38 ms·

Senate Bill to Ban TikTok

• kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
  This is just grist for the '24 election mill. Advance BS legislation that might just get to the desk of the president. He vetoes it and then the outrage machine can claim that he's weak on China.
• luxuryballs 4y ago
  Wild that I can’t rule out whether or not this is because they can’t get an FBI agent onto the internal content policy team.
  • yumraj 4y ago
    What’ll that do? The concern is about data being siphoned off to CCP data centers in China.
• humanistbot 4y ago
  If the concern is privacy and security, which apply to all social media platforms, then why not pass actual privacy and security laws that would apply equally to all social media platforms, regardless of who currently owns it or may own it in the future?
  • tonetheman 4y ago
    [dead]
  • gretch 4y ago
    That's not what the concern of the bill is and it's completely transparent. Just read the first 2 pages of the bill and you can see the concern is, in the words of the bill, a "foreign adversary" and their ability to "sabotage or subversion of the design, integrity, manufacturing, production, distribution, installation, operation, or maintenance of information and communications technology products and services in the United States". It's quite simple - the US and China don't get along. It's never been about privacy nor internal (to the US) security. It's very openly about cross pacific adversaries. Only meta-tech commentators have tried to apply some weird narrative of privacy.
    • kneel 4y ago
      That's a lot of words to say authoritarianism.
    • charlieflowers 4y ago
      The real concerns, in order of importance, are: 1. This is a way of getting memes to the masses that we (the US political establishment) can't fully control. 2. Meta and others are getting their asses kicked revenue-wise by Tik Tok. Like any business, they'd use anything they could to fight back. Turns out they can use China fear mongering, so they are. 3. (Added) Believe it or not, there's nationalistic pride here. There is a reluctance to admit that an app from "the other side" (China) is more appealing to the masses than _our_ social media apps. Surprising then that we don't ban Hondas and Toyotas, even though they're far superior to American cars (but at least they're made by Asians who are _allies_ I guess). No matter that banning an app is completely against the principles we claim, such as freedom for individuals, competition in a free market, and freedom of information.
      • Gigachad 4y ago
        When the memes involve destroying the school bathrooms and stealing cars. It's probably worth considering what control is had over it.
        • BobbyJo 4y ago
          Yeah, that's where the Toyota/Honda comparison breaks down to me. Toyota and Honda sell cars to users. TikTok sells users.
          • charlieflowers 4y ago
            I mean, yeah, true. But only in the exact same way that Meta, Google, and a bunch of other American companies do too.
          • throwaway-blaze 4y ago
            Toyota and Honda both assemble cars here in the US and have a huge network of US-based suppliers. No one believes that those companies operate under Japanese government direction nor that the Japanese government has the ability to influence company management to the degree the CCP clearly can with TikTok. It is well documented that the "Golden Shares" owned by the CCP and the board seat on they have give them fundamental control of the company.
  • HDThoreaun 4y ago
    The issue is that tiktok told congress that US data was inaccessible in China but there is evidence of Chinese nationals accessing american journalist's data in China. Also I'm sure big tech lobbying is playing a large role here too, but that's the cover story at least.
    • florbnit 4y ago
      Do you have a link or reference to that evidence?
      • kube-system 4y ago
        https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/dec/22/tiktok-bytedance-workers-fired-data-access-journalists https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/dec/22/tiktok-by... "TikTok spy journalist" returns a lot of results in your favorite search engine
    • kube-system 4y ago
      Regardless of anything TikTok's management says, Chinese law functionally allows them to force ByteDance to supply any data they want.
  • remote_phone 4y ago
    It’s not about privacy and security it’s about propaganda and controlling what our citizens are influenced by.
  • tzs 4y ago
    Actual privacy and security laws aren't passed because this is not a sufficiently bipartisan issue to get enough votes. One party is largely in favor of stronger privacy laws, but with enough dissenters that when that party is the majority party they still would need help from the other party. The other party is largely against stronger privacy laws, without enough dissenters to overcome the more pro-privacy party dissenters when the more pro-privacy party has the majority. So nothing passes.
  • than3 4y ago
    The concern is subversion and malign influence, which is a very real problem. USMC University has a book on political warfare that covers the topic fairly. The politicians don't want to touch privacy or security laws since that would negatively impact their benefactors as opposed to actually doing their jobs for their constituents. Its a power grab, hopefully it won't get passed because of the loose undefined wording that could apply to anything they so choose like in ways described in Ayn Rand.
    • alexfromapex 4y ago
      Tencent also has a very large stake in Reddit, I wonder if there's any plan to investigate influence operations there.
    • beezle 4y ago
      Yes but Twitter and Facebook have already been used for that purpose and continue to be used in that manner. I get that it is not appropriate on government phones in case they manage to leverage a zeroday but for the average Joe I'm not seeing the risk of TikTok being any greater than the rest of the social media world - the same info is shared/available.
  • beebmam 4y ago
    Because other social media companies aren't owned or controlled by an authoritarian state, one which expresses threats of violent aggression to its neighboring countries.
    • Quinner 4y ago
      This is America, we follow through on our threats of violent aggression, no matter how far away other countries are. And when we ban speech, it's not authoritarianism, it's Freedom.
  • rvz 4y ago
    The US regulators and government is not tired of collecting money from and imposing fines on all social media and tech platforms, hence why Facebook, Google (YouTube), Instagram, Snap, etc all have been fined by the FTC for privacy violations. Facebook and TikTok are of similar sizes and have both violated the privacy of its users and since FB has paid a giant billion dollar fine to the FTC, it already makes sense to also fine TikTok on similar grounds including overseas access to US data by specifically targeting US journalists.
  • atlasunshrugged 4y ago
    Congress is also working on privacy legislation, it just takes forever because it's massive and complex. I imagine that legislators feel they have urgency/momentum behind the TikTok stuff to get something focused done. From the article below: "The House Energy and Commerce Committee last year advanced a bipartisan bill backed by Rodgers and sponsored by ranking member Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-N.J., that would produce a national data privacy standard, but the measure didn't get a House floor vote, and no similar measure has passed in the Senate." https://rollcall.com/2023/02/02/lawmakers-stumble-on-data-privacy-as-another-tech-ceo-to-testify/ https://rollcall.com/2023/02/02/lawmakers-stumble-on-data-pr...
  • greenie_beans 4y ago
    that would be reasonable, wouldn't it?
  • chaostheory 4y ago
    Because like with the GPRD, this is primarily about a trade dispute.
• decremental 4y ago
  You know they wouldn't be doing this unless the point was to expand the government's ability to harm its citizens. Which sweeping and terrifying powers does this one introduce?
  • breck 4y ago
    Bingo!
• yumraj 4y ago
  Can someone explain why a bill is needed to ban TikTok? Can’t the administration or a governmental agency (such as but not limited to FTC, FCC etc.) ban it? I think that’s how it works in many other countries.
  • qup 4y ago
    I can't explain authoritatively, but my thought is that perhaps this is the only way congress has to affect the change, and they're the ones wanting to make it happen.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • marcell 4y ago
    This is how it's supposed to work, Congress makes laws and the President enforces them. The reverse, where government agencies ban things without Congress, is the unusual thing from a Constitutional perspective.
    • parineum 4y ago
      In effect, an action by the "FTC, FCC etc." is the same thing. Those bodies were created by congress to delegate the duties of congress to the Executive branch. They work for the Executive but are given authority by the Legislature. The thing you may be conflating as the reverse is executive orders.
    • chongli 4y ago
      But isn't this a bill of attainder? It's a bill specifically against one company.
• breck 4y ago
  1) I understand that the CCP bans sites and apps. Let's not sink to their level. (Instead, let's build more and more technologies to enable their people to get around said bans). 2) This is embarrassing. You don't like TikTok? Man up and compete. Don't ban it. 3) The complexity in this bills makes it reak of corruption. There will be winners and losers in this bill. The losers we can bet are 99% of the population.
  • whythre 4y ago
    I am fine with banning what is, effectively, a Chinese psyop marketed as a social media app. I don’t really think we should be competing to make the most addictive doomscroller possible. However, I do agree about point 3, wholeheartedly. This makes it seem like envy, where our government is salivating at the prospect of doing this themselves under the guise of protecting us from foreign powers.
    • ramenmeal 4y ago
      > a Chinese psyop marketed as a social media app Do you personally use tiktok?
    • AlexandrB 4y ago
      > I am fine with banning what is, effectively, a Chinese psyop marketed as a social media app. As a non-American, I would argue the last 70 years of Hollywood and social media has been a psyop by a foreign power. The DoD literally aids in the making of Hollywood movies as long as their ideological content is "correct"[1]. After all that it's pretty funny to see this kind of pearl clutching about "psyops" coming from American citizens. [1] https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/how-hollywood-became-the-unofficial-propaganda-arm-of-the-u-s-military-1.5560575 https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/how-hollywood-became-the-unof...
  • silisili 4y ago
    Re: 1 and 2, I'm not sure this is as tit-for-tat. China has a -lot- of business regulations unfair to outsiders that the US doesn't and hasn't retaliated much on, even if it puts us on uneven grounds so to speak. And it's not like TikTok is so advanced and the US can't compete so we're banning it. There are many apps from foreign countries which are popular and not banned. It's a fear, legitimate or not, about data access and data harvesting and potential device control to what's becoming a direct adversary. Re: 3, can't argue there.
• user3939382 4y ago
  [flagged]
• sircastor 4y ago
  I heard on a podcast yesterday a suggestion that the reason the intelligence community doesn't like TikTok is that, unlike with Twitter, Meta, Google, Apple, Amazon, etc, they can't just hand a warrant over to ByteDance get the data they want. If there's one thing the intelligence community hates, it's not getting the data they want. Back in the previous administration, I figured this was all a temper-tantrum being thrown by an executive who got embarrassed when outsmarted by a bunch of kids. It may have started like that, but somehow in D.C. everyone's been convinced of the danger a foreign-owned social-media network poses. I'm still not sure I get it...
  • JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > they can't just hand a warrant over to ByteDance get the data they want Of course they can. Bytedance is keeping American TikTok data in the U.S. The problem is that it's also filtering out to China.
  • qbasic_forever 4y ago
    TikTok has a US business presence and definitely can be subpoenaed for information. This is not something you have to speculate about, they clearly outline the process for law enforcement to get information: https://www.tiktok.com/legal/page/global/law-enforcement/en https://www.tiktok.com/legal/page/global/law-enforcement/en
    • Miner49er 4y ago
      I think OP is talking about the backdoor, full access that US companies give agencies like the NSA. Not subpoenas.
      • srcreigh 4y ago
        PRISM w gag order preventing USA companies from publicly discussing it
      • qbasic_forever 4y ago
        TikTok has a US business presence, their US user data is stored in the US. All of this is subject to US jurisdiction and court orders. TikTok can't tell US marshalls and federal agents to take a hike if they show up at TikTok's US headquarters with court documents--their leadership can be arrested and their servers seized.
• abeppu 4y ago
  So, they're clearly trying to describe what they're doing in general terms. I'm not a lawyer, but I wonder if that's partly a constitutional matter -- just going after TikTok by name based on a knowledge of _past_ access to American data by staff in China would sound like an ex post facto law. So they have to frame it as being about a class of services with relationships to a group of foreign adversaries. But then are there other companies that might fall afoul of this? Yandex?
  • ellisv 4y ago
    If you were to name a company specifically, the company could fold and reopen under a new name. But moreover, laws should be about behavior. You don’t ban Philip Morris, you ban selling tobacco to kids and smoking indoors.
    • abeppu 4y ago
      You _should_ have laws about behavior. This is not that. But Congress has had years of opportunities to develop actual data privacy laws and they haven't. They held proceedings focused on a single company. The tagline for this post is specifically "Senate Bill to Ban TikTok" for good reason: it was written to target a single company. We _should_ be concerned about companies which have personal data on basically everyone and have no real limitations on how it's used, but FB is gonna keep operating. We _should_ be concerned about a government that can gather private data about Americans by secretly working with a corporation. But AT&T's cooperation with the NSA never really hurt it.
• reb 4y ago
  So we can just calling time-of-death on the United States' social tech dominance now, right? Domestic tech companies shamelessly sold access to American users for manipulation by "foreign adversaries" for years, made billions, suffered no lasting consequences. Then Chinese Vine walks in, smokes everybody else in ~24 months, the mad South African buys and destroys Twitter, and Mark toddles off the cliff of irrelevance with a social network in each pocket and an Oculus strapped to his face. I guess it was fun while it lasted.
  • tcmart14 4y ago
    No, we do the most American thing imaginable. Just like we did with the space race, we got to the moon first therefore we won, even though we weren't first in much anything in the space race at the time. So I fully expect we ban TikTok then declare one of the American social media networks the winner of the social media race.
  • metachris 4y ago
    Well written... sounds like a Dall-E prompt :-)
• empressplay 4y ago
  I find a certain sense of irony in the Chinese propagandists touting arguments such as 'this is authoritarian", "this is anti-competitive", "this is because TikTok won't let the US spy on its citizens" and so forth when ALL OF THESE THINGS are done by the CCP and worse. The reason for banning it is simple: it can be used as a first-strike weapon to influence an entire generation (or two) of Americans in a conflict with China that is almost certain to happen. Keeping it under Chinese control is a bad idea. China has the option to sell it to an American company, take the money and build more guns to shoot at us. Honestly, it's a win-win.
• no-dr-onboard 4y ago
  Do I support TikTok? No, not in the least bit. Their privacy controls are horrendous and, at this stage, user info and content is undoubtedly siphoned and delivered straight to the CCP. Where it goes beyond that is undoubtedly in some Tom Clancy novel, of which likely pales in comparison to some even more grim reality. Was TikTok a net good to American society? Depends on who you ask, but if anything I think most people would agree that it only exaggerated the decline of the average attention span. This moves with the larger movement to commodify clicks, quick ads and lowers the threshold towards late stage capitalism. In short, this speeds cultural decline ("I said what I said"). Would I support an American TikTok? No, see above. Should TikTok be banned by the US congress? When is the last time you ever saw a ban of something that didn't include any overt pocket lining or omnibus-style overreach? Read the bill, the language is broad and sweeping; certainly kin to the CFAA and COPPA. So what then? Well we're certainly at an impasse here, right? We can't rely on tech businesses to turn their shoulders to cold hard cash. We can't rely on our elected officials to "Do the right thing" without lining their pockets and sharpening their knives. Truly a conundrum with no good solution.
• DueDilligence 4y ago
  [dead]
• sct202 4y ago
  I'm fine if TikTok gets banned, but I feel like Facebook and all the other social media incumbents owe Americans a bunch of money for their biggest competition being banned.
  • spiderice 4y ago
    > I'm fine if TikTok gets banned How are so many people (especially on HN) fine with this? Haven't we criticized "The Great Firewall of China" for literally decades? How is this not the start of that? Genuine question. This ban seems to set horrible precedent to me. Bet everyones "coolness" with it makes me think I'm not understanding something.
    • NLPaep 4y ago
      The media is the fourth branch of government. It is wildly considered to be essential for a healthy democracy. You don’t want to have it controlled (for many people) by an untrustworthy and adversarial party, especially when they have a long track record of censorship and are trying to extend their own influence and rules globally. We can still say and post what we want - it’s not content that’s being censored.
      • symlinkk 4y ago
        How about I choose for myself what I want to read? Why do you think you know better than me?
      • deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      • saurik 4y ago
        Isn't this exactly what China says about us? (And no: I don't believe them... but that frankly isn't the point. We normally get to dislike their position on indirect philosophical grounds--that people should get to see and do whatever they want and if freedom is dangerous to you then you are the aggressor--irregardless of whether they are "correct", and so we lose the moral high ground and will have to sit around in a direct mud-slinging argument if we try to use the same kind of "for the good of the people we must all lose our freedom" argument.)
• twitchyliquid64 4y ago
  Can anyone that knows a thing or two about law comment on section 12 & 13? Seems like there's... a LOT of calve-outs for due process / checks-and-balances? or is that fairly normal and i'm mis-interpreting in my ignorance?
• ReptileMan 4y ago
  How do you square this circle with the first amendment?
  • JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > square this circle with the first amendment It's authorizing the President to ban certain classes of transactions. Not behavior let alone speech.
    • wincy 4y ago
      Right he’s just closing down one of the “public squares” then saying “of course you can talk on these other less popular public squares!” This is mind boggling that every single person on HN isn’t terrified of this. Surely most of us were around in the 2000s when the Bush Administration demonized people who spoke against the war? Aren’t we the same people who were railing against censorship then? What HAPPENED to that community I grew up with that wouldn’t put up with censorship, who held free speech as the backbone of democracy? Where are all of those people now? I have a few hunches, and I’m not sure I’d like to know the answer.
      • JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > he’s just closing down one of the “public squares” then saying “of course you can talk on these other less popular public squares Let’s be real. Nobody is closing anything down. This is a bizarre game of brinksmanship between D.C. and Beijing that ends in one place: divestiture. The only reason it’s getting so much attention is because the object of concern is a social media property, not e.g. a port asset or power plant.
    • ReptileMan 4y ago
      Do you think that the President banning people to sell paper, ink, electricity and internet access to the NYTimes has any chance to fly as not violating the 1A? I mean they can shout from the windows and write on the glass windows with lipstick.
• xenospn 4y ago
  Can't wait for next weeks' breakout social media app, LickLock
• boomboomsubban 4y ago
  >Read twice and referred to the Committee on I'm so cynical, I bet even that is a lie. Diving in, the list of "foreign adversaries" is amusing. China and Russia have to be on there. Iran and North Korea I guess. Cuba and specifically a Maduro led Venezuela are a stretch. What this bill actually seems to do is allow the Secretary of Commerce to review any communication technology, including both apps and hardware, used by a million Americans, and then suggest the president punish it if it poses an "unacceptable risk" of stealing IP, damaging infrastructure, interfering with elections, extorts a person in power, or just "otherwise poses an undue or unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the safety of United States persons." Then it discusses what penalties the President can enact, which are banning the thing, confiscating their assets, and confiscating their collected data (and code? not 100% on this.) Next, how to designate a communication device needing review or foreign adversary, basically someone high up says so. Then how to remove a foreign adversary, which seems much more difficult though it may just have more possible methods. The rest seems to deal with the minutia of enforcement. I also can't be bothered to read this once, let alone twice, but it also means I'm not quite sure what investigative powers the Secretary of Commerce has without getting a warrant. So it's called a bill to ban TikTok, but it seems to give the government a fairly clear path to banning any foreign communication technology widely used. The adversary part doesn't even seem necessary, the only time the foreign adversary comes up is if they are undermining the democratic process. Which means Russia can't interfere in elections, Israel and Saudi Arabia can.
  • throwaway-blaze 4y ago
    We already have CFIUS and have for years.
• primitivesuave 4y ago
  A strategy doomed to failure: kick the far-right off Twitter so they can plan a revolution on Parler. Kick the QAnon people off Facebook so they can reorganize on Gab. All this will ever achieve is to scatter people into deeper and darker ideological echo chambers.
  • dymk 4y ago
    Good, they're doing more harm on Twitter and Facebook anyways
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
• freewizard 4y ago
  (10) ICTS COVERED HOLDING ENTITY.—The term “ICTS covered holding entity” means any entity that— (A) owns, controls, or manages information and communications technology products or services; and (B) (i) has not less than 1,000,000 United States-based annual active users at any point during the year period preceding the date on which the covered holding is referred to the President; or (ii) for which more than 1,000,000 units have been sold to persons in the United States before the date on which the covered holding is referred to the President. (11) INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS OR SERVICES.—The term “information and communications technology products or services” means any hardware, software, or other product or service primarily intended to fulfill or enable the function of information or data processing, storage, retrieval, or communication by electronic means, including transmission, storage, and display. this seems pretty broad, not just TikTok, but WeChat, Little Red Book, Yandex and any cellphone made by Chinese companies has 1M+ unit sold may all be subject to same restrictions
  • alephnerd 4y ago
    Good. If American software companies face anti-competitive restrictions on accessing the Chinese market, then we may as well do the same. Paradox of Tolerance and whatnot.
• konfusinomicon 4y ago
  politics aside and taking into consideration that all of our governments suck in their own special ways...it pains me greatly that China is considered an adversary with the US..and Russia too..what good could come to the world if the three had a healthy relationship and pooled our greatest minds and resources toward the betterment of mankind.
• abeppu 4y ago
  What I don't get is why we didn't pursue something in the WTO years ago. China doesn't allow FB, Insta, Twitter, etc to operate in its market, but its companies can provide such a service to US customers? Is that not protectionism? If we're afraid that China will use TikTok to push their propaganda in the US, we should be appropriately concerned that banning a platform to stop targeted speech is in conflict with our own norms around free speech. But instead insisting that TikTok can only operate in the US if FB/Snap/Twitter can operate in China on equal terms seems like it would be more in line with our rhetoric around wanting a rules-based international order, and freedom of both trade and speech under most circumstances. If western social media companies were able to offer their services in China, their fear of our propaganda would be much worse than our fear of theirs.
  • alephnerd 4y ago
    PRC has "developing nation" status in the WTO. This allows the PRC to get special and differential treatment in a number of IP and general trade related agreements.
    • kelseyfrog 4y ago
      Why can't the US throw it's weight around and get "developing nation" status as well. It certainly seems beneficial.
  • tzs 4y ago
    If those companies were willing to obey the same rules that Chinese companies have to obey in China (censoring what the government tells them to censor, sharing personal data that the government asks for, sharing technology that the governments asks for) they could operate in China. It's not all that different from how US restaurant chains cannot operate in the UAE unless they take things off the menu that violate Islamic dietary rules. So Wendy's in Dubai does not sell The Baconator. So there's nothing really to pursue via the WTO. It's not a protectionism issue when domestic and foreign companies have to obey the same or similar restrictions, even if those restrictions are onerous.
  • paxys 4y ago
• honeybadger1 4y ago
  I don't feel any sympathy for Tiktok considering they block and remove content that goes against the CCP's narratives. So yeah, it's fair game when they do shit like that.
  • ReptileMan 4y ago
    [flagged]
    • honeybadger1 4y ago
      I could argue the logic can be applied to the gun debate, abortion, so on and on. Both for and against, so I find this comment irrelevant.
    • ggfdgfwww 4y ago
      what is being censored? arent there a million other platforms where you can post video content?
• mark_l_watson 4y ago
  While I don't personally mind banning Tik Toc since I think that it is a drain on our culture and is likely addictive, I do have serious concerns: Why nothing about US media companies pushing advertising based on data that really should be protected by privacy laws? Why nothing about the material released from Twitter by Matt Taibi, et. al.? Very concerning stuff for a country talking the talk about democracy. Why not enforce limits on what kids can watch and for how long, as China does? While I am all for free speech and liberty for adults, I think it is necessary for parents to put some guardrails on their kids. There is a lot more at stake here: the USA (my country) is struggling to maintain the dollar hegemony, has some severe looming economic problems, and has the same general problems shared by all countries. The USA has been very successful by carrying a big stick and hitting other countries with it. But, what was once a successful strategy is, I think, now a very poor strategy. An Empire like ours should sometimes orchestrate a graceful exit, on terms best for our country. Now when I say best for our country, I mean best for people, and not what is best for Wall Street, Our Military Industrial Complex, etc.
  • SparkyMcUnicorn 4y ago
    > Why not enforce limits on what kids can watch and for how long, as China does? While I am all for free speech and liberty for adults, I think it is necessary for parents to put some guardrails on their kids. This is the parent's job. Kids can't even play in the front yard without CPS being called, and adding more complexities like this sounds like an even worse nightmare.
  • BLKNSLVR 4y ago
    The US is "the ship of Theseus"'ing itself, replacing parts that have worked in the past, but are no longer serving the ruling class to their satisfaction, with parts (policies) plagiarised from China that do better serve the ruling class. Carefully selected to keep the ship distinctly itself, but still ever so slightly different each time. (I just like the irony of plagiarising policy from China as a parallel to their plagiarising IP from the US - and likely elsewhere).
  • tick_tock_tick 4y ago
    > Why nothing about US media companies pushing advertising based on data that really should be protected by privacy laws? Privacy is not the major concern here. > Why nothing about the material released from Twitter by Matt Taibi, et. al.? Very concerning stuff for a country talking the talk about democracy. Twitter is subject to the US courts and legal system and while there are issue we can work to resolve them. > Why not enforce limits on what kids can watch and for how long, as China does? While I am all for free speech and liberty for adults, I think it is necessary for parents to put some guardrails on their kids. Again not the issue. Seriously, read at-least the start of the bill it makes it very very clear the main concern is limiting foreign powers ability to mass influence the general USA population.
• tzs 4y ago
  What happens when one or both of these happen: 1. Apple adds easy support for non-Apple app stores and side-loading to iOS to comply with the recent EU regulations that require opening things up in 2024, and then people can download TikTok from outside the US and install it? 2. TikTok users switch to using the TikTok website instead of the app? It looks like the main thing the app gives you that the website can't is a convenient way to film short video and edit it and add music all on your phone and then post that. Surely someone could write a social network agnostic app just for filming, editing, and adding music that can upload that short video to any of your social media accounts (TikTok, YouTube shorts, and whatever other ones allow video). The destinations could be entirely user configurable and support any social network that provides a halfway decent upload API. What's the US going to do? Try to make a US equivalent of China's Great Firewall? I don't think that would work here, because our free speech laws make it too easy to circulate circumvention information. If I was a company that does mobile apps I'd be seriously looking right now into making that general short video maker/uploader app. If the US does successfully cut off TikTok all those users aren't going to just stop wanting to post and read the kind of things they are now doing there. They are going to try to move to other platforms. Done right, maybe my app would be something they use as part of that.
  • ozymandias12 4y ago
    [flagged]
  • AustinDev 4y ago
    The language on what constitutes a violation is vague, but it does appear you could face hefty fines and jail time for this behavior under the current draft of the act. "Hence anyone using a VPN to access TikTok would be in trouble—specifically, subject to up to $1 million in fines, 20 years in prison, or both."[1] [1]https://reason.com/2023/03/29/could-the-restrict-act-criminalize-the-use-of-vpns/ https://reason.com/2023/03/29/could-the-restrict-act-crimina...
    • calgarymicro 4y ago
      If you believe the Senator who wrote it (up to you I guess), this doesn't meet the bar for prosecution. > Warner's office says this isn't so. Spokesperson Rachel Cohen told Newsweek that the provisions only apply when someone is "engaged in 'sabotage or subversion' of communications technology in the U.S., causing 'catastrophic effects' on U.S. critical infrastructure, or 'interfering in, or altering the result' of a federal election in order for criminal penalties to apply."
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• codazoda 4y ago
  >Read twice and referred to the Committee… That’s how most bills die for _years_.
• justinzollars 4y ago
  > To authorize the Secretary of Commerce to review and prohibit certain transactions between persons in the United States and foreign adversaries, and for other purposes. > The term “transaction” means any acquisition, importation, transfer, installation, dealing in, or use of any information and communications technology product or service, including ongoing activities such as managed services, data transmission, software updates, repairs, or the provision of data hosting services, or a class of such transactions. > includes, unless removed by the Secretary pursuant to section 6— (i) the People’s Republic of China, including the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and Macao Special Administrative Region; (ii) the Republic of Cuba; (iii) the Islamic Republic of Iran; (iv) the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea;
• amrb 4y ago
  Cold war 2: boogie
• bigmattystyles 4y ago
  I feel like they could have done this by creating a bill saying that US social media companies must be given the same access and freedoms to the Chinese market as TikTok has to ours. It would put the onus back on the CCP, they would never allow it and they would get TikTok banned in the US without being the ones to directly ban it. I am sure someone smarter than I can tell me why this is not a viable strategy.
  • somedude895 4y ago
    Because market access is not the reason they're banning it. It wouldn't be very believable to now act like it's about a different issue than national security. You'd basically be saying "if you give us market access, then we'll let you spy on our citizens." In a democracy you get the types of discussions that we've been seeing about TikTok, so that door's shut now. This sort of "trickery" only really works for authoritarian countries, where the discourse is exclusively behind doors.
    • bigmattystyles 4y ago
      Washington operates on fig leaves and I feel like the market access argument is an overcoat.
    • hellojesus 4y ago
      It doesn't seem like they're shooting on our citizens to me. Rather it seems US citizens are voluntarily giving the CCP their data. It's no secret that apps collect data. It's how they exist! Each American with it installed has made the decision to give the app creators their data, which means that anyone that wants the data can get it from the app creators. Why are we blaming China for the deciduous of individuals?
  • dirtyid 4y ago
    Because US/western social media has same market access to PRC... all they have to do is follow PRC regulations. Literally why FB and Google had internal projects to engineer compliant products to re-enter PRC market, but killed due to internal dissent. The narrative that PRC bans US platforms was always cope. Google pulled out because they didn't like dissidents being hacked, when operationally and eventually they should be cooperating on data sharing at PRC gov requests like in US. FB/Twitter got booted post 2009 minority riots for not complying to filtering (censorship) requirements on inciting violence that every PRC platform had built large and onerously expensive moderation teams to fulfill. Simply wasn't worth the headache for what little market share they had, and it wasn't until western platforms got hammered into improving their own moderation pipelines due to social media incited violence that they started thinking bout re-entering PRC. There's a reason Microsoft outlasted them for almost a decade until they also said fuck this to regulation and optics costs. Sure the game is rigged for domestic incumbants, it's not PRC's fault FB/Google employees killed efforts to move back into PRC, or that the SV was drunk on free speech (cheap moderation) until western society realized (but won't admit) PRC regulators were prescient. Forward to today, somehow TikTok operating in US while compliant to US laws managed outcompeted US platforms. At this point even putting the finger down on some sort of joint venture like Oracle proposal, like how icloud in PRC is under domestic management (a very PRC solution) isn't enough to tip scales back to domestic incumbents. Hence bill to ban, or divest, which to be clear, even PRC hasn't resorted to because they already had regulations to limit influence / scope of US platforms. Playing "fair" is not viable anymore because TikToks is too big, as is the associated risk, so nothing left but nuclear option because TikTok won playing fair.
• concernedsoft 4y ago
  Putting aside questions of whether TikTok deserves this or not, I really worry this is the beginning of the end of general purpose computing. Given how locked down our machines are today, whether on account of walled gardens or increased security, we're almost at the point where it may actually become possible to "ban software" with a few policy decisions, which backers of this bill seem to intend. ("We need a comprehensive, risk-based approach that proactively tackles sources of potentially dangerous technology before they gain a foothold in America, so we aren’t playing Whac-A-Mole and scrambling to catch up once they’re already ubiquitous.") Wrote some brief thoughts about it here: https://concernedsoftwareuser.github.io/software-freedom/ https://concernedsoftwareuser.github.io/software-freedom/
• bastard_op 4y ago
  Aside from the politics, I can't say I disagree starting with TikTok, but what about all the countless other Chinese applications they otherwise still allow that do even worse things unknown yet? Much as the other recent incident with Pinduoduo randomly adding spyware to their feature set. Every gadget with wifi, every game/app on our phones from random unknown International sources are a potential weapon of unknown potential payloads with a remote update. As a Network/Security engineer, I personally trust American companies as little or less than anything Chinese, but I know nothing good comes from anything connecting to or from there for 99% of everything most of my non-international customers of mine or I do. They simply do not play by ours or any rules but their own. Given my druthers or by request with a capable firewall with geolocation, I gladly block anything to/from China and most anything outside the the US, particularly SLED/FED or regionally local to US only businesses. Not that I endorse isolationism, but as a practical engineer, it would likely save our incumbent non-security-savvy sheeple (or simply lazy businesses) from more blatant direct attacks and siphoning of data at least from the less tricky foreign villains without their own domestic botnets. If later I actually do need to send something to/from blocked geolocations, there will be an exception policy for it that shall be documented.
  • yed 4y ago
    The point of the bill is to give the executive branch the power to do exactly that: investigate and potentially ban or force divestment on any large technology business owned by a US adversary like China and determined to pose a serious security risk.
• The_SamminAter 4y ago
  RESTRICT Meta
• Entinel 4y ago
  This bill is so awful it cannot be allowed to pass. It reminds me of the Patriot Act.
  • hitpointdrew 4y ago
    It's MUCH WORSE than the Patriot act. This bill is absolutely horrific. And calling it at bill to "ban TikTok" is extremely disingenuous as it egregiously goes well beyond that.
    • quasarj 4y ago
      We need a good breakdown of it. I read it, but don't think I really understood.
      • hitpointdrew 4y ago
        Jeremy Hambly does a decent job breaking parts of it down: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6AynjtnJG8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6AynjtnJG8
        • xiphias2 4y ago
          Thanks! The worst part of this is all the comments about social networking when this bill is about punishing people who want privacy or end to end encrypted communication on their devices with 1 million dollar fine and 20 years of jail time.
      • hot_gril 4y ago
        I don't need a breakdown, I already hate it.
    • atlasunshrugged 4y ago
      Why? It seems focused on only applications/products from a few countries of concern
      • 4y ago
• withinboredom 4y ago
  Maybe someone will scroll all the way down to this comment. Probably not. For half a decade, I have lived outside of the US, and I've watched as it has fallen to shit in slow motion. I make a decent chunk of income in USD and this terrifies me... but this. This move saddens me. There are only so many hours that congress has to make real decisions ... and this, this is what they spent their time on? Talking about how 'kids' might be influenced by an algorithm when they're being influenced every day by how they might get shot up in math class? Come on (wo)man. This shit is fucking stupid. It's just sad to me, sad to watch the country I grew up in, the one I went to war for ... do this level of stupid shit. That's my 2 bucks, spend it how you want it.
  • nbar1 4y ago
    "might be" is not the concern, it's that they are.
    • stronglikedan 4y ago
      And before that it was the TV, and before that it was the radio, and before that it was the newspaper, and before that it was the printing press, and so on. Nothing new under the sun.
      • nbar1 4y ago
        The new thing under the sun is that the Chinese government has a heavy hand in TikTok.
        • realce 4y ago
          So we should respond by making it a 20 year imprisonment for using a VPN to access Wikileaks?
    • withinboredom 4y ago
      My son's cousin (who lives in the US) was talking to him about 'gun drills' and my son asked, 'what is that, do you get to practice shooting a gun? That sounds fun!' To us, this was a funny question, to my sister-in-law ... she was like 'wtaf.' I can't imagine having my son worried about that kind of stuff and I can't imagine the internal stress. That's why I said 'might' because it 'might' be normalized to the point that it's just background noise; a joke. Until it isn't. My son and his friends run around in the streets like when I was a kid; they don't stop until the street lights come on. I could never take that away from him, and I feel like if we were to move back to the US, I would be doing that.
• web3-is-a-scam 4y ago
  This bill is soooooo much worse than just banning tiktok - flood your representatives and senators with phonecalls.
• gorwell 4y ago
  Did anyone notice that the bill doesn't even mention Tiktok??? If it's a "bill to ban TikTok" why doesn't it name the target? It's a red herring. This is the Patriot Act for the Internet. Ironically they're copying the CCP playbook and want the same level of sweeping control with the implementation of a Great Firewall. It's extremely broad and includes everything connected to the internet that has >1M users in a year period. Edit: If you don't want to read it, Louis Rossmann does a good flyover here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xudlYSLFls8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xudlYSLFls8
  • revscat 4y ago
    lol ridiculous.
    • rglover 4y ago
      It's not at all. Give it a read: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35345064 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35345064
  • throwaway29812 4y ago
    > the same level of sweeping control with the implementation of a Great Firewall The same level ?
    • sebzim4500 4y ago
      Genuine question: can violating the Great Firewall lead to a 20 year prison sentence? What about a $1M fine?
      • firen777 4y ago
        If you are small fish watching Twitch and Pornhub, couple of weeks, maybe. If you are a dissidents influencer or online figure, on the other hand, you will be lucky to even be found out why you disappeared.
        • 4y ago
• rsync 4y ago
  [flagged]
  • HDThoreaun 4y ago
    It’s moving pretty fast, so it hasn’t become a scissor statement yet. Both sides have reasons for disliking TikTok, red because of Cold War China rhetoric and blue because of fake news and children’s mental health rhetoric.
  • robmusial 4y ago
    No this is a red and blue thing to give themselves more power.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
• seydor 4y ago
  Bill Ban Tik Tok there must be a joke there
• nonethewiser 4y ago
  Good. Letting Bytedance operate in the US does not serve US interests.
  • wahnfrieden 4y ago
    Not what this bill is about. You got tricked by the surrounding rhetoric and you're repeating it like propaganda.
• Animats 4y ago
  It's not just TikTok. It's WeChat, too. WeChat has over 1 million US users. Also, probably, Alibaba, AliExpress, and Yandex.
• late2part 4y ago
  @dang - please change the misleading title of this article from "Senate Bill to Ban Tik Tok" to "Senate Bill to Criminalize VPNs and Enhanced Governmental Wiretaps"
  • dragonwriter 4y ago
    @dang – if you are going to chance it from one piece of editorialized misleading clickbait, don’t change it to another. Unfortunately, the bill’s official one-line summary (“To authorize the Secretary of Commerce to review and prohibit certain transactions between persons in the United States and foreign adversaries, and for other purposes”) and title (“Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act”) are also misleading, though perhaps not clickbait (they are more to discourage looking inside by making it seem bland than to encourage attention.) The summary is factually misleading, because the Secretary of Commerce isn’t authorized to prohibit anything by the bill, the President is, and the bill specifically prohibits delegating except to the Attorney-General, and that only for litigation purposes, and it is an obscurant because it is vague about what kind of transactions and why. And the title is basically word salad to fit a forced acronym, though it does hint about the business domain of concern.
• remarkEon 4y ago
  The media coverage of this (and the title of this submission, which I argue should be changed to the actual title of the bill) are really confusing everyone - both in here and elsewhere. There is a Senate bill[1] called "S.85 - No TikTok on United States Devices Act", which is very short and seems to only do one thing, and that's ban TikTok. This bill is in committee. There is another Senate bill[2], called "S.686 - RESTRICT Act", which is the one linked in this submission and is the one everyone is - imo rightly - quite concerned about, because a bunch of stuff seemingly unrelated to TikTok is getting the Department of Homeland Security treatment. TikTok isn't even mentioned in the text of the act. This bill is also in committee. I'm honestly left wondering if the RESTRICT Act is being intentionally amplified as "The Bill to Ban TikTok", because of how shitty it is, to give people the means to say "no we shouldn't pass this if the cost of banning TikTok is Patriot Act Part Deux", when in reality we shouldn't pass this bill anyway because it sucks. [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/85/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/85/... [2] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686...
  • atlasunshrugged 4y ago
    I think the RESTRICT Act is the one being held up as the ban bill because it's bipartisan and considered most likely to 1) actually move to a vote because of that and 2) creates a legal framework for a ban rather than just implementing one which is likely to be unwound by a court and found unconstitutional without it
    • remarkEon 4y ago
      Why is S.85 likely to be unwound by the courts? It's with a different committee and cites a different act for its legal authority.
      • ddoolin 4y ago
        Courts (especially the current SCOTUS) seem pretty wary of expanding executive authority granted ambiguously under acts like the "International Emergency Economic Powers Act." Just my 2c.
• tistoon 4y ago
  Did you know that all american (or even western) social networks are banned in China?
• gabereiser 4y ago
  The reality to me is that they want to suppress the Gen Z vote (who predominantly vote democratic) by banning "their" platform. They guise it under a "China vs USA" intelligence war (who makes all the phones and computers we use? Riiiight). It's simply to dumb down the next generation to suppress the vote so that sitting house members can continue to be sitting house members. Prove me wrong. There's a bunch of 18-28 year olds who are going to be super pissed off.
  • remarkEon 4y ago
    This bill is sponsored and cosponsored by numerous Democrats.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• snake_plissken 4y ago
  These things are pretty dense and generally difficult to read but here are a few nuggets/hot takes. Could potentially apply to VPNs - Sec 2-3-(B) - https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text?s=1&r=15#idcb2967cb26484c11b01a75fdf9179e61 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686... General leeway for The Secretary of Commerce to classify things as they see fit. Chevron Deference, the idea that courts defer to executive branch agency interpretations of the law, might go away so this hedges against that - Sec 3-(a)-1-2 - https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text?s=1&r=15#idbedb14f7e29f4a93873ee05f694e82db https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686... Judicial Review in Section 12. I think this is the section most resembling what we think of with respect to The Patriot Act. Basically feels like it will be very hard to challenge decisions made under this law. I don't read these things often tho so perhaps I am way off base. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text?s=1&r=15#idd44af48486a14c9492925631d0ca100f https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686...
  • yed 4y ago
    I think the VPN concern comes from a misreading of what is meant by "holding". A "holding" in this context is a financial asset like a stock. The section you highlighted: > (B) includes any other holding, the structure of which is designed or intended to evade or circumvent the application of this Act, subject to regulations prescribed by the Secretary. This is referring to intermediary holding companies intended to disguise an ownership stake by foreign nationals (like a shell company). Nothing to do with VPN or any other technology.
    • boomboomsubban 4y ago
      While it wouldn't blanket ban VPNs, a VPN is fairly clearly a "communication technology" and a provider could be targeted by this bill. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't even need to do anything malicious, just be large enough and have some malicious users.
      • yed 4y ago
• 34679 4y ago
  I've never used TikTok, and I very strongly disagree with banning it. They should ban whatever activities they have a problem with, but that won't happen because then US companies would be subject to the same rules, and the US government would lose some access.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• dahwolf 4y ago
  In select countries (China, Turkey, India, many more) apps regularly get banned. In the west we frown upon this practice based on the principle of freedom of speech and free markets and competition. The second-order effect of this is interesting to ponder about as it creates an asymmetrical situation. Those countries get the "good" parts of social media (as in, good for their government) whilst we get the bad parts of every app ever. My main point is that these bad parts should not be underestimated. Misinformation campaigns, election interference, calls for violence, addiction, mental health issues, radicalization, polarization, dysfunction, the normalization of degenerate behavior, a cultural breakdown, mob justice, the list is long. If in China Tiktok users get a cap of 2 hours of usage in which only productive/interesting (science) content is shown whilst in the US teenagers use it for 5-7 hours leading to a mental health crisis, then we're talking about radically different outcomes. This doesn't mean that social media is only bad, nor does it mean we should ban it. I'm just saying that we should stop seeing it as an unimportant toy. It potentially is a weapon of mass destruction.
• comment_ran 4y ago
  Please change the title, it's not directly related to TikTok.
• smm11 4y ago
  Congress is full of idiots, I agree, but I also agree that this app has to go. Byte Dance is far too sketch. Something will replace it overnight, so no worries. And at least they finally did something.
• calme_toi 4y ago
  This somehow reminds me when China banned Google. "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."
• jmyeet 4y ago
  This is a frustrating issue because there's so much bad information and poor arguments that has caught on. Top of this list is that Meta is behind it. Meta doesn't have this kind of pull. Meta also doesn't want the Commerce Secretary to be able to ban platforms because that could be weaponized against all of Meta's properties in the future. If you want to point the finger at anyone, Google might be a better bet. Google has been very good at keeping out of the public eye, like successfully arguing "it's the algorithm" about search results to gloss over the human element in that. But there are several aspects to this that have varying levels of validity: 1. China doesn't provide reciprocal access to their market to US companies like FB, IG and Youtube. To me, this alone is justification to ban Chinese companies. You need go no further than this; 2. Data protection is a real issue. Having data within US jurisdiction is a valid concern but as many have pointed out, this would better be served by a Federal data protection law, which will never happen. Tiktok has been singled out here; 3. As much as the US government can gain access to data on FB, IG, etc, there is still a rule of law. Even FISA courts have a process. There is not even a pretense of separation between Chinese companies and the Chinese state; 4. Influence by any company through the algorithm is a valid concern. This is more of a concern with a foreign adversary but is still an issue with US companies. We've seen how quickly misinformation can spread (and affect elections) since at least 2016; 5. Some point out you can just get this data from data brokers. Data brokers sell audiences. In some cases you can tie that back to an individual but the platform has way more data than any broker would. I can't go to a broker and get WSJ journalist DMs. The platform owner obviously can; 6. The risk of a foreign government targeting individuals with 0-days and the like is a real one. We've seen Saudi Arabia and other authoritarian governments target journalists. It's a valid concern. But instead of a nuanced conversation we get reactionary "China = bad" antics from some of the dumbest people (in Congress) I've ever witnessed.
• sbarre 4y ago
  This is like tabling a bill that bans only one brand of cigarette.
• causality0 4y ago
  US congressmen being morons is nothing new. What I want to know is whether these acts could stand up Constitutional scrutiny.
• WhereIsTheTruth 4y ago
  ouch, the youth not going to like that.. Also a terrible message for foreign companies investing in the US, you can get banned if you don't give up ownership/control of your own company if you become too big..
• batch12 4y ago
  I am no tiktok fan, but this may spawn a new generation of crackers and rebels. At least maybe infuse new blood into the ranks of people who really understand how technology works. Most users don't know how to bypass a ban like this, but when they're sufficiently angry and motivated... maybe thats temporary.
• winter_blue 4y ago
  This bill is like a joke. It's like the lawyers who wrote this intentionally wrote it to be so Machiavellian, horrible, and 1984-esque, so that this bill would not pass. This bill literally references parts of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and the Controlled Substances Act. It's beyond absurd. A good video on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xudlYSLFls8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xudlYSLFls8
• bioemerl 4y ago
  The operatives in China's social manipulation groups are laughing while reading this thread because you all are doing their work for free. I don't think you guys understand here how important a bill like this is, and how much of a threat China is to us. This bill could be modified to restrict its usage more, and that would be good, but at the end of the day we must take action against the fact that China has such a massive social and cultural entry point into our culture, because China has spent the last 10 decades ensuring that they are protected from any social exchange from us to them. They will use that tool against us. It is not a matter of if, it's a matter of when, and it's probably already happening. Do not hand our people's minds to a country that would destroy us. Pay attention to what Russia was able to do with nothing but a couple of troll farms. China won't just have that, they'll have the entire platform and the algorithm which determines everything you see every day. This cannot be allowed to continue.
  • retinaros 4y ago
    sure fb and instagram are better or even vine was better. onlyfans? beautiful app definitly lifting people out of poverty. I remember the trump days. the same democrats pushing for a ban where calling trump racist for his anti-china policies. what a 180 from all our enlightened benefactors and democrats thinkers
    • bioemerl 4y ago
      It's a 180 I'm sure happy with. This isn't about lifting people out of poverty or the quality of the other apps. There are very big systemic problems that still need to be solved with regulations on American applications. This is about making sure an enemy state doesn't have a little window to half the people in the country, with the ability to exert total control on what they see every day.
  • tryauuum 4y ago
    I hear you, and at the same time I know nothing good comes out of government interfering with internet. Another 10 years and they will ban news websites with "fake news about war", as Russia did in 2022 Luckily I live in a small country now and shouldn't care much about us politics
• insane_dreamer 4y ago
  Considering that China bans all US social networks or search engines over which it does not have full censorship control, I'm totally okay with the US responding by banning TikTok.
• satao 4y ago
  Its sad that the chans are running free while TikTok is the thing being banned. Americorp is the worst leader of the west that there could be.
• bendbro 4y ago
  From my quick reading of this bill doesn't it only possibly apply if a foreign entity owns or controls some impactful US tech? The gate of the owner being a foreign entity seems like a strong enough protection for US citizens from this bill.
• freeopinion 4y ago
  Wouldn't it be refreshing if Congress could identify exactly what is scary about Chinese-connected social media and legislate against it in such a way that it would prevent every other scary monster from doing exactly what they wish to deny China? It seems silly to legislate "thou shalt not do really scare thing #1 if name == TikTok" or "thou shalt not allow any third party to have really scare access if name == China". Just leave out the if clauses. Don't target China or Russia or Iran or North Korea. Don't exempt Virginia or Maryland or any three letter acronym. If it is dangerous for the Chinese government to do it, it is dangerous for the U.S. government to do it and for the sales department of Amazon to do it.
• n0tahacker 4y ago
  What about the free market and internet freedom?
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• pc_edwin 4y ago
  Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer nor a legal/constitutional expert. TLDR: The bill doesn't ban TikTok, it gives the executive branch the power to ban companies like Tiktok. IMO this is an entirely reasonable measure. As someone with strong libertarian leanings, I am generally opposed to the trend of the executive branch gaining arbitrary legislative authority but this bill appears entirely reasonable to me despite some concerns of vagueness. It gives the Secretary of commerce the responsibility of consulting with agencies to determine if software companies from "foreign adversaries" pose a national security threat. If the secretary seems it does then it gives the president the authority to ban the company.
  • pc_edwin 4y ago
    I'll also add that its pretty interesting to see China in the list of "Foreign Adversaries". I think this probably the first time they are recognised as such in an official capacity in recent times.
  • pc_edwin 4y ago
    Upon further research, I retract this comment. I wont delete it for the sake of transparency. My initial reading of the text was that it gives the executive branch the right to force companies from a selected list of "foreign adversaries" to divest if it deems it a threat to national security. I personally believe thats entirely reasonable both from a national security and trade-relations point of view but upon further research this bill looks like an extension of the Patriot Act giving the executive branch Heres the new information regarding the vagueness that changed my mind: - It punishes citizens for using the "banned" product. - It gives way more arbitrary power to the secretary of commerce to decide whats a threat to national security than I initially realised. - It allows the government to regulate VPN, essentially removing our write to privacy. As a side note, this is exactly why many people like me have trust issues with the government and other institutions. I don't understand how these smart lawyer types don't realise the immense damage they are doing to public trust.
• pipeline_peak 4y ago
  I hope it passes
• salimmadjd 4y ago
  Curious how many here have actually read this bill? If you’ve read it and you still support it (as a US citizen) I’m going to be so heartbroken by today’s tech community. This is authoritarianism in the name of protecting our children. I understand, TikTok is projected to overtake Alphabet’s and Meta’s video ad revenue [0] and it won’t surprise me if they even lobbied for it. I just see it as a shortsighted move by these companies not to strongly come against this bill. [0] https://www.fiercevideo.com/advertising/2027-tiktok-video-ad-revenue-will-surpass-meta-and-youtube-combined-omdia https://www.fiercevideo.com/advertising/2027-tiktok-video-ad...
• karmajuney 4y ago
  Couldn’t this be used to prevent VPN use? If so, this is drastically overstepping into dangerous territory regarding online surveillance.
• ipaddr 4y ago
  This is what needed to happen if the US plans to go to war with China. Can't give China the ability to monitor the US population.
• nateoearth 4y ago
  Top comment smells like it was paid for (or posted) by the CCP.
• BurningFrog 4y ago
  Reminder that a lot of weird bills that have no chance of passing are introduced in legislatures all the time.
• jonobird1 4y ago
  Interesting to see what the Government will focus their time on. Obama outrightly said recently that it's clear that a significant portion of the US (and outside of - namely Australia and the UK) is essentially mind-controlled by Murdoch Press through fear mongering and extreme sensationalism - whether that is Fox in the US, Sky in the UK, and a variety of news papers & channels in Australia. At no point has anyone actually done anything about this, even though it significantly affects peoples views in a negative way through false truths, voting etc. What about kids with social media and how bad it is for them? Evident through the fact that most people who work at social media companies ban or severely limit their kids from having phones and/or social media. Nope, let it slide. But the China war with Tiktok? Of course this gets focus. How about they care about the country they actually live in by looking after the people that live in it rather than only focusing on external country threats. It's sad living outside of the US and watching it fall apart by their own doing. If they cared, they'd focus on their employment rate, homelessness, free quality healthcare, gun control (yes), clean streets, and better education. If they can't solve it with their Military, they don't care.
• di456 4y ago
  Yet congress won't do a fucking thing to keep guns away from child killers. Childhood education is one remaining basic social safety net and is more and more at risk with every school massacre. The mental health impact of kids, parents, and teachers having to worry about STAYING THE FUCK ALIVE IN SCHOOL EVERYDAY cannot be understated.
  • tuxpenguine 4y ago
    I think TikTok might cause many more deaths because of teen suicide, much more dangerous than guns.
  • kortilla 4y ago
    > The mental health impact of kids, parents, and teachers having to worry about STAYING THE FUCK ALIVE IN SCHOOL EVERYDAY cannot be understated. Sounds like a problem with the media then. Ban coverage of shootings if people can’t behave rationally about risks. Children are 1000x more likely to die in a car crash than a school shooting.
    • di456 4y ago
      My kids' school has had 2 active shooter lockdowns this year alone because of shootings withing a mile or two of the school. One was yesterday. They do this now until the suspect is caught. My good friend is a teacher in another state. A school near his lost a teacher to gun violence this month. Between gun violence, going thru COVID, and general apathy to learning from his students, he's about done with teaching. Both turned out fine but this takes a heavy toll on the school community. Kids should be learning and playing. Teachers should be teaching. Parents should be at peace knowing their kids are safe. That used to be a given. It's not anymore. Guns now kill more kids than vehicle accidents. Sure, not all of those deaths are in schools. But the point still stands. https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/29/health/us-children-gun-deaths-dg/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/29/health/us-children-gun-deaths... We have a massive gun violence problem deep inside of American culture. No other country comes close to our level of gun violence.
  • imiric 4y ago
• anonu 4y ago
  The game plan is to twist TikToks arm to the point where they sell to a US company. This bill might pass but let's hope it reaches it's objective before it does, in which case support for the bill may shift away.
• Tempest1981 4y ago
  If I was a game developer, I would definitely be concerned. The average user spends 92 minutes a day on TikTok! Average That's gotta be taking a huge chunk of time away from playing Xbox/PlayStation/PC games.
• jbverschoor 4y ago
  They want to ban TikTok because they know how they used Facebook themselves
• moxera 4y ago
  It's frustrating the discussion is not around data privacy in the US and potentially laws around privacy. If the issue with TikTok is primarily privacy could we have laws that strengthen privacy laws for companies within the US? This way a company can update its system to mitigate issues around privacy rather than a ban. This could impact US companies too, but that does not seem like a bad thing if they are forced to have user privacy in mind.
  • cbsmith 4y ago
    I don't think the bill is really about privacy.
  • sanderjd 4y ago
    It has nothing to do with privacy.
• Buttons840 4y ago
  At least being called the "RESTRICT Act" will help it get the negative attention it deserves.
• andrekandre 4y ago
  co-sponsors of the bill: (just in case you were curious) https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/cosponsors?s=1&r=15 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686...
• sanderjd 4y ago
  To me it's pretty simple: Social media companies are media companies (it's right there in the name!) and everyone everywhere has always been wary of foreign ownership of their prominent media, and have regulated it accordingly. The only weird thing here is that it has taken this long.
• jquery 4y ago
  Can’t say I like this at all. Banning TikTok based on alleged "Chinese influence" sets a dangerous precedent for censorship, jeopardizing freedom of expression and access to global platforms. Instead, focus on enforcing data privacy regulations, strengthening cybersecurity, and promoting transparency to protect user interests without infringing on individual rights. Open dialogue and collaboration are more productive than outright bans.
• whats_a_quasar 4y ago
  These comments are filled with whataboutism. America is terrible. Rich people and corporations already control everything. American democracy is strong enough to resist, or maybe American democracy is already fucked, and this bill is pointless. America is just as bad on human rights as China. Congress is sinophobic for even considering China a geopolitical rival. American social media companies do the same thing. All of these claims are heavily debatable. But more importantly, none of this is remotely relevant to the bill. The policy question is whether or not Congress should allow 150 million Americans to be influenced by a platform controlled (directly or indirectly) by the Chinese Communist Party. I want to someone to actually make the case for why allowing TikTok in the U.S. is better for America than banning Tiktok (unless it divests from Chinese control). Someone needs to argue that: - Allowing TikTok is better for American national security than banning it - Allowing TikTok is better for the health of americans than banning it - Or, there is some substantial harm from banning it that outweighs those benefits. I'm sure there is a good argument to be made, but I don't know that it's shown up yet in the comments. I agree with the posters who think specific parts of the legislation are problematic. That makes sense! But that's not the core issue. People can oppose poorly crafted legislation that imposes on internet freedom while support banning this particular app at the same time. And it's surprising to me that people still doubt that manipulating social media can cause societal-level effects. Back in 2014 Facebook published a study where they can increase or decrease levels of anxiety and depression by manipulating the emotional content of the news feed [1]. Back in 2012, academics estimated that 314,000 additional Americans voted in the 2010 congressional election because a they implemented a popup reminding people that "Today is election day." As it stands, the Chinese government absolutely can use TikTok to manipulate the mental health of Americans, by influencing the content that is shown. The Chinese government can manipulate results of an election by preferentially showing a reminder voters of to one party or the other. Are they doing this already? The U.S. has no way to know, and no defense against this sort of manipulation. TikTok is absolutely a national security issue, and it's within Congress's purview to legislate around it. [1] https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1320040111 https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1320040111 [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2012.11401 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2012.11401
• Skeks1s 4y ago
  ChatGPT has this to say about the bill: This bill primarily aims to safeguard national security by regulating and mitigating risks associated with foreign investments in U.S. information and communications technology companies. It outlines the processes and authority of the Secretary of Commerce and the President to identify, review, and take necessary actions against transactions that pose a threat to national security. The major and minor intentions of this bill can be summarized as follows: Major intentions: Define "covered transactions" and "interests" that warrant scrutiny for national security purposes. Establish a process for the Secretary of Commerce to review covered transactions and interests. Allow the President to take action against transactions that pose a threat to national security. Outline the penalties for violating the regulations set forth in this Act. Provide a framework for judicial review of actions taken under this Act. Minor intentions: Establish the protection of sensitive information during the review process and any subsequent legal proceedings. Clarify the relationship between this Act and other existing laws and authorities, such as the Defense Production Act of 1950 and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Specify the transition process for implementing this Act, including the continuation of actions taken under Executive Order 13873 and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Possible hidden motives or unclear side effects on user freedoms: The broad scope of the bill's language may allow for an expansive interpretation of "national security risks," which could lead to a greater number of transactions being scrutinized and potentially restricted. The bill might deter foreign investment in the U.S. information and communications technology sector, which could impact innovation, competition, and economic growth. The exclusion of certain administrative and judicial review processes might limit transparency and accountability in the implementation of the Act. The protection of sensitive information and the limitations on access to classified and unclassified information in legal proceedings may hinder the ability of affected parties to challenge actions taken under this Act effectively. Overall, the bill intends to protect national security by regulating foreign investments in information and communications technology. However, its broad language and limitations on transparency and access to information could potentially impact user freedoms and the technology sector's growth.