23 ms·

U.S. Judge Halts TikTok Ban

181 points by awb 6y ago

philliphaydon 6y ago
Meanwhile china bans 105 apps. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55230654 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55230654
- FooBarWidget 6y ago
  Unlike the Tiktok ban, it's not a discriminatory ban that targets US apps, for the sole reason that they're from the US. It's a ban based on non-discriminatory rules. From the article: "Most of the banned apps are Chinese" Unfortunately transparency is a problem, as they did not state more details about the ban.
  - philliphaydon 6y ago
    It’s an assumption that it’s not discriminatory or targeted. There’s nothing to say that it’s not just disguised to annoy the US and turn around and fool people into believing it’s not targeted. I donno why there’s so many apologists on HN. :/
    - trasz 6y ago
      The "apologists" are simply the people who can see past the US propaganda.
      - eloff 6y ago
        But get suckered by Chinese propaganda? I think there's a bit more nuance on both sides of this story.
        FooBarWidget 6y ago
        Which part is "Chinese propaganda"? I observe that the majority of the banned apps are Chinese, and that one is western, while at the same time lots of western apps remain accessible in China. That's all I base my conclusion on. At no point did I base my conclusion on anything the Chinese government said. To say that they are discriminatory despite the above data, is an assumption. That assumption may be right (because the data is not mathematically solid evidence). On the other hand, it may be not. But I think accepting that assumption is in line with US propaganda.
        byecomputer 6y ago
        > lots of western apps remain accessible in China And lots of western apps aren't accessible in China. Such as Google, Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter. Furthermore, did you know TikTok itself is banned in mainland China? No kidding, they have an different version of the app that's Chinese-only. I think the implication that China's being the free-market player here is faulty, to say the least. There's an argument to be made about how censorship of foreign applications conflicts with the US's values, for sure, but the one-way street argument doesn't scan.
        trasz 6y ago
        Let me get this right, are you suggesting https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E9%A6%96%E9%A1%B5 https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E9%A6%96%E9%A1%B5 is developed only by international Chinese diaspora, since it's not accessible in China?
        byecomputer 6y ago
        What do you want me to say? It's banned in China. It wasn't always banned in China, but as of April 2019 all versions of Wikipedia are verboten. Here's an article from a little over a month ago describing someone's arrest for going there: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/world/article-china-cracks-down-on-illegal-web-use/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/world/article-china-crac...
      - addicted 6y ago
        The vast majority of people “who see past the US propaganda” also see past the Chinese propaganda. The vast majority of them want to address the privacy issues raised by such apps and companies irrespective of whether it’s the US or China misappropriating our data.
        trasz 6y ago
        That's of course true, but then banning TikTok increases YouTube's monopoly, making Google's privacy and data protection issues even worse.
        nouveaux 6y ago
        China's abuse of data is far worse than United States[1]. Just as I would push for more privacy regarding how US handles personal data, I would do the same for China. In this case, a ban on TikTok is the best signal we can send to the CCP. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/world/asia/china-surveillance-xinjiang.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/world/asia/china-surveill...
        trasz 6y ago
        USA doesn't even have personal data protection laws. China does. As for the article - this all sounds like a subset of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_mass_surveillance_projects#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_mass_survei..., until you realize one crucial thing: in case of US, the preferred way of dealing with this kind of minorities is either AC-130, or JDAM. Any kind of surveillance and reeducation camps is better from ethics point of view.
        nouveaux 6y ago
        This is incorrect. USA has laws protecting against government overreach[1]. In the case of China, the government does not need the court of law to access your data. [1] https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-279-subpoenas https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual...
    - FooBarWidget 6y ago
      I thought that the majority of the banned apps being Chinese, and that only one western app being banned (while leaving lots and lots of other western apps alone), should be proof enough. But okay. Let's say it's not a mathematically solid proof. Agreed. On the other hand, there's no mathematical proof that they are being discriminatory, either. Why is it apologetic to not assume the worst of China at every turn?
      - endtime 6y ago
        Because, if you have Western values, to which the CCP is diametrically opposed, they are actually "the worst" in some sense.
        FooBarWidget 6y ago
        You don't have to agree with their values. But why labeling them as evil for not following your values? Western values don't work well in China. Chinese values don't work in the west. To each their own. Why do they have to be an enemy for which evil is always assumed, regardless of evidence? FYI, I'm Chinese.
        anonymousab 6y ago
        >But why labeling them as evil for not following your values? Because they view those values as inherently good, and thus opposition to those values as inherently bad. If you view freedom of religion or speech as a fundamental human good or need, then naturally a government opposed to (or seen as greatly curtailing) those values will be seen as 'evil'. On a more human and physical level, people see, say, the Xinjiang camps and view that as reflective of the values of that government, as evil, the same way they may see the immigrant child separation in the US as reflective of its government's values, and as evil. Actions speaking louder than words of intent.
        yibg 6y ago
        Shouldn't those acts be labeled evil (or good) instead? I mean we don't say the US government as a whole is evil because of the child separation policy (some people do but not most). I'm pretty anti CPP for the most part, but I feel like we're losing all nuance when we use broad stroke labels. I also don't think it's productive. As soon as we label something or someone "evil" then any avenue for dialog and improvement is gone. The only thing left is conflict and confrontation.
    - bagacrap 6y ago
      On a thread where we discuss the CCP's use of social media to influence public opinion in the US, it seems like the answer to this question should be apparent.
      - yibg 6y ago
        Or you know, people actually have different views on things.
    - yibg 6y ago
      The world isn’t black and white. One can be anti China for most things and still agree with them for some things. Similarly one can be pro “west” and still disagree with the US. I find it problematic that anything in support of China or against the US in the context of US vs China is labeled being an apologist or Chinese propaganda. It’s a good way to shut down all discussion, much like the whole “that’s heresy” from ages past.
  - jtdev 6y ago
    Yeah, because they’ve already banned every U.S. app for Chinese consumers via other measures, i.e., “Great Firewall”. Your comment and perspective is either naive or disingenuous.
    - FooBarWidget 6y ago
      "Every US app"? Duolingo, Microsoft Teams, Skype, FaceTime all work in China, to name a few.
      - jtdev 6y ago
        These apps have been re-built from the ground up in accordance with Chinese rules to work in China and the source code of these apps has been completely disclosed to the Chinese Communist apparatus. Do you think any one of those apps is authorized to make API calls out of China? API calls, not phone calls yorwba
        yorwba 6y ago
        I have in fact made Skype calls from China. I don't know where you're getting your information about those apps' source code from, but since you were wrong about the second part, I'm going to assume you just imagined a plausible story and claimed it as fact.
        jtdev 6y ago
        Using the Chinese version of Skype, which the CCP certainly has backdoor access to surveil without warrant or oversights of any kind. Regarding the source code thing: you’re either not paying attention or you’re a CCP propagandist. https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/telecom/security/chinas-new-rules-ask-tech-firms-to-hand-over-source-code https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/telecom/security/chinas-...
        yorwba 6y ago
        From your link: > The rules only apply to companies selling computer products to Chinese banks Your original comment didn't read like you were talking about auditing in the financial sector.
  - jtdev 6y ago
    If TikTok were a flappy bird clone... we wouldn't be having this conversation. It was not being banned "for the sole reason" that it's of Chinese origin, it's the fact that the app is essentially a mass surveillance device.
- gizmo385 6y ago
  Is this point meant to be an argument that the US should ban apps from China because China is banning apps from the US?
  - philliphaydon 6y ago
    china bans all us social media apps, because they want to control the content that Chinese citizens see and remove anything that is negative towards the ccp, etc. No one batters an eyelid. US tries to ban 1 app that is being used to spread propaganda, farm user data, and is considered a national security threat. And everyone loses their shit over it.
    - FooBarWidget 6y ago
      > "china bans all us social media apps" Microsoft Teams, Skype, FaceTime all work in China, to name a few. > because they want to control the content that Chinese citizens see and remove anything that is negative towards the ccp, etc. This is true. But that doesn't mean they ban all US social media apps. If you follow their Internet laws (like Microsoft and Apple do) then you are allowed to operate. > US tries to ban 1 app that is being used to spread propaganda, farm user data, and is considered a national security threat. This is an assumption. Proof please, because I haven't seen any. Don't get me wrong. I am not against a ban on Tiktok. I'm against a discriminatory ban, based on unproven assumptions, solely targeting the origin of an app. What would be much more fair would be to state: all foreign apps have to go through a security audit to certify that no data reaches any foreign governments. That way you don't have to prove wrongdoing first, and you aren't being discriminatory either.
      - gruez 6y ago
        > > "china bans all us social media apps" >Microsoft Teams, Skype, FaceTime all work in China, to name a few. Calling them "social media apps" is a stretch. Microsoft Teams is designed to be used within an organization, so it's closer to a corporate mail server than facebook. Skype and FaceTime are public, but they don't have the defining features of other social media sites, such as a profile, UGC, or feeds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media
- akhilcacharya 6y ago
  Free societies shouldn't stoop to the levels of totalitarian ones.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- beaunative 6y ago
  "Most of the banned apps are Chinese but US travel app TripAdvisor is also included on the list." I thought it was 105 foreign or US apps that got banned.
superfreek 6y ago
U.S. user data is mostly stored by TikTok on servers in Virginia, with backup storage in Singapore. Company officials say Chinese authorities have never attempted to gain access to Americans' information.
- gowld 6y ago
  Not sure how much that counts. In the US, under certain warrants under the so-called "PATRIOT" Act, it's illegal to admit that government accessed user information. China likely has similar ways to compel silence upon threat of losing privileges.
  - MereInterest 6y ago
    A related concept is the warrant canary, which is a positive statement that the government has not accessed user information. It is current untested in court whether the PATRIOT Act can compel speech, or merely silence it, and so the idea is that if you stop making the positive statement that no government intrusion has occurred, then it implies that there has been intrusion. (The constitutionality of Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act has, to my knowledge, never been tested in court, and I firmly believe that it violates the First Amendment's protection of free speech.) That said, they are generally ignored when they disappear. Apple and Reddit both removed their warrant canaries in 2016, to very little fanfare, despite the implications of them doing so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary
- whybenull 6y ago
  So you think we should believe these company officials?
  - beezle 6y ago
    Until proven otherwise. And honestly, where is the 'national security' risk? There is probably far more data available in public databases that China could gather and analyze, not to mention you can apply the same paranoia to other services US and foreign.
gowld 6y ago
It seemed that Trump administration had already gotten bored of the ban effort anyway, missing their own deadlines without comment.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dkjaudyeqooe 6y ago
  Trump is too busy wallowing in self pity to think about the petty spite he was pursuing against TikTok.
thanksforthe42 6y ago
This is extremely important for the modern term capitalism. Every intervention the US government does is a signal to other governments and entrepreneurs. If you are an aspring developer, you can choose to make your program local, US centric, or worldwide. The economics don't always work for third world countries or globally, so they are forced to make products that are US centric. Banning apps shift the risk and could encourage more local apps. With more US centric programs, US citizens are exposed to new ideas and economic competition. These are good for the long term despite the short term disruption.
sneak 6y ago
The infrastructure is still there at Apple to remotely censor apps on millions of devices, with no immediate recourse by device owners if they do so. This is still a ticking time bomb, even if today they are only using it against malware (and apps that aid the Hong Kong protesters). It's only a matter of time before they are forced to censor apps elsewhere, too.
- nouveaux 6y ago
  I disagree with Apple's ability to do this but its a far cry from China using data to oppress minorities. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/world/asia/china-surveillance-xinjiang.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/world/asia/china-surveill...
throwaway4good 6y ago
Why are so many tech professionals pro the ban of TikTok when most can see the problem in the monopolies of Facebook and Google? To me TikTok and fair regulation of how to handle user data the hammer that finally can crack the surveilance advertisement monopolies of Facebook and Google.
- idrios 6y ago
  Because the ban is an admission of the influence that a company with nothing but troves of data can have, and thus is a step towards actually addressing the issues of Facebook, Google and the like. But what we really need is a US version of GDPR
  - dopamean 6y ago
    How's gdpr working out? Seriously, I'm in the US and have no idea what's going on with it.
    - et-al 6y ago
      Since GDPR came out, the two companies I worked at have been more cognisant about how we stored user data for EU customers (e.g. making more fields optional, giving user deletion options). And we also undertook a review of how we stored data for California customers for CCPA.
  - NoOneNew 6y ago
    You'll never get enough credit for that statement. It's exactly why there is a large pushback from the other data collection companies. Once the DOJ can set precedent on one "low hanging fruit", it can start tackling the rest. Sort of like when RICO was first proposed and used. It was a huge issue, but once legitimized in the courts, many organized crime families started to crumble. While org crime is still a problem as it adapted and evolved, they're arguably less influential on a national scale as they used to be pre-RICO. Faang doesn't want the same thing happen to them.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
jacknews 6y ago
They should all be banned IMO. Just as an example of 'not cricket', my daughter recently had very good reason to block an instagram user. Except, if that user is in any groups that you're a member of, in order to still see group messages, you must accept to still see their messages (and they yours) in those groups - or you must leave the group. Actually being able to block other users, whether they're in a group you're in, or not, does not seem like an insurmountable technical challenge to me, so I assume it's a policy 'nudge' to discourage blocking toxic people.
- tmp538394722 6y ago
  I mean... it could be juicing metrics as you say. I certainly have no love for these companies. But more likely its to minimize support, confusion, and a feeling of brokenness. Alice, Bob, and Charlie are in a group. Alice blocks Bob. Bob sends a message. Charlie responds to it. Alice says “what are you on about Charlie?” Because she didn’t see bobs message because she has him blocked. Alice and Charlie work out via messaging back and forth in the group that bob sent a message and that Alice has him blocked. That’s awkward for everyone. And happens every time bob sends a message in the group. How would you deal with that?
  - jacknews 6y ago
    I think you're equating 'blocking' with 'shadowbanning'. I abhor that underhand practice, and can't think of any reason why it is valid. If you want to tell a user to 'go away, leave me alone', you should be able to block them without having to leave your groups - it doesn't need to be secretive.
    - tmp538394722 6y ago
      So then what happens in the scenario I laid out? You just fumble around every time Charlie responds to Bob and Alice gets confused? That’s reasonable for you? I mean it’s ok if you want to just say what they’re doing sucks. But I’d find your position more compelling if you could offer a reasonable alternative.
fouc 6y ago
For those that are not aware of it - all sufficiently large corporations in China are actually more akin to State-owned enterprises. Alibaba, TikTok, etc are essentially state-owned enterprises.
- powerapple 6y ago
  For those are not aware of it - US is actually more akin to an enterprise-owned state. Joke aside, what this guy wrote is completely false. If Alibaba is state-owned enterprise, it does not need to stop the Ant group IPO. Yes, the state is trying to influence enterprises with the introduction of party councils in place of unions. It is not essentially state-owned when it is essentially not state-owned. EDIT: typo
  - cscurmudgeon 6y ago
    Why does the IPO stopping imply independence? Is it strange if a parent org reins in a child org? TikTok may be independent as a US company or more but the IPO stopping is not proof of it.
    - beaunative 6y ago
      If Ant is 'essentially' state owned, whereas its action reflects the will of the state, then its action need not to be controlled through government regulation or Chinese SEC. Ownership is much more powerful in an enterprise than outside government regulations in any cases.
      - cscurmudgeon 6y ago
        > If Ant is 'essentially' state owned, whereas its action reflects the will of the state, then its action need not to be controlled through government regulation or Chinese SEC. No. Not really. CCP is not a big uniform entity. There are different competing entities. Also, ownership is different from control. I am not sure how this simple fact is overlooked.
dilawar 6y ago
Wow! I admire American democracy, it's institutions especially courts are super functional. In India, this is unthinkable. District courts won't go against even the state chief ministers. And the supreme court has been showing its feet of clays lately.
- chapium 6y ago
  It feels like the courts are our second failsafe mechanism. Its pretty unnerving to be relying upon that.
- higerordermap 6y ago
  Dude, I don't like politics of this country (India) like every next sane person. But TikTok and related chinese app ban was done for good. When the other country is in a conflict on the borders, these apps are essentially a national security threat, given how pervasive these are. People used shitty adware / outright malware like ShareIt and Cam Scanner pervasively. I don't know how much of them are actually available now. But at least there is awareness now.
Miner49er 6y ago
Tik Tok is the only social media app I use (edit: well I guess also Youtube). I'd rather China have my data than the US government or US corperations. Edit: Why should I care if China has my data? Everyone seems worried about it, but I can't think of a good reason. I can think of a lot of reasons why I would prefer my own government from having it, though. The only scenarios I can think of, is if I become rich or powerful, or if China takes over the US.
- gruez 6y ago
  Do you really want China to have the social media history (secrets, likes/dislikes, usage profile) of our future leaders?
  - Miner49er 6y ago
    From Tik Tok? Sure, I can't picture a scenario where that would matter much.
    - gruez 6y ago
      "Our server logs show that you were actively engaged with racist/sexist/transphobic video when you were 19. It would be a real shame if that got out. We could make it all disappear, if you helped us in the next round of trade talks..."
      - Miner49er 6y ago
        Maybe, but I don't think China has enough credibility in the US to blackmail anyone. The leader can simply claim it's Chinese propaganda and China wouldn't have a way to prove it, AFAIK. Edit: Plus if that's all it takes to blackmail someone you can probably just bribe them with money or something just as easily.
        read_if_gay_ 6y ago
        It’s not like the headlines are going to be “China says ...”. It’ll be reported via an anonymous source, or some credible person that they also control.
vmchale 6y ago
Turns out tweets are not law... who knew!
- t-writescode 6y ago
  You make a joke, but this is more complicated than your quip. Tweets are sometimes legally binding :) For example, pardons they're probably 100% legal and binding. Pardons have been issued on napkins.
FooBarWidget 6y ago
People here keep calling for banning of Tiktok, but I don't get it. Why do people call for a discriminary approach (targeting Tiktok solely based on its origin, not giving them a chance to prove innocence), when that's totally unnecessary? Yes, the US is allowed to have national security concerns. Yes, the US is allowed to distrust China for whatever reason. But you could draw up a law that says "ANY foreign app must go through a security audit to certify no data reaches any foreign governments". That way you don't just target China, but also targets hypothetical Russian, European, African or whatever apps that could be problematic. And Tiktok would then be able to prove innocence or fix leaks.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- aritmo 6y ago
  The national security concerns are just an excuse to derail the biggest mobile app from China. TikTok is just short videos. It's not like Facebook or Twitter which are more likely to be used by someone who is an adult.
  - nouveaux 6y ago
    TikTok is widely used by adults. "Roughly 50% of TikTok’s global audience is under the age of 34 with 26% between 18 and 24." https://www.omnicoreagency.com/tiktok-statistics/ https://www.omnicoreagency.com/tiktok-statistics/
- syrrim 6y ago
  >Why do people call for a discriminary approach As a response to china's discriminatory behaviour with respect to US tech companies. Due to network effects and so on, a company that is able to operate everywhere, including china, has an unfair advantage over companies that are kept out of china. The end effect of allowing this is that you only have chinese media companies. This has a number of negative consequences, including ones for the economy, for privacy, and for national security.
KingMachiavelli 6y ago
This whole situation is insane and hypocritical. Rather than having some law that can be used to force TikTok and other companies to respect user privacy and store data safety. The US has basic no laws (with teeth) and doesn't care at all when a company like Equifax or Facebook leaks tons of data which includes foreign governments. But when one company is under the thumb of the CCP, the US freaks out. Meanwhile, the activities of the NSA and FBI in using telecoms and US tech companies to spy are no different, in an abstract sense, than what China does. Essentially, If I'm a user not in the US or China, I don't want either the US or the CCP to be able to abuse/spy on me. But it's insane for US to claim the moral high ground when the legal barrier to the government using private data is literally just they have to pay a private company to do it [1]. That's not much different than the government directly owning shares in a company. Either way money flows from the government to the company in exchange for user data. Sure the CCP is worse in that it prevents/breaks encryption, inspects packets but the US doesn't enforce the use of good security practices and really doesn't care when companies get hacked. We freak out that the TikTok app might be tracking us but we don't even notice that 20 other American apps on our phone collect & sell data. The only real path forward is decentralizing the platforms such that E2E encryption is mandatory. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-agencies-use-cellphone-location-data-for-immigration-enforcement-11581078600 https://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-agencies-use-cellphone-...
- newbie578 6y ago
  You are forgetting one major point. You cannot equate the US and China. I can go on TikTok and make a video making a joke about the US president and nothing will happen to me. However if I am in China and make a TikTok video about Winnie The Pooh, I am going to end up in jail. So yeah, it is not the same for CCP to have data on me or NSA.
  - mwfunk 6y ago
    If we've learned nothing else the last 4 years (last few decades really, but the last 4 years really hits home), it's that so much of what we take for granted about the US being supposedly safer or having a saner, more hands-off government is based far more on norms of behavior than actual legal protections for anyone, or legal guardrails that prevent whoever's in charge from abusing their power. So you've got a point, but nowadays it's like you're comparing the risk of crossing a street blindfolded on a highway during the day vs. a 4-lane expressway in the middle of the night. One is a lot safer than the other but let's not pretend that either one is rational or advisable.
ciarannolan 6y ago
> The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that "In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." Popper expands upon this, writing, "I do not imply for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
sida 6y ago
Irony is that I see a ton of pro-trump content on TikTok (much more than YouTube, where the YouTube filter bubble mostly prevents me from seeing them)
LatteLazy 6y ago
This whole thing was just a side show. It: * let trump claim headlines about being tough on China while rolling over for China. * got trump cheap attention while distracting from real issues he can't be bothered to solve * created some volatility and maybe let a donor snap up a deal on a growing tech company. * was basically meaningless to 99% of his supporters who don't use tiktok or understand what it is and so wouldn't be upset or ask any questions It achieved all of these and more, whether it worked or not.
- duemti 6y ago
  So, biased and made up things get promoted around here?!
- thursday0987 6y ago
  > China while rolling over for China. can you clarify this? in what ways did he roll over for china?
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
    This article covers the economic side pretty well: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-29/trump-s-china-scorecard-shows-many-defeats-and-one-big-change https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-29/trump-s-c... No action on jobs, no progress on IP infringement or tech transfer, no action on currency manipulation or subsidies, trade deficit remains huge. And that's without mentioning the TPP or South China Seas or treatment of minorities or Hong Kong and Democracy or basic human rights or Covid. China is a huge issue. The huge issue of the next decade. Its the only thing I agree with Trumps manifesto about. But on all these fronts, trump has at best achieved nothing and at worse looked weak, weakened the Web of alliances that made China hesitate and make the US look weak and ineffective. He rolled over on trade, the deficit jobs and ip in his failed little "trade war". He rolled over when he supported Xi over protestors. He's been too busy making hay and fucking up to properly question why zoonotic viruses keep coming out of China so he's rolled over on that too. Failing to ban tiktok is yet another example of how poorly he's done. Seriously, reasonable people on all sides agree that China is an issue. No one can say trump has made any progress on China.
ngcc_hk 6y ago
It is a trade issue as so far only china (and ccp) can send in app but USA cannot send in apps to china. At least the key one. And tiktok can trace yours. But we hat on overseas chinese. But not USA in china. Not sure the legal or presidential order is the best approach. But unless handle this USA might lose in the cyberspace... and humanity might suffer from ccp.
president 6y ago
This entire comment thread is an example of information asymmetry. Lot of people here, especially Americans that should care about their country's sovereignty and safety, would actually agree to the ban if they knew that Tiktok is a propaganda tool that is influencing your children and is also a data mining paradise that can be weaponized to enhance data collection for targeting dissidents or other nefarious purposes. The fact is, not enough people in this country understand that China is an adversary, not a friend to the US. In fact, "adversary" is putting it lightly. This is not a partisan issue and it is not a "Trump hates China" issue.

181 points by awb 6y ago

Meanwhile china bans 105 apps. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55230654 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55230654

FooBarWidget 6y ago
Unlike the Tiktok ban, it's not a discriminatory ban that targets US apps, for the sole reason that they're from the US. It's a ban based on non-discriminatory rules. From the article: "Most of the banned apps are Chinese" Unfortunately transparency is a problem, as they did not state more details about the ban.
- philliphaydon 6y ago
  It’s an assumption that it’s not discriminatory or targeted. There’s nothing to say that it’s not just disguised to annoy the US and turn around and fool people into believing it’s not targeted. I donno why there’s so many apologists on HN. :/
  - trasz 6y ago
    The "apologists" are simply the people who can see past the US propaganda.
    - eloff 6y ago
      But get suckered by Chinese propaganda? I think there's a bit more nuance on both sides of this story.
      - FooBarWidget 6y ago
        Which part is "Chinese propaganda"? I observe that the majority of the banned apps are Chinese, and that one is western, while at the same time lots of western apps remain accessible in China. That's all I base my conclusion on. At no point did I base my conclusion on anything the Chinese government said. To say that they are discriminatory despite the above data, is an assumption. That assumption may be right (because the data is not mathematically solid evidence). On the other hand, it may be not. But I think accepting that assumption is in line with US propaganda.
        byecomputer 6y ago
        > lots of western apps remain accessible in China And lots of western apps aren't accessible in China. Such as Google, Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter. Furthermore, did you know TikTok itself is banned in mainland China? No kidding, they have an different version of the app that's Chinese-only. I think the implication that China's being the free-market player here is faulty, to say the least. There's an argument to be made about how censorship of foreign applications conflicts with the US's values, for sure, but the one-way street argument doesn't scan.
        trasz 6y ago
        Let me get this right, are you suggesting https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E9%A6%96%E9%A1%B5 https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E9%A6%96%E9%A1%B5 is developed only by international Chinese diaspora, since it's not accessible in China?
        byecomputer 6y ago
        What do you want me to say? It's banned in China. It wasn't always banned in China, but as of April 2019 all versions of Wikipedia are verboten. Here's an article from a little over a month ago describing someone's arrest for going there: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/world/article-china-cracks-down-on-illegal-web-use/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/world/article-china-crac...
    - addicted 6y ago
      The vast majority of people “who see past the US propaganda” also see past the Chinese propaganda. The vast majority of them want to address the privacy issues raised by such apps and companies irrespective of whether it’s the US or China misappropriating our data.
      - trasz 6y ago
        That's of course true, but then banning TikTok increases YouTube's monopoly, making Google's privacy and data protection issues even worse.
        nouveaux 6y ago
        China's abuse of data is far worse than United States[1]. Just as I would push for more privacy regarding how US handles personal data, I would do the same for China. In this case, a ban on TikTok is the best signal we can send to the CCP. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/world/asia/china-surveillance-xinjiang.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/world/asia/china-surveill...
        trasz 6y ago
        USA doesn't even have personal data protection laws. China does. As for the article - this all sounds like a subset of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_mass_surveillance_projects#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_mass_survei..., until you realize one crucial thing: in case of US, the preferred way of dealing with this kind of minorities is either AC-130, or JDAM. Any kind of surveillance and reeducation camps is better from ethics point of view.
        nouveaux 6y ago
        This is incorrect. USA has laws protecting against government overreach[1]. In the case of China, the government does not need the court of law to access your data. [1] https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-279-subpoenas https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual...
  - FooBarWidget 6y ago
    I thought that the majority of the banned apps being Chinese, and that only one western app being banned (while leaving lots and lots of other western apps alone), should be proof enough. But okay. Let's say it's not a mathematically solid proof. Agreed. On the other hand, there's no mathematical proof that they are being discriminatory, either. Why is it apologetic to not assume the worst of China at every turn?
    - endtime 6y ago
      Because, if you have Western values, to which the CCP is diametrically opposed, they are actually "the worst" in some sense.
      - FooBarWidget 6y ago
        You don't have to agree with their values. But why labeling them as evil for not following your values? Western values don't work well in China. Chinese values don't work in the west. To each their own. Why do they have to be an enemy for which evil is always assumed, regardless of evidence? FYI, I'm Chinese.
        anonymousab 6y ago
        >But why labeling them as evil for not following your values? Because they view those values as inherently good, and thus opposition to those values as inherently bad. If you view freedom of religion or speech as a fundamental human good or need, then naturally a government opposed to (or seen as greatly curtailing) those values will be seen as 'evil'. On a more human and physical level, people see, say, the Xinjiang camps and view that as reflective of the values of that government, as evil, the same way they may see the immigrant child separation in the US as reflective of its government's values, and as evil. Actions speaking louder than words of intent.
        yibg 6y ago
        Shouldn't those acts be labeled evil (or good) instead? I mean we don't say the US government as a whole is evil because of the child separation policy (some people do but not most). I'm pretty anti CPP for the most part, but I feel like we're losing all nuance when we use broad stroke labels. I also don't think it's productive. As soon as we label something or someone "evil" then any avenue for dialog and improvement is gone. The only thing left is conflict and confrontation.
  - bagacrap 6y ago
    On a thread where we discuss the CCP's use of social media to influence public opinion in the US, it seems like the answer to this question should be apparent.
    - yibg 6y ago
      Or you know, people actually have different views on things.
  - yibg 6y ago
    The world isn’t black and white. One can be anti China for most things and still agree with them for some things. Similarly one can be pro “west” and still disagree with the US. I find it problematic that anything in support of China or against the US in the context of US vs China is labeled being an apologist or Chinese propaganda. It’s a good way to shut down all discussion, much like the whole “that’s heresy” from ages past.
- jtdev 6y ago
  Yeah, because they’ve already banned every U.S. app for Chinese consumers via other measures, i.e., “Great Firewall”. Your comment and perspective is either naive or disingenuous.
  - FooBarWidget 6y ago
    "Every US app"? Duolingo, Microsoft Teams, Skype, FaceTime all work in China, to name a few.
    - jtdev 6y ago
      These apps have been re-built from the ground up in accordance with Chinese rules to work in China and the source code of these apps has been completely disclosed to the Chinese Communist apparatus. Do you think any one of those apps is authorized to make API calls out of China? API calls, not phone calls yorwba
      - yorwba 6y ago
        I have in fact made Skype calls from China. I don't know where you're getting your information about those apps' source code from, but since you were wrong about the second part, I'm going to assume you just imagined a plausible story and claimed it as fact.
        jtdev 6y ago
        Using the Chinese version of Skype, which the CCP certainly has backdoor access to surveil without warrant or oversights of any kind. Regarding the source code thing: you’re either not paying attention or you’re a CCP propagandist. https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/telecom/security/chinas-new-rules-ask-tech-firms-to-hand-over-source-code https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/telecom/security/chinas-...
        yorwba 6y ago
        From your link: > The rules only apply to companies selling computer products to Chinese banks Your original comment didn't read like you were talking about auditing in the financial sector.
- jtdev 6y ago
  If TikTok were a flappy bird clone... we wouldn't be having this conversation. It was not being banned "for the sole reason" that it's of Chinese origin, it's the fact that the app is essentially a mass surveillance device.
gizmo385 6y ago
Is this point meant to be an argument that the US should ban apps from China because China is banning apps from the US?
- philliphaydon 6y ago
  china bans all us social media apps, because they want to control the content that Chinese citizens see and remove anything that is negative towards the ccp, etc. No one batters an eyelid. US tries to ban 1 app that is being used to spread propaganda, farm user data, and is considered a national security threat. And everyone loses their shit over it.
  - FooBarWidget 6y ago
    > "china bans all us social media apps" Microsoft Teams, Skype, FaceTime all work in China, to name a few. > because they want to control the content that Chinese citizens see and remove anything that is negative towards the ccp, etc. This is true. But that doesn't mean they ban all US social media apps. If you follow their Internet laws (like Microsoft and Apple do) then you are allowed to operate. > US tries to ban 1 app that is being used to spread propaganda, farm user data, and is considered a national security threat. This is an assumption. Proof please, because I haven't seen any. Don't get me wrong. I am not against a ban on Tiktok. I'm against a discriminatory ban, based on unproven assumptions, solely targeting the origin of an app. What would be much more fair would be to state: all foreign apps have to go through a security audit to certify that no data reaches any foreign governments. That way you don't have to prove wrongdoing first, and you aren't being discriminatory either.
    - gruez 6y ago
      > > "china bans all us social media apps" >Microsoft Teams, Skype, FaceTime all work in China, to name a few. Calling them "social media apps" is a stretch. Microsoft Teams is designed to be used within an organization, so it's closer to a corporate mail server than facebook. Skype and FaceTime are public, but they don't have the defining features of other social media sites, such as a profile, UGC, or feeds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media
akhilcacharya 6y ago
Free societies shouldn't stoop to the levels of totalitarian ones.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
beaunative 6y ago
"Most of the banned apps are Chinese but US travel app TripAdvisor is also included on the list." I thought it was 105 foreign or US apps that got banned.

superfreek 6y ago

U.S. user data is mostly stored by TikTok on servers in Virginia, with backup storage in Singapore. Company officials say Chinese authorities have never attempted to gain access to Americans' information.

gowld 6y ago
Not sure how much that counts. In the US, under certain warrants under the so-called "PATRIOT" Act, it's illegal to admit that government accessed user information. China likely has similar ways to compel silence upon threat of losing privileges.
- MereInterest 6y ago
  A related concept is the warrant canary, which is a positive statement that the government has not accessed user information. It is current untested in court whether the PATRIOT Act can compel speech, or merely silence it, and so the idea is that if you stop making the positive statement that no government intrusion has occurred, then it implies that there has been intrusion. (The constitutionality of Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act has, to my knowledge, never been tested in court, and I firmly believe that it violates the First Amendment's protection of free speech.) That said, they are generally ignored when they disappear. Apple and Reddit both removed their warrant canaries in 2016, to very little fanfare, despite the implications of them doing so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary
whybenull 6y ago
So you think we should believe these company officials?
- beezle 6y ago
  Until proven otherwise. And honestly, where is the 'national security' risk? There is probably far more data available in public databases that China could gather and analyze, not to mention you can apply the same paranoia to other services US and foreign.

gowld 6y ago

It seemed that Trump administration had already gotten bored of the ban effort anyway, missing their own deadlines without comment.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dkjaudyeqooe 6y ago
Trump is too busy wallowing in self pity to think about the petty spite he was pursuing against TikTok.

thanksforthe42 6y ago

This is extremely important for the modern term capitalism. Every intervention the US government does is a signal to other governments and entrepreneurs. If you are an aspring developer, you can choose to make your program local, US centric, or worldwide. The economics don't always work for third world countries or globally, so they are forced to make products that are US centric. Banning apps shift the risk and could encourage more local apps. With more US centric programs, US citizens are exposed to new ideas and economic competition. These are good for the long term despite the short term disruption.

sneak 6y ago

The infrastructure is still there at Apple to remotely censor apps on millions of devices, with no immediate recourse by device owners if they do so. This is still a ticking time bomb, even if today they are only using it against malware (and apps that aid the Hong Kong protesters). It's only a matter of time before they are forced to censor apps elsewhere, too.

nouveaux 6y ago
I disagree with Apple's ability to do this but its a far cry from China using data to oppress minorities. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/world/asia/china-surveillance-xinjiang.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/world/asia/china-surveill...

throwaway4good 6y ago

Why are so many tech professionals pro the ban of TikTok when most can see the problem in the monopolies of Facebook and Google? To me TikTok and fair regulation of how to handle user data the hammer that finally can crack the surveilance advertisement monopolies of Facebook and Google.

idrios 6y ago
Because the ban is an admission of the influence that a company with nothing but troves of data can have, and thus is a step towards actually addressing the issues of Facebook, Google and the like. But what we really need is a US version of GDPR
- dopamean 6y ago
  How's gdpr working out? Seriously, I'm in the US and have no idea what's going on with it.
  - et-al 6y ago
    Since GDPR came out, the two companies I worked at have been more cognisant about how we stored user data for EU customers (e.g. making more fields optional, giving user deletion options). And we also undertook a review of how we stored data for California customers for CCPA.
- NoOneNew 6y ago
  You'll never get enough credit for that statement. It's exactly why there is a large pushback from the other data collection companies. Once the DOJ can set precedent on one "low hanging fruit", it can start tackling the rest. Sort of like when RICO was first proposed and used. It was a huge issue, but once legitimized in the courts, many organized crime families started to crumble. While org crime is still a problem as it adapted and evolved, they're arguably less influential on a national scale as they used to be pre-RICO. Faang doesn't want the same thing happen to them.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

jacknews 6y ago

They should all be banned IMO. Just as an example of 'not cricket', my daughter recently had very good reason to block an instagram user. Except, if that user is in any groups that you're a member of, in order to still see group messages, you must accept to still see their messages (and they yours) in those groups - or you must leave the group. Actually being able to block other users, whether they're in a group you're in, or not, does not seem like an insurmountable technical challenge to me, so I assume it's a policy 'nudge' to discourage blocking toxic people.

tmp538394722 6y ago
I mean... it could be juicing metrics as you say. I certainly have no love for these companies. But more likely its to minimize support, confusion, and a feeling of brokenness. Alice, Bob, and Charlie are in a group. Alice blocks Bob. Bob sends a message. Charlie responds to it. Alice says “what are you on about Charlie?” Because she didn’t see bobs message because she has him blocked. Alice and Charlie work out via messaging back and forth in the group that bob sent a message and that Alice has him blocked. That’s awkward for everyone. And happens every time bob sends a message in the group. How would you deal with that?
- jacknews 6y ago
  I think you're equating 'blocking' with 'shadowbanning'. I abhor that underhand practice, and can't think of any reason why it is valid. If you want to tell a user to 'go away, leave me alone', you should be able to block them without having to leave your groups - it doesn't need to be secretive.
  - tmp538394722 6y ago
    So then what happens in the scenario I laid out? You just fumble around every time Charlie responds to Bob and Alice gets confused? That’s reasonable for you? I mean it’s ok if you want to just say what they’re doing sucks. But I’d find your position more compelling if you could offer a reasonable alternative.

fouc 6y ago

For those that are not aware of it - all sufficiently large corporations in China are actually more akin to State-owned enterprises. Alibaba, TikTok, etc are essentially state-owned enterprises.

powerapple 6y ago
For those are not aware of it - US is actually more akin to an enterprise-owned state. Joke aside, what this guy wrote is completely false. If Alibaba is state-owned enterprise, it does not need to stop the Ant group IPO. Yes, the state is trying to influence enterprises with the introduction of party councils in place of unions. It is not essentially state-owned when it is essentially not state-owned. EDIT: typo
- cscurmudgeon 6y ago
  Why does the IPO stopping imply independence? Is it strange if a parent org reins in a child org? TikTok may be independent as a US company or more but the IPO stopping is not proof of it.
  - beaunative 6y ago
    If Ant is 'essentially' state owned, whereas its action reflects the will of the state, then its action need not to be controlled through government regulation or Chinese SEC. Ownership is much more powerful in an enterprise than outside government regulations in any cases.
    - cscurmudgeon 6y ago
      > If Ant is 'essentially' state owned, whereas its action reflects the will of the state, then its action need not to be controlled through government regulation or Chinese SEC. No. Not really. CCP is not a big uniform entity. There are different competing entities. Also, ownership is different from control. I am not sure how this simple fact is overlooked.

dilawar 6y ago

Wow! I admire American democracy, it's institutions especially courts are super functional. In India, this is unthinkable. District courts won't go against even the state chief ministers. And the supreme court has been showing its feet of clays lately.

chapium 6y ago
It feels like the courts are our second failsafe mechanism. Its pretty unnerving to be relying upon that.
higerordermap 6y ago
Dude, I don't like politics of this country (India) like every next sane person. But TikTok and related chinese app ban was done for good. When the other country is in a conflict on the borders, these apps are essentially a national security threat, given how pervasive these are. People used shitty adware / outright malware like ShareIt and Cam Scanner pervasively. I don't know how much of them are actually available now. But at least there is awareness now.

Miner49er 6y ago

Tik Tok is the only social media app I use (edit: well I guess also Youtube). I'd rather China have my data than the US government or US corperations. Edit: Why should I care if China has my data? Everyone seems worried about it, but I can't think of a good reason. I can think of a lot of reasons why I would prefer my own government from having it, though. The only scenarios I can think of, is if I become rich or powerful, or if China takes over the US.

gruez 6y ago
Do you really want China to have the social media history (secrets, likes/dislikes, usage profile) of our future leaders?
- Miner49er 6y ago
  From Tik Tok? Sure, I can't picture a scenario where that would matter much.
  - gruez 6y ago
    "Our server logs show that you were actively engaged with racist/sexist/transphobic video when you were 19. It would be a real shame if that got out. We could make it all disappear, if you helped us in the next round of trade talks..."
    - Miner49er 6y ago
      Maybe, but I don't think China has enough credibility in the US to blackmail anyone. The leader can simply claim it's Chinese propaganda and China wouldn't have a way to prove it, AFAIK. Edit: Plus if that's all it takes to blackmail someone you can probably just bribe them with money or something just as easily.
      - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
        It’s not like the headlines are going to be “China says ...”. It’ll be reported via an anonymous source, or some credible person that they also control.

vmchale 6y ago

Turns out tweets are not law... who knew!

t-writescode 6y ago
You make a joke, but this is more complicated than your quip. Tweets are sometimes legally binding :) For example, pardons they're probably 100% legal and binding. Pardons have been issued on napkins.

FooBarWidget 6y ago

People here keep calling for banning of Tiktok, but I don't get it. Why do people call for a discriminary approach (targeting Tiktok solely based on its origin, not giving them a chance to prove innocence), when that's totally unnecessary? Yes, the US is allowed to have national security concerns. Yes, the US is allowed to distrust China for whatever reason. But you could draw up a law that says "ANY foreign app must go through a security audit to certify no data reaches any foreign governments". That way you don't just target China, but also targets hypothetical Russian, European, African or whatever apps that could be problematic. And Tiktok would then be able to prove innocence or fix leaks.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
aritmo 6y ago
The national security concerns are just an excuse to derail the biggest mobile app from China. TikTok is just short videos. It's not like Facebook or Twitter which are more likely to be used by someone who is an adult.
- nouveaux 6y ago
  TikTok is widely used by adults. "Roughly 50% of TikTok’s global audience is under the age of 34 with 26% between 18 and 24." https://www.omnicoreagency.com/tiktok-statistics/ https://www.omnicoreagency.com/tiktok-statistics/
syrrim 6y ago
>Why do people call for a discriminary approach As a response to china's discriminatory behaviour with respect to US tech companies. Due to network effects and so on, a company that is able to operate everywhere, including china, has an unfair advantage over companies that are kept out of china. The end effect of allowing this is that you only have chinese media companies. This has a number of negative consequences, including ones for the economy, for privacy, and for national security.

KingMachiavelli 6y ago

This whole situation is insane and hypocritical. Rather than having some law that can be used to force TikTok and other companies to respect user privacy and store data safety. The US has basic no laws (with teeth) and doesn't care at all when a company like Equifax or Facebook leaks tons of data which includes foreign governments. But when one company is under the thumb of the CCP, the US freaks out. Meanwhile, the activities of the NSA and FBI in using telecoms and US tech companies to spy are no different, in an abstract sense, than what China does. Essentially, If I'm a user not in the US or China, I don't want either the US or the CCP to be able to abuse/spy on me. But it's insane for US to claim the moral high ground when the legal barrier to the government using private data is literally just they have to pay a private company to do it [1]. That's not much different than the government directly owning shares in a company. Either way money flows from the government to the company in exchange for user data. Sure the CCP is worse in that it prevents/breaks encryption, inspects packets but the US doesn't enforce the use of good security practices and really doesn't care when companies get hacked. We freak out that the TikTok app might be tracking us but we don't even notice that 20 other American apps on our phone collect & sell data. The only real path forward is decentralizing the platforms such that E2E encryption is mandatory. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-agencies-use-cellphone-location-data-for-immigration-enforcement-11581078600 https://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-agencies-use-cellphone-...

newbie578 6y ago
You are forgetting one major point. You cannot equate the US and China. I can go on TikTok and make a video making a joke about the US president and nothing will happen to me. However if I am in China and make a TikTok video about Winnie The Pooh, I am going to end up in jail. So yeah, it is not the same for CCP to have data on me or NSA.
- mwfunk 6y ago
  If we've learned nothing else the last 4 years (last few decades really, but the last 4 years really hits home), it's that so much of what we take for granted about the US being supposedly safer or having a saner, more hands-off government is based far more on norms of behavior than actual legal protections for anyone, or legal guardrails that prevent whoever's in charge from abusing their power. So you've got a point, but nowadays it's like you're comparing the risk of crossing a street blindfolded on a highway during the day vs. a 4-lane expressway in the middle of the night. One is a lot safer than the other but let's not pretend that either one is rational or advisable.

ciarannolan 6y ago

> The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that "In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." Popper expands upon this, writing, "I do not imply for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

sida 6y ago

Irony is that I see a ton of pro-trump content on TikTok (much more than YouTube, where the YouTube filter bubble mostly prevents me from seeing them)

LatteLazy 6y ago

This whole thing was just a side show. It: * let trump claim headlines about being tough on China while rolling over for China. * got trump cheap attention while distracting from real issues he can't be bothered to solve * created some volatility and maybe let a donor snap up a deal on a growing tech company. * was basically meaningless to 99% of his supporters who don't use tiktok or understand what it is and so wouldn't be upset or ask any questions It achieved all of these and more, whether it worked or not.

duemti 6y ago
So, biased and made up things get promoted around here?!
thursday0987 6y ago
> China while rolling over for China. can you clarify this? in what ways did he roll over for china?
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  This article covers the economic side pretty well: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-29/trump-s-china-scorecard-shows-many-defeats-and-one-big-change https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-29/trump-s-c... No action on jobs, no progress on IP infringement or tech transfer, no action on currency manipulation or subsidies, trade deficit remains huge. And that's without mentioning the TPP or South China Seas or treatment of minorities or Hong Kong and Democracy or basic human rights or Covid. China is a huge issue. The huge issue of the next decade. Its the only thing I agree with Trumps manifesto about. But on all these fronts, trump has at best achieved nothing and at worse looked weak, weakened the Web of alliances that made China hesitate and make the US look weak and ineffective. He rolled over on trade, the deficit jobs and ip in his failed little "trade war". He rolled over when he supported Xi over protestors. He's been too busy making hay and fucking up to properly question why zoonotic viruses keep coming out of China so he's rolled over on that too. Failing to ban tiktok is yet another example of how poorly he's done. Seriously, reasonable people on all sides agree that China is an issue. No one can say trump has made any progress on China.

ngcc_hk 6y ago

It is a trade issue as so far only china (and ccp) can send in app but USA cannot send in apps to china. At least the key one. And tiktok can trace yours. But we hat on overseas chinese. But not USA in china. Not sure the legal or presidential order is the best approach. But unless handle this USA might lose in the cyberspace... and humanity might suffer from ccp.

president 6y ago

This entire comment thread is an example of information asymmetry. Lot of people here, especially Americans that should care about their country's sovereignty and safety, would actually agree to the ban if they knew that Tiktok is a propaganda tool that is influencing your children and is also a data mining paradise that can be weaponized to enhance data collection for targeting dissidents or other nefarious purposes. The fact is, not enough people in this country understand that China is an adversary, not a friend to the US. In fact, "adversary" is putting it lightly. This is not a partisan issue and it is not a "Trump hates China" issue.