hostile government a tool to influence US public opinion as well as to track the locations and text messages of 170 million American citizens. Congress gave ByteDance the option to divest control so that they could get paid and TikTok could continue to operate, ByteDance refused.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-is-tiktok-being-banned-supr...
Why did Congress want to ban TikTok?
U.S. officials have repeatedly warned that TikTok threatens national security because the Chinese government could use it as a vehicle to spy on Americans or covertly influence the U.S. public by amplifying or suppressing certain content.
The concern is warranted, they said, because Chinese national security laws require organizations to cooperate with intelligence gathering. FBI Director Christopher Wray told House Intelligence Committee members last year that the Chinese government could compromise Americans' devices through the software.
As the House took up the divest-or-ban law in April 2024, Rep. Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican, compared it to a "spy balloon in Americans' phones." Sen. Chris Coons, a Democrat from Delaware, said that lawmakers learned in classified briefings "how rivers of data are being collected and shared in ways that are not well-aligned with American security interests."
"Why is it a security threat?" Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri said Friday. "If you have TikTok on your phone currently, it can track your whereabouts, it can read your text messages, it can track your keystrokes. It has access to your phone records."
If the Chinese government gets its hands on that information, "it's not just a national security threat, it's a personal security threat," Hawley said.
If the United States government gets its hands on that information, "it's not just a national security threat, it's a personal security threat," Hawley (should have) said.
Also the keystroke part seem technically entirely not true and location is only partially correct.
The Chinese government is motivated to have US citizens angry and unproductive.
While productivity and happiness are not the same thing, I am personally far less worried about how my government would influence me than how China would influence me.
meanwhile, we're
- pretending that inflation has landed and is not being resisted by the Feds
- deregulating all the anti-trust accomplishments we made over the years to drive up prices
- pantomiming at best the idea of affordable housing as housing prices surge
- increasing homelessness and unemployment nationwide Something the modern job market does not help with as more job postings than not are fake to hire non-americans (or no one at all).
- deporting immigrants while Trump likely grants even more H1B-s to billionares,
- starting multiple trade wars because Trump is showing the definition of insanity by imposing tariffs again. When last time we lost thousands of jobs and billions of dollars over it.
But yes, banning the chinese app that actually gave some income to young american citizens suffering the worst from the above was done in a snap, relatively speaking. I'm ambivalent on the actual ban, but I can't blame american tiktok users being absolutely fervent with the bald-face hypocrisy going on.
Real wages in all income brackets are at an all-time high (apart from a short blip during the pandemic), and overall have surged since the start of the pandemic. See e.g. https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/employed-full-tim....
If you don't been devastating. Now watch it go down in 2025 and unemployment get worse for Americans as well.
I see zero, little evidence that TikTok brought any particular sympathy to China.
Nor I've seen a single study that has demonstrated that TikTok is any more biased than other socials. In fact it was even less than some (such as Twitter).
I have always and will always say that the government does not have the sole right to influence me as a US citizen, and it is my right to slurp up "influence" from whoever and wherever I want to. The idea that Americans are too stupid to ingest whatever information is out there (edited or unedited, curated or not, propaganda or not) for the sake of democracy is a threat to the very idea of democracy itself.
The very fact that this argument has gained traction is the worst outcome of this entire debacle. I never ever ever thought I'd see Americans cheering that the government should limit the ability of their own fellow citizens to access information, and here we are.
What the United States has accomplish over the last 200 or so years is remarkable, but it's colossally myopic to believe that the US has never curtailed the rights of it's citizens in the name of security. The OSS was never legal. The CIA definitely should not be legal. And lord only knows what the NSA does. But I promise you that restricting access to a Chinese mobile app is not the most egregious thing the United States Government has ever done.
> "[...] it can read your text messages, it can track your keystrokes. It has access to your phone records."
Is that quote accurate though? For accessing text messages, you need to give them an OS permission. For tracking keystrokes, they need to install a keyboard app and you need to select it and use it in the app whose keystrokes they're interested in. For phone records, you again need to grant a separate permission.
I don't use Tiktok but the current gatekeepers of this world don't usually allow unnecessary permissions
Is the narrative on other platforms under their control? What does that even mean? US hardly has coherent narrative these days anyway or at least it changes every 4 years.
Regardless what benefits can you see in allowing the CCP to shape US public opinion in any way?
Western "old" media and social media is filled with reporting about how useless and untrustworthy democratic governments are. If that is the narrative that the US government is setting it is weakening itself.
Of course there are very real reasons that citizens of democracies should not trust their government. Not least that in many cases government decision making has been captured by billionaires and corporations. But I very much doubt China or Russia want to see this problem solved.
Honestly don't see much difference between the goals of global corporations and a hostile nation like China or Russia, they both want democracy to fail and governments weakened. But the corporation probably doesn't want total collapse of society. If paths for a hostile government to exert control can be removed I'll happily take the small win.
This is not some conspiracy theory: this is 100% of the official reason that Congress voted on this. They fear that China has influence through TikTok into the US public, and could use this to sway public opinion [unsaid: just as the US does with Facebook or Twitter]. They also fear that China could surreptitiously spy on high-value targets through the TikTok app - which is why it was forbidden two years ago already from any device used in doing business with the US Government, including the business phones or BYOD phones of all federal employees and contractors.
Interestingly, part of the fear of influence ties back to Gaza. Here is a quote from Mitt Romney about this [0]:
> SENATOR ROMNEY: A small parenthetical point, which is some wonder why there was such overwhelming support for us to shut down potentially TikTok or other entities of that nature. If you look at the postings on TikTok and the number of mentions of Palestinians relative to other social media sites, it’s overwhelmingly so among TikTok broadcasts. So I’d note that’s of real interest, and the President will get the chance to make action in that regard.
This is exactly the sort of issue that the US fears: losing control of the public narrative, especially in the USA, but more broadly as well.
[0] https://www.state.gov/secretary-antony-j-blinken-at-mccain-i...
Actually, they didn't even bring any evidence of that, except for the fact that he claims in official documents and public appearances that his campaign cost 0, which is such a bold faced lie that it barely needs dismissing.
But no, I don't share the court's apparent opinion that, but for TikTok, this lunatic wouldn't have won. All suggestions are that, will he be allowed to run again (which is theoretically the current status quo, him not having been put under any sort of judicial control!), he will win again, despite his vastly diminished TikTok presence. Turns out, to my great personal sadness, that many of my countrymen, idioticaly, actually liked the fascist and weren't (just) manipulated by TikTok.
https://www.politico.eu/article/investigation-ties-romanian-...
The campaign was co-opted by trolls (could have been bored teenagers) to use the hash tag for their purposes.
The win of Georgescu seems organic, he is projected to have the same results in May:
https://www.politico.eu/article/romania-election-2025-hungar...
In the context of the EU it is in no way surprising that a "far-right" candidate gets 30% of the votes. Austria, France and the Netherlands were pioneers in 2000 already.
Germany's AfD had 12% after Merkel's immigration disaster and now was 21% (in polls) after the US has repeatedly used and insulted the EU in the past 4 years. In 2019 pro-US sentiment was deservedly at an all-time high in Germany, that is no longer the case.
...well most of those service are banned in China.
Think it would be pretty reasonable for other countries to ban such platforms too though, as China has understandably already been doing for over a decade. Facebook of course played a big role in genocide in Myanmar, so I wouldn't dare say the US platforms are necessarily better.
Meanwhile we have a member of the inner circle of the US President-elect using the social network that he owns to explicitly attempt to depose the leader of the UK, to support violent extremists, and to support far right parties across Europe. TikTok never did any of that.
> https://www.reuters.com/world/musk-examines-how-oust-starmer...
Not sure why you think I wouldn't be in favor of it. With TikTok it's even more clearcut though as it has already happened beyond reasonable doubt.
I suppose you refer to this: https://theconversation.com/why-romanias-election-was-annull...
"The Romanian constitutional court annulled the country’s presidential election on December 6.
This decision is unprecedented in Romanian history. It followed the declassification of documents by Romanian intelligence services that exposed evidence of voting manipulation through social media platforms, illegal campaign financing on TikTok, cyber-attacks orchestrated by external forces and suspected Russian interference."
https://www.ejiltalk.org/electoral-dysfunction-romanias-elec...
> Here, the opposite could be alleged- that Romania took action, but the action was too immediate and drastic than was called for in the circumstances. Considering how the Court expressed a critical view of overly drastic measures in cases such as the above-mentioned Kermiova v Azerbaijan, it is possible that the Court could similarly show a disdain for the expeditious actions taken by the domestic judiciary in Romania.
Also apparently most voters voted this candidate because of economic reasos, not due to Russian proximity.
Establishment parties obviously didn’t like that outcome.
So we downplaying how Russia had a big hand in getting the US President elected? Twice?
what? you will survive without cat videos or whatever the fuck kids are watching these days
Healthy political discourse ?
https://theintercept.com/2025/01/09/tiktok-ban-israel-palest...
For the down voters, what exactly is the claim here? That everyone on earth is inherently antisemitic, like it's in our DNA? What exactly do the Chinese have against Jews?
No, they do not. These are US products, not the foreign communist party psyops project.
Like, "it's a foreign project"... so is my Nintendo. Are you afraid or worried about foreign things? A lot of the world does a lot of things better than the U.S.
"It's a communist party project"... first of all, plenty of great communist projects out there, and the Chinese communist party is really only a very very narrow slice of communism so your brush is absolutely over broad. But second, so what? What do you own that didn't pass through China in some capacity?
"It's a psyop"... it's an app with funny videos on it. I think you need to set that tinfoil hat down and pause a bit. Does it have a different cultural root used to moderate it? Sure! Are they making moderation decisions I would make? No. Does that make it psyop? Of course not. Don't be absurd.
Is Xbox prevented from competing with Nintendo in Japan, under similar conditions as Nintendo competes with Xbox in USA?
Are there representatives of the Japanese government sitting within Nintendos offices overlooking what Nintendo is doing? Is that government run by a single party?
China doesn’t allow US social media apps, mostly because they want extreme control over the content on their side of the firewall. But probably also because they know that US intelligence services could force the US social media companies to give them access to information or make changes to their code.
So it’s utter madness and ridiculous naive to allow Chinese companies unfettered access to the US market when we know that the parent company is forced to be under direct supervision of the communist party of China, and we know that the party and the PLA along with its intelligence services are essentially one and the same entity.
At the very least this gives Chinese companies undue advantage in the US market. It’s much easier for them to leverage the code they’re written in both the Chinese and the US market, making them more efficient and thus letting them undercut US companies over time.
I can’t believe how naive nearly all of the comments defending TikTok are.
(Sure the “psyop” part of the other comment is a bit much, but I took it as hyperbole and I think most readers would)
The US government has shown, time and time again, what it will do with power once it uses it.
And for anyone living in North Korea who ever has a chance to read your comment, I'm sorry, this person has no idea what it means to live in a police state under a belligerent dictator.
And the right comes from their Constitutional power to regulate foreign commerce. The US has banned American companies from doing business with various foreign entities for a while, though it really picked up after 1990.
I doubt there were, because it would have been moot: the Soviets were so far behind on computer technology that they didn't really make anything anyone would want.
But more generally, the US was a lot smarter about trade with adversaries during the Cold War. There were significant restrictions on trade with the Communist Bloc that limited the kinds of entanglements we now have with China. The US got really stupid and overconfident after the Cold War ended, and that's only slowly starting to change (and this TikTok "ban" is a welcome part of that).
Being a government. They also get to tell you want kind of guns your allowed to have, what kinds of medicines you can take, and how much gas your car uses, and how your home has to be built.
Welcome to the real world, is this your first time here?
They don't have to.
> The issue is that it’s awfully close to the kind of speech you are “permitted” to be exposed to, which is a slippery slope.
It is not. The so-called "free speech" issue with this ban is bullshit and a red herring.
i am not sure why this would give you any confidence that they have actual proof.
2. anyone with half a statistics brain can see the problems in this analysis
3. i’m a big boy, i can consume content even if it comes from a skewed platform
No one reads the actual law, everyone is taking the bait.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521
Serving content could be seen as an ongoing maintenance activity.
The bill also prohibits the provision of "internet hosting services" for the app. Serving content over the internet could be considered providing hosting services, which would be prohibited unless there's a divestiture.
Just putting it out there.
As if merely writing the code is the only prerequisite for making a hundred billion dollar business
I can only expect the bar to geopartition Internet services due to financial, political, and militarian whims to go lower and lower until eventually there's no global internet left.
In any case, I'm glad I could see the 90's.
Shirtless pics
LGBTQ posts
My Hero Academia
The funny thing is, I saw videos from Chinese users that specifically mentioned not to post these things. I had to look up why the anime, and apparently the creator made choices that directly poked at old WW2 tensions between Japan and China.
This isn't about data that people agreed to allow ByteDance to scrape. It's about ByteDance going beyond that and scraping contact information of NON-TikTok users, which could be used for blackmail or in other illegal and adversarial ways.
Everyone knows U.S. companies gather user data. Oracle had been doing it for decades. This is not the issue and not at all why TikTok has been banned.
The difference is that ByteDance was blatantly going after data that was legally not within their rights to grab; NON-TikTok user data on TikTok user's devices.
In addition, there are hints in the decision that the FBI provided evidence that China was using this information for adversarial purposes.
The decision very clearly walks through the First Amendment issues in relation to foreign adversaries and explicitly states that this is a singular decision.
It would have been VERY EASY for ByteDance to stop scraping data or to find a U.S. partner to host the data of U.S. Citizens. I've worked at global consulting firms and Germany requires this. All German citizen data must be hosted in their country. This isn't anything new. Companies make these kinds of compromises all the time and have for decades. Some companies explicitly state their data has to be on-prem or not in AWS. As an enterprise architect, I make these kinds of design decisions all the time. (Scenario: If customer is located in XYZ country, where do we store their data?)
ByteDance simply refused because even though they claim they are not handing data over to the Chinese Intelligence Service, they ACT LIKE THEY ARE.
None of this will matter in a few months. There are active projects to build Instagram and TikTok clones on the atProto network (Bluesky) which will serve the same content without advertising and without an algorithm. There will be Feeds for cat videos, pirate dress up videos, and APT dance videos and I'm 100% sure all the users that join that service will completely forget about TikTok. And the moderation will be given to the users so they can decide what to see.
It said the conjured-up-out-of-nothing right in Roe v. Wade was not a valid argument that the federal government (through the Constitution) explicitly protects abortion.
Even legal scholars on the left admitted before the decision Roe v. Wade was a decision on very shaky ground and liable to be overturned.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/06/john-hart-ely-do...
So it was overturned, and the decision was the state's, not the federal government under current laws.
Nothing stops Congress from passing a national law on abortion. If they do, then the Supreme Court will recognize it.
Ie through state sanctioned ddos and bot swarms
There’s a world in which they could have migrated services to an off-shore cloud and continued to serve the existing users who already had the app installed (with the disadvantage that they would be unable to evolve the app itself, since no updates). It would have bought them time to figure out a long-term, legal fix.
…But instead they chose to just block all users with US-based accounts.
Someone made the calculation that failing the app loudly for US users was the better strategy.
I created a new Canadian account and now I see a lot of Canadian memes that I don't get lol
On mobile the VPN doesn't work as it checks your app store country. I saw a few USA refugees on Canada TikTok saying they changed their Apple App Store country and it works just fine now. I think I'll sacrifice an Android device and do it that way.
Why does it seem that there's no non-Chinese alternative to TikTok popular enough to warrant any mention?
Books are being banned, the defunding of the department of education is an explicit goal at the incoming administration.
The fact that Americans may or may not be incredibly susceptible to propaganda is a direct consequence of national public policy over the last few generations at least, and it's going to get much worse
Amazing that Congress will see bipartisan action on this issue before any of the other much more important issues.
It absolutely destroys criticisms of China banning Facebook, etc.
1. https://www.mintpressnews.com/tiktok-chinese-trojan-horse-ru...
You mean around 10-20% of the open internet? [1][2] That is what you graciously summarize as "Facebook, etc."?
No, it does not destroy criticisms of that. China is #172 out of 180 countries on the World Press Freedom Index [3]. It was #179 two years ago. Just because the US "bans" [sic!] one app (that, by the way, is also blocked in China [4]), that does not make them equal.
To give you an idea of how bad it is: I went through the Pudong Airport two years ago. I had to scan my passport and my face to connect to the WiFi. After I did, I couldn't call my mother, because literally every communication channel I could think of was blocked. I couldn't even connect to a VPN. I might as well have been on a mountain in the middle of nothing.
[1] https://en.greatfire.org/analyzer
[2] https://cyber.harvard.edu/filtering/china/
[4] https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/24/tech/tiktok-douyin-byteda...
basically china's entire tech industry was built on the back of creating an artificially constrained market where foreign competitors with superior products were not allowed to compete. that is, everything that wasn't built off outright theft of American tech. that could have been hundreds of billions of dollars of increased market cap and returns to the investing public, hundreds of billions that china effectively stole.
there is a US-sized subset of China that is close to an even footing with the US, yes
Also, the “yellow” in “yellow journalism” != the slur “yellow” as in “yellow peril.”
And finally, your conclusion - “[Americans] are ready to accept anything to stop the ‘bad guys’” - would still be a parochial ignorance, as well as ironically biased, even were it not so shakily premised.
So yes, the US government has done a lot that has hurt other people, it has also done a lot that has helped other people. I think we choose whether we want to believe people care about us or don't. I choose to believe they do.
The US does plenty of sketchy shit, but it has nothing on the surveillance state imposed by the CCP, nor is it empowered to suppress information in the same manner.
The CCP’s censorship is so heavy handed that others have tried to weaponize it, as discussed recently here:
Tokyo University Used "Tiananmen Square" Keyword to Block Chinese Admissions [2].
———
[1] - https://hms.harvard.edu/news/whats-stake-us-supreme-court-ca...
The US also spread COVID antivax information.
Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and others were operating in China, but when China imposed more and more censorship requirements on all social media platforms in China regardless of whether or not they were domestic or foreign and required all of them to turn over user details to the government many chose not to comply, and then China blocked them.
If a US social media platform were willing to implement China's censorship and disclosure requirements for its Chinese operations would they be able to go back? As far as I know we don't know because none of them have tried.
Note that TikTok as we know it is itself not available in China. The original app that became TikTok is in China, but when they wanted to expand to the rest of the world they split it into two companies and the apps diverged. Both companies are owned by ByteDance.
That's probably the approach a US social media company would need to take to try to get back into China.
LinkedIn tried really hard to stay in, it simply is not sustainable.
If the EU decided WhatsApp should be spun off from Meta (for any number of legitimate reasons) to continue operating there, we wouldn’t claim that the EU banned the app.
Freedom means freedom from censorship. I can’t think of an equivalent event that’s happened in my lifetime in the US. "India did it too" isn’t exactly a strong rallying cry.
That said, we’ll live. Hopefully our blind trust that there were security concerns ends up being worth something.
You're in a bubble if you think there is a massive migration happening to an unlocalized app .
It was a pleasant surprise. That said, I’m not too interested in endless house tours, so I’m going to see what kind of content there is when things settle down. That’s still a migration though, at least for me.
"Sure, there are the people calling themselves “TikTok refugees” and joining Xiaohongshu, a Chinese social media app, as a half-joking protest of the U.S. government’s decision to ban TikTok on national security grounds. (The joke part is: OK, Congress, you want to stop us from using a sketchy Chinese social media app? We’ll download an even sketchier Chinese social media app and use that instead.)"
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/18/technology/what-if-no-one...
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/16/arts/tiktok-red-note-chin...
Is there a really strong market demand for whatever social platform as long as it's owned by a Chinese company?
How do we know they're not siphoning our EU data to the US, or controlling what the algorithm shows us to influence politics?
Do you think that’s going to be good for you?
What is that criticisms about? US and EU should ban that too.
Every politician flip-flops, but Trump is something else.
Also, not to defend the CCP, but America has more prisoners than any other country, China included, and dramatically more per capita.
China banning Facebook is an authoritarian action. If we are doing the “same shit”, it feels expressly undemocratic and I am speaking towards that.
Facebook and Google are still making tens of billions from Chinese advertisers selling stuff on their platform. And China never forced Facebook or Google to sell themselves to Chinese owners, so completely give up control on branding, IP, code, data and all assets etc etc.
US is not even giving you any technical rules to comply with. Tiktok's approach to US is replicate China's rules for foreign internet companies in China. All content moderation done by US employees, US employee work on code and data. Data stored in US based servers. But US companies operating in China, like iCloud, AWS and Azure, US employees can still get access to Chinese data for daily engineering operations, like debugging. Tiktok also offered US government appoint security and natsc officials on Tiktok senior leadership, overseeing all code and data practices. US government have kill switch to shutdown Tiktok if they find anything. Tiktok is perfectly fine with US government implementing the censorship to censor whatever US government doesn't like. These details are equal to China's practices.
But US is not allowing that, it just sell yourself 100% to US owner or get banned. And ban is much more draconian than Chinese ban. Chinese citizens can visit FB using VPN, and companies can transact with FB and Google, hence billions of advertising dollars for these companies. US ban targets all transaction with Bytedance, hence Google, Apple and Oracle are completely geofencing US users that even US user using VPN can't access Bytedance services. And Chinese regulations target specific type of products, Meta's FB main app may not be in China, but FB advertising is. US ban targets Bytedance, the entire company. Capcut, a video editing app is also banned in the US. What data does a video editing app collect? How does a video editing app affect public discourse and opinions? How is Capcut a national security threat? What evidence is there?
US is not offering you a chance to comply, it is offering you a knife to kill yourself, and say here, you got options, why don't u kill yourself. Anyone who think it is not an insult is just, I have no words for you. China gives foreign companies room to live, so your workers have jobs and income, your inventor keep their inventions and private assets. US gives the foreign company two options: either we kill you, or we give you a knife so you can kill yourself. Your workers are out of jobs, what was a comfortable livelihood gone, your inventor's invention is destroyed, you will not get what your invention is worth, your private assets are gone. Or we can take your invention away from you and you lose all control of your baby in the future. If you don't see the difference, I have no word for you.
Is the US allowed to censor Chinese companies in the US? To Chinese companies get to benefit from freedom of speech in the US but US companies don't get to benefit from freedom of speech in China?
Can't have it only one way buster.
* Republicans ban TikTok
* For whatever reason ban doesn't go through (was it via executive order)
* Dems pickup where republicans left off and ban TikTok
* Republicans undo ban
Why.....
Especially since it was the same republicans in both cases
So why didn't Biden stop the ban? Instead he signed it and did not intervene. The problem is Biden continued and did not stop it they left Trump to reverse the ban.
It would have been better for the clean up his own mess but again they allowed Trump to "save them" and Biden would have just left TikTok for dead.
Maybe if he’s feeling himself he’ll say it was a 4D chess move to make Biden look like a bozo by being the one to ban it just for him to swoop in and undo the ban in 48 hours.
It’s impossible to gotcha a guy who pretends the past never happened — or who insists that his imagination of the past is accurate.
A lot of the anti-TikTok sentiment seems to revolve around the mores of college-educated, upper-middle-class white GenX and Millenial mores, which the Republicans have gleefully used as punching bags.
If they lose (again) it won’t be because of TikTok. No place left to look but in the mirror.
There are about 10 million news cycles between now and the midterms, highly unlikely anyone will remember any of this by then.
Gen Z voters are also young, and young people never vote.
He said so himself. "Trump told the court that TikTok was an important platform for his presidential campaign and that he should be the one to make the call on whether TikTok should remain in the US—not the Supreme Court.":
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/12/trump-told-scotu...
It does to a degree but HN by design encourages people to set limits in their profile options with maxvisit, minaway, noprocrast. Self govern rather than govern from above.
the realization is that this is a binary choice, either we ban it or we don't. but we shouldn't be in this position in the first place. neither choice is the right answer. i don't want any of the outcomes. i don't want a chinese facebook. i don't want a us controlled facebook. i don't want a facebook controlled facebook.
you want to know how to keep giant governments out of your shit (us and china and russia, etc.)? how to keep giant corporations out of your knickers? if you favor economic protectionism, how to keep other countries from undermining your industries? how to keep giant corporations (us or chinese) from exploiting their monopolies to wreck our culture just so they can serve more advertisements?
everyone on this forum, especially if you decry this ban, needs to stop defending, accepting, and allowing closed monopolistic computing and networking. app-store monopolies, for instance, secure-boot, device-non-ownership. we've given these companies persistent 100% control over our own devices and we (as surprised as you are) got monopolies. now we have to argue about which flavor of monopoly we want.
the minute, via app store policy or via crypto/secure boot, you allow a company to select what i am or am not allowed to do, see, or buy on my own devices - this is what we are doomed to deal with as a result.
Here in Victoria, Australia the state government has deplatformed itself from TT and banned the app from government phones due to security concerns.
Clearly, the state government has taken instruction from the federal government who has received advice from somewhere (5 eyes / intelligence agencies) about the risks.
I wonder where we've heard this before?
And I have just observed that you have been downvoted
In this particular case I don't care. But it fits in with the Nordstream sabotage, the attempts to control Arctic sea routes via Greenland, the attempted control of the Panama canal and the attempts in the Caspian sea region via Georgia, Armenia and Ukraine.
Going by the comments, it seems a lot of people here actually believe this whole thing is about “China”
“China” is the new “communism”. It’s just the phantom enemy to scare everyone
Without a real disclosure about the real reasons for the TT ban, we will never really know what is going on behind the scenes
Maybe we’ll have to wait a few decades to get some unclassified docs
We need a distributed social platform. Distributed currency system. Distributed personal information privacy. Distributed AI. Where’s the tech YC?
Following the money. TYC did things like bitcoin.
TYC gives zero shits about information privacy and distributed AI because they can't make more money than god. TYC isn't going to save you here. Nor are the masses going to adopt it.
I want open source everything.
Open Source social media.
If you and 5000 like minded people don't like Blue sky you can effectively spin up your own server and exclude others.
Open Source games. I want a billionaire to fund an open source fornite with the same idea.
Which reminds me, Tencent owns major stakes in (100%) Riot and Epic Games ( 40%). Are they next ?
Six years ago, The Onion mocked the idea of TikTok being dangerous to the US as a paranoid fantasy.[0] Now, that position is bipartisan consensus. China hysteria appears to have no limits.
China is a major country that has its own interests, which sometimes align with and sometimes are at odds with those of the US, EU countries, and other countries that belong to "the West."
The type of simplistic friend/enemy thinking that you're engaging in will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. As China hysteria continues to skyrocket to previously unforseeable levels in the US, the US will take ever more extreme measures, the relationship between the US and China will get worse and worse, and the two will eventually come into real conflict.
The only way to avert that fate is to counter simplistic "China is the enemy" thinking.
There is no simplistic friend/enemy, notice how you are using those words not me. Countries of all level of diplomacy play games. Geopolitics are shades of gray and it would be blind to say China has not over the past 10 years gotten bolder in state sponsored cyberattacks, flying satellites/balloons over the US, market flooding, taking HK early, state sponsored corporate espionage.
Please stop using your simple mental models. Nobody is getting in a conflict as of yet and it’s in nobody’s economic interest. China still thinks very much in terms of economics but on the long horizon. You think in such a binary way with this strange idea that anyone is getting into a military conflict.
> There is no simplistic friend/enemy, notice how you are using those words not me.
Make up your mind.
> over the past 10 years gotten bolder in state sponsored cyberattacks, flying satellites/balloons over the US, market flooding, taking HK early, state sponsored corporate espionage.
You say this all as if the US were not doing much the same in reverse. The NSA has a yearly budget in the tens of billions of dollars, and part of its mission is offensive cyber operations. The US has dozens of satellites overflying China at any given moment (I don't even know if the Chinese balloon was intentional - in the end, it actually seemed as if China had simply lost control of the balloon). The US has military bases all over China's periphery, which pose a serious military threat to mainland China. The US has imposed broad sanctions intended to cripple China's entire high-tech sector, which is a fundamental attack on China's goal of becoming an economically developed country with a high standard of living.
By any objective assessment, the US is much more aggressive in its attitude towards China than vice versa. The type of thinking you're engaging in, which paints China as an enemy with which mutually beneficial relations are impossible, will lead to ever more antagonism and eventual conflict, if not curtailed.
When the US government asks China to censor TikTok, that's a good thing.
Make it make sense.
Second, the two proposed situations are entirely different. The former is censoring particular results, the latter is a content-neutral ban with the ability for ByteDance to continue operating with no change to content.
Third, perhaps this is controversial, but many people don't want a foreign adversary to have the ability to manipulate public perception. If you are the United States, allowing an enemy to have the ability to manipulate massive amounts of your population is extremely dangerous.
I don't even know that I support the ban, but I certainly know that most of these sorts of comparisons simply don't make sense and are either missing or ignoring vital pieces of the puzzle.
China gave foreign internet applications a list of rules to comply. And these are doable rules, u may not want to do them, but they are doable. That is why Bing, iCloud, AWS, Microsoft office, Azure, Tesla's cars, some of hosts critical and sensitive Chinese data are operating fine in China, even used by governments and state-owned companies.
And Google and Meta are currently earning 10s of billions of dollars from Chinese advertisers. And google and Meta can offer any other services to China that is not regulated by online community services.
Chinese citizens can visit Google and Meta apps using VPN, Google and Meta can transact with Chinese companies. Chinese rules just target online community-based services with a list of doable rules.
Tiktok's original wish is to replicate China's rules for foreign online services in China in the US. So have US citizens do the data and code, implement whatever censorship regime US government wants, store US data on US servers. Allow US government official inside the company to review and oversee code, algorithm and data practices. Allow US government kill switch to turn off the app if they see anything. This is reciprocity of rules.
But US is not giving any technical, doable options for you to adhere to. It is giving two options: either we kill you, or we give you a knife so you can kill yourself. China gives foreign companies room to live, so your workers have jobs and income, your inventor keep their inventions and private assets. US gives the foreign company two options: either we kill you, or we give you a knife so you can kill yourself. Your workers are out of jobs, what was a comfortable livelihood gone, your inventor's invention is destroyed, you will not get what your invention is worth, your private assets are gone. Or we can take your invention away from you and you lose all control of your baby in the future. If you don't see the difference, I have no word for you.
China doesn't kill your companies. Take away the invention from the inventor, take away assets, IP, technology, branding from the inventor, forcing the inventor the giveaway the baby they invented and worked so hard on. China just don't want you say certain things within its borders, but everyone can live, have a job, get paid, bring food to the table. US just want to end your company, make everyone jobless, and you can't say what you want to say anyway because everything is gone.
That was quicker than I had expected, though I thought they'd probably find a way to avert even a temporary shutdown to begin with.
Yes. All big social media should be banned for just this reason, we already had Cambridge Analytica to know this. Banning TT for spying is just a good first step.
With this said, the US.g has had the power to ban business with entities for a long ass time and those laws are pretty well established, especially in the case with foreign entities.
Dunno, I'm wayyyy out of the loop on all of this.
On desktop VPN works but you need to create a new account if yours was originally created on the USA servers.
Would Bytedance still own shares in the resulting US entity? Shares they could sell or get paid with via dividends, just no control over operations?
The "learn more" link tells you that you can still download your data. I'm not sure how. Website maybe? Because the app only has "learn more" and "close app" as options. Interestingly the fyp still loads and you see a video in the background.
I do think it'll come back this week but it's not clear what the legal mechanism is. Since the ban has gone into effect the extension in the law doesn't seem to apply anymore. This would then seem to require Congressional action and there doesn't seem to be much appetite for that but maybe that's because Republicans in Congress want to give credit for saving Tiktok to Trump when he becomes president on Monday.
Another option being talked about is nonenforcement by the Department of Justice. Some dismiss this by saying "the DoJ can change their mind" but that's not strictly true. Defendants in a case can rely on statements by prosecutors. It's a valid defense. If the Attorney-General makes an official statement saying "we will not prosecute Amazon or Google or Tiktok for 90 days (or whatever) while we work this out", that's absolutely a legal defense should the DoJ ever change their mind.
Basically, this is now a shakedown as some Trump allies will seek forcibly buy Tiktok or at least a large stake in it as a price for its continued operation in the US. It's unclear if Tiktok will acquiesce to this.
Remember though, Bytedance has significant US investors so there are conflicting forces at play here.
I found another USA refugee on Canadian TikTok who said he just got Apple to change his app store country and it worked after he redownloaded it.
As soon as I try to login to my US account it bricks the app.
YMMV.
[0] - https://www.404media.co/candy-crush-tinder-myfitnesspal-see-...
Banning TikTok only treats the symptom , the real disease is that people are way to susceptible to propaganda and misinformation.
Personally I think all closed source social media should be outlawed and all algorithms used should be audited by a third party.
If you've had better luck, let me know (actually).
As for "being China", every country has protections on what goes in or out of the country including media. A lot of countries won't let you own a newspaper or news broadcast channel, so this is the next extension of that sort of idea.
It's the same idea as not allowing a company from the USSR to run a news channel during the Cold War, although obviously the lines are fuzzier and still being discovered with apps and algorithms.
The entire situation hinges on TikTok’s ownership. They could sell themselves to any organization based outside China and have been given multiple opportunities to do so and they’ve refused.
That tells you all you need to know about the priorities of ByteDance, considering the U.S. was their biggest market since they’re banned in both China and India, the only other countries larger than the U.S.
I’m over 1/2-way thru my life. I think I know what I like doing with my time by this point.
And Democrats just sucked at messaging. Its not a "TikTok ban". The message should have been about data protection.
And yes, it would be far better to pass something like the GDPR. But I guess, with the power of the US media companies, the TikTok law was a compromise.
yeah i fully reject this jingoistic reasoning
Though it's hardly unique in that regard. That's modern social media now.
As far as what's next, it's up to the Biden and Trump admins to see what happens next. If deadlines are extended, what does a good divestiture settlement mean for TikTok? Can the executive department get away with not enforcing this law? And of course, the question that really lies ahead of us: what does this mean for other social media based outside of the US like Telegram, Line, and KakaoTalk?
We’ve had almost a century of foreign-ownership limits for media properties [1]. (It’s recently been relaxed but not released [2].)
[1] https://www.fcc.gov/general/foreign-ownership-rules-and-poli...
[2] https://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2017/02/articles/fcc-approv...
Biden said (a day or two ago) he will leave enforcement of the ban up to Trump, and ByteDance have been fighting against the ban since it was ever suggested ... so why do you think ByteDance are now voluntarily shutting down access today?!!
It's really no mystery - Trump has already been talking to ByteDance and agreed to let them continue operations in return for favors to himself which have yet to be discovered. As part of this deal, Trump requested ByteDance to shut it down today, so that he can be the hero and have it reenabled tomorrow or soon after (according to how he wants the optics to play out - pretending to take some time to "make a deal", or an immediate "day 1 - look at how great trump is").
You people are being manipulated like sheep. Calm down, it'll be back very soon.
You know what would be great for a music site? If someone new was able to instantly hear music!
Nope. After 5 mins of UI Ninjutsu, I gave up.
They had the chance to divest TikToc and chose not to.
TikTok got banned for one and only one reason: to silence the narrative around a 70 year old war.
Sources:
- ADL: "we have a major major major generational problem" ... "we have a tiktok problem" http://web.archive.org/web/20231116180709/https://media.mehr...
- US Representative (MIT alum): everyone in the U.S. Congress "has an AIPAC person" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2reaGhLnYI
False claims for the reason for the ban:
- Tiktok has great content and a great algorithm to help you find it (that's a good thing)
- Tiktok spies and collects data, such as scraping your clipboard, network (Apple iOS sandboxing prevents any app from doing so without explicit user permission - technical audience here shouldn't fall for this one easily)
- Tiktok collects face recognition data on citizens worldwide (anyone scraping Instagram can do that - technical audience here shouldn't fall for this one easily)
- Tiktok is addictive, and designed to be (so is Instagram, and?)
- Tiktok is cultural expression, and contributes to people's feeling of identity (good; the more diverse cultural expressions the better)
- Tiktok provides a platform for critical thinking and debate (not really a bad thing if you think about it)
- Tiktok contributed to Brexit, and similar political crises in the EU (so does X)
- Tiktok is part of the Chinese 100 year marathon strategy (vague scare tactic)
>TikTok, however, suggested this was not enough assurance for “critical service providers” to continue listing or hosting the app in the United States unless the Biden administration...
This would be a joke statement 20 years ago.
Even if they could distribute it under 1st amendment l, what is stopping authorities from IP blocking TikTok servers? Gatekeeping can take place pretty deep in the OSI network stack, at levels that transmit data that can no longer simply be characterized as speech.
I see nothing redeeming in these addictive slop factories. They create nothing and the content on them is trash. All they do is hack your dopamine system to shovel in ads, empty filler, or worse hate and fear porn.
There’s nothing they do that can’t better be done by forums, chat, the web, even AI agents, without the destruction of attention span and brain rot.
We put communist sympathizers in jail in the past. We imprisoned 100k innocent Japanese US citizens in concentration camps.
Instead of rolling the ban back this could be the first event in a new kind of McCarthyism.
Be careful. Being seen as soft towards China could make you an enemy of the state soon, if it doesn’t already.
- Tiktok has great content and a great algorithm to help you find it
- Tiktok advances Chinese interests
- Tiktok spies and collects data, such as scraping your clipboard, network
- Tiktok collects face recognition data on citizens worldwide
- Tiktok is addictive, and designed to be
- Tiktok is cultural expression, and contributes to people's feeling of identity
- Tiktok provides a platform for critical thinking and debate
- Trump wants to control it for his own profit motive, not because it's what's best for the US
- Tiktok contributed to Brexit, and similar political crises in the EU
- Tiktok is part of the Chinese 100 year marathon strategy
and so on...
This does not seem possible, Tiktok was launched in 2016.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/biden-wont-enforce-tik...
Trying to copy TikTok is probably the worst thing Instagram has done. Their “suggested reels” are a cancer.
As a user of TikTok and Instagram Reels, TikTok had an actually good algorithm that would show you interesting things after you showed interest. I found a lot of film students with great reviews through TikTok. Instagram and YouTube don't care to show you that kind of thing.
Then, when the civilians are tired of this bullshit and the dust settles, we emerge with truly decentralized social networks.
What this temporary outage might do is have the opposite effect TikTok expects - to show people they need a break from such an addictive app.
Stranger things have happened on the internet. The longer before Trump "cuts a deal" the more I expect people to press the question - why allow China access to this market if China is shut to our social media apps ?
Speaking of which, how does this work with the GDPR? Does TikTok abide by the GDPR in Europe or are they just not able to sanction them for violating it?
Will they also ban TikTok as a security threat? If not, will they issue a statement contradicting US actions?
If they do, what about US owned platforms that have been known to e.g., interefere with European elections (Facebook / Cambridge Analytica) and (at least) one of the owners openly supports certain type of party across the continent?
What a grotesque theater. How much more hypocricy can the political classes that enabled the wholesale enshittificarion of our digital lives get away with?
It becomes more and more clear that the people supporting this app don't use the app, making it easy to imagine the worst. The reality of this situation seems very obvious to me: Meta sees the future, and knows that they have lost the next generation to tiktok and social media platforms that are authentic. FB is doomed, Instagram is all ads and manicured posts, and the Metaverse is perpetually 10 years ahead of the tech. They wanted to do what they did last time they needed to stay relevant: buy a relevant company (Instagram). Tiktok wasnt interested. So since they cant compete they spend a fraftion of the money they would need to compete fairly to simply bribe the government to ban the app. Its a "security risk"! And look, they are saying all these bad things about Israel, your AIPAC bribers hate the app too! Its definitely not that Israel is a pariah state that the entire world except for the US (where bribery is legal and encouraged) despises because of their crimes against humanity, its the Chinese government controlling the app! And you have no way of forcing them to censor the news like you can on Meta and MSM! Sprinkle some red scare in the pot, talk ominously about China, and now all the representatives (avg age 63 btw) are scared about the chinese controlled brain control app that all their grandkids love.
Anytime something remotely political comes up on HN I'm reminded that the people that tend to be very matter of fact and well informed on the intricacies of tech are no more immune to tribalism and groupthink than anyone else. No ciritical thought when the government says something they agree with, no matter how nebulous and manufactured it is. And yes, I include myself in that group. Reminds me to take everything I read on here with a healthy grain of salt because this same tribalist-bias exists in seemingly objective tech discussion.
I would have thought that indeed, they have looked at it already carefully.
This is the most unusual endorsement I've seen, admittedly of a most unusual President.
If that message and it's implications are flying over your head, please look up.
“The kids are watching communist propaganda from the CCP!”
Americans on TikTok watch content from other Americans. I know a big complaint the government had was the overflow of support for the Palestinian people compared to Israel.
Are you guys sure you’ve even used the app before? I used it some time ago and it was just other Americans doing dumb stuff or making political videos.
People really just believe the first thing their government tells them and believes it so strictly? “They said it is a national security concern so I believe them and must spread their message!”
Seems to me that TikTok had Americans on there sharing anti-Israel and anti-America content on there with other Americans. Didn’t Ted Cruz bring that up specifically to the CEO of TikTok as a problem?
Same for me, but I’m also extremely confused at the naivety of many commenters here who think ByteDance is somehow a company independent from China government and it’s only duty is to make money and that it somehow more important to have freedom of foreign business than freedom from foreign interference.
China does play a real threat to American and other western interests and has done so for many years. If you have evidence that ByteDance is not controlled by the CCP or that the CCP has not very openly played many games both economically, politically and socially I would be happy to see that evidence.
- Users tend to use the same passwords across apps. It would be trivial for TikTok to provide an email + password combo to CCP.
- Until 2020, the tiktok iOS app was accessing the system clipboard at all times that TikTok was running (even in the background) https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/26/21304228/tiktok-security-...
- A sort of vague concern that because CCP can easily compel Chinese companies, it could easily compel TikTok to show / not-show various content to American users. (this could stir political tensions, misinformation etc).
- TikTok (and by extension CPP) could access any content/messages that the app has access to. E.g. Phone contacts (if permission given), private messages sent on TikTok app (possibly even if just typed but not sent).
What else?
There are metadata threats around who's connected to whom, where users are, where they go, etc.
There can be leaked data in videos posted by military personnel
1: https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/6/21168079/grindr-sold-chine...
We also know who is fat because myfitnesspal does the same thing.
We also know who is pregnant, who has recently been raped, who feels vulnerable. And so on. You see an ad? We know a thing. We know if you like boobs even if you don’t.
Without trying to speak to what American governments and corporations have done with that knowledge, the “security” point is that the Chinese government has this knowledge as well, and the fear they can do something with it.
That being said, what Cambridge Analytica did (a British company) with this kind of knowledge is well-documented, so I can agree the fear is warranted by both those who seek to monopolise those powers, and those who seek to escape them.
Hadn't heard of this. The linked article explains:
> At the time of Reuters’ March 2019 report, it was unclear what CFIUS’s specific concerns were, but the FT says the committee worried the Chinese government could use personal data from the app to blackmail US citizens — which could include US government officials.
I open up tiktok: I see cute dog videos.
I open up Twitter: Immediately get pushed white nationalist great replacement was Hitler actually bad? posts.
Incredible.
It's funny that Trump started this ban attempt, and now people look forward for him to undo the ban. Lord and Saviour...
I already foresee a Mueller investigation part #2 “Trump is a Chinese puppet” stories.
But in terms of TikTok, I don't care. Burn it down. If Trump uses his first 100 days to pressure his 3 vote majority in the House to vote to overturn something they passed overwhelmingly it's a pretty startling indication of his priorities and loyalties in his second term. His crypto-scam this weekend is only the prologue.
Why did they vote unanimously? Why was it bundled into a rushed relief bill?
Dont think this will affect foreign influence by china much.
You only notice the bots that you notice. How do you know how many bots you encounter where you dont realize it is a bot? Knowing this number is necessary to make the claim that claim, but it is fundamentally unknowable.
Yes it is a joke. But whether it is outsized influence of foreign power or uber rich nutter, what's the difference...
- Trump schemes to get TikTok blocked in the US
- He waits till he is in charge
- Presents himself as White Knight (or rather Orange Knight?)
- Gets TikTok unbanned
- Popularity with the younger generation rises
- ...profit?
1. Background on TikTok: - Launched in 2017, TikTok has over 170 million U.S. users and 1 billion worldwide - Users create, publish, view, share and interact with short videos with audio and text - Features a personalized "For You" page using a proprietary algorithm - Operated in the U.S. by TikTok Inc. (California-based company) - Ultimate parent company is ByteDance Ltd., a private Chinese company that: - Owns TikTok's algorithm (developed/maintained in China) - Develops portions of TikTok's source code - Is subject to Chinese laws requiring cooperation with intelligence work and government data access
2. Arguments by Petitioners (TikTok & Users): - First Amendment violations due to: - Burden on content moderation and content generation - Restricting access to a distinct medium of expression - Limiting association with preferred speakers/editors - Restricting receipt of information and ideas - Argued the Act should face strict scrutiny as content-based regulation - Claimed divestiture within 270 days is commercially infeasible, making it an effective ban - Argued alternative measures could address security concerns without banning TikTok
3. Arguments by Respondents (Government): - Primary justification: Preventing China from collecting vast amounts of sensitive data from 170M U.S. users - Secondary justification: Preventing foreign adversary control over the recommendation algorithm - Argued for intermediate scrutiny as content-neutral regulation - Cited national security concerns and Chinese laws requiring data sharing - Pointed to failed negotiations with ByteDance for alternative security measures
4. Main Opinion: The Court affirmed the D.C. Circuit's ruling that the Act does not violate the First Amendment, finding: - Applied intermediate scrutiny as the Act is content-neutral - Found compelling government interest in preventing Chinese data collection - Determined the Act is sufficiently tailored to address security concerns - Notable quote: "Data collection and analysis is a common practice in this digital age. But TikTok's scale and susceptibility to foreign adversary control, together with the vast swaths of sensitive data the platform collects, justify differential treatment to address the Government's national security concerns."
5. Concurring Opinions: Justice Sotomayor: - Agreed with outcome but argued First Amendment clearly applies - Cited TikTok's expressive activity in "compiling and curating" material
Justice Gorsuch: - Expressed concerns about rushed timeline (14 days to resolve) - Praised Court for not considering classified evidence hidden from petitioners - Questioned whether law is truly "content neutral" - Agreed government has compelling interest in preventing data harvesting - Found law appropriately tailored after other solutions proved inadequate
6. Dissenting Opinions: None filed.
7. Other Relevant Details: - The Court emphasized the narrow scope of its ruling given the novel technology issues - Showed substantial deference to Congress's national security judgments - The Act was passed with strong bipartisan support (352-65 in House, 79-18 in Senate) - The Court noted but did not rely on classified evidence in reaching its decision
The Supreme Court's ruling allows the Act to take effect, requiring TikTok to either complete a qualified divestiture from Chinese ownership or cease U.S. operations, marking a significant development in the intersection of national security, technology regulation, and First Amendment rights.
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2023/12/11/teens-social...
This is a 50/50 split between YT and SpaceX on the problem.
That spaceX does not broadcast it live on YT leaves an opening for the scammers to get a popular channel up.
Now, the scammer channels you see are what happens when an actual big name channel with a lot of followers gets hacked, all the old videos deleted, then they start that feed of the launch and turn it to a bitcoin scam at/right after the launch part.
It's also difficult on the YT side. Users are 'free' to change their channel name. You are also 'free'ish to broadcast the SpaceX stream, as many other non-bitcoin channels do it. It's really the near end of the broadcast where the scam it self comes in.
This said, YT does need to put a special flag in for channel names like SpaceX and do an immediate check or put some kind of very long delay in particular channel name changes.
Who's next ?
All Chinese owned social media including the ones people were jumping to unless the US changed the wording in the ban. I guess we would have to wait and see what happens.
The ban – which is an incredible overreach – was a bipartisan effort by congress. Sticking it to Biden seems very, very off.
Biden explicitly left the decision if and how it is enforced to Trump. ⇒ No reason to go dark now to have a huge: “Thank you, tangerine tyrant, that you are willing to maybe save us!”
I do enjoy Tik Tok a lot, but is it unanimously good or even only unproblematic? Hell, no. It is an indoctrination machine.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/01/18/tiktok-..."
I am actively anti-social media myself, it's a hard stance I have and I have had to effectively "die on that hill".
The amount of time our social media team has had serious issues with me refusing to comply with their requests to be involved with their current tiktok trend, arguing about "but you need to be relevant to the modern generation" when my argument is exactly the thing Tiktok was banned for, I want to be in control of who has my data. That is bad enough already but to freely just give my likeness to a chinese owned company to sell adverts however they like?
It's got nothing to do with "relevance" its a moral standing. And no I don't think tiktok is the only guilty platform but it's a step in the right direction concidering how absolutely mindless and time consuming the content is.
And no matter how strongly you believe you have free will and freedom of thought, you are a reflection of the people you surround yourself with and I would make the argument the media you consume.
And tiktok specifically is significantly more addictive than other media, sure the same argument can be made for youtube shorts and IG reels and whatever else which is the current short form content, and the biggest issue there is: there's no way to justify your stance, to bring evidence to back your case.
All that there is is the ability to state your point and the majority of users will follow if you state it compellingly enough. It's mass propaganda taken to the extreme.
I strongly believe YouTube shorts etc should follow the same fate as tiktok has. It should be regulated as strongly as Narcotics because it is equally as addictive and imho has a similar effect on society.
Sorry for the rant but as I said, I have a moral stance on this topic and for some reason society in general decided it needs to be faught with the zeal of the crusades.
Why is all of our media bombarded with the ban when it has been signed into law and backed by the relevant countries highest powers.
If it was a unanimous vote in government and held up by the supreme court why is media against it? They are scared the next step is them.
This isn't the media holding government accountable, this is media swaying the general public's opinion. This[1] comment on HN just proves that. They had no interest in tiktok, if media let it just go quietly into the night they would still have no interest but now that the fact that its disappearance has been shouted from every rooftop to every single human being the addiction crysis has spread to them. "Fear of missing out" strikes again.
Media is designed to control and the first punch thrown against it is being countered, who will win in the end?
Freedom of speech is not freedom to demand a platform to speak in. You don't have a constitutional right to a soapbox, just one to not be prosecuted for speaking from a soapbox you found. And unless you own said soapbox, you're relying on the owner of the soapbox to continue to allow you to use it.
Hopefully this movement will continue on other social media. Though unfortunately none are quite as light on censorship as TikTok is for feminist voices, often unfairly framing these as "hate".
This is just the state of social media...
We see a celebration of this kind of thinking here. People want to be kept ignorant of the outside world and to keep others ignorant as well. It's a natural way to think, in the context of the road the US has been heading down for decades.
People here are excited the US will be censoring seditious content just like China does. It reminds me less of China and more of post-1905, pre-1914 Russia and the ministry of internal affairs Bureau of Censorship.
Not that it's the only factor, but I watch the US Congress sanctioning the UN and International Criminal Court for investigating the genocide in Gaza, and how many expressed their unhappiness about how Tiktok was a fissure in the US media bubble regarding that. Now Americans can be in their bubble a little longer, unaware of what the rest of the world thinks.
The ban will be repealed on Monday and it will be sold to US tech lords by month’s end. The damn hysteria is embarrassing
Tik Tok chose to block US users this evening even though that’s technically not what the bill asks for.
The real question here is "What's in it for Trump?". He doesn't do anything without expecting something in return. What is Trump personally getting out of (about to) letting TikTok continue?
It is also a test for "Rednote" and if they grow extremely fast in the next 90 days then that will be another ban target. But this is all temporary and they will run back to TikTok again.
But again 170 million users just had their crack / cocaine supply cut off. Now is the time for them to reflect and cure their addiction.