9 ms·

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

• 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.
        • ecshafer 4y ago
          Saying that the CCP is in control due to board seats is a bad reason. China gives CCP membership to the top students in schools, and most people try and join the CCP if they can. The people that make up the tops of companies are most likely to be CCP members because of the fact that highly driven people are most likely to be in or join the CCP. Yes the Chinese government has a lot of control, but members of the CCP being on the board is nonsense. It is extra nonsense when you consider how many US companies have government members on the board. Condoleezza Rice is a board member of Dropbox for example.
    • madeofpalk 4y ago
      Would love to see the overlap of people concerned about threats to the conditional right to own guns, and those who are completely unconcerned about this direct attack on freedom of speech.
      • deleted 4y ago
  • paxys 4y ago
    You are overestimating how much of a concern 2 is for lawmakers. Meta getting its ass kicked is a happy bonus for both political parties.
    • charlieflowers 4y ago
      Agree, but then Meta and others are lobbying (throwing money at those politicians), which buys concern from the lawmakers.
    • poulsbohemian 4y ago
      >Meta getting its ass kicked is a happy bonus for both political parties. Frankly, it should get this treatment. Its executives have been consistently hostile toward government inquiries and in public statements about its users. The hubris it has shown in its treatment on political speech and disdain for paid advertisers is revolting. The stock structure of the company is a physical manifestation of everything wrong - we can treat the public and the law with disdain and you can't touch us.
  • ot 4y ago
    Do you have a reference for point 2?
    • doctor_eval 4y ago
      FB has the motive and means to promote xenophobia, and has repeatedly shown willingness to do whatever it takes to make a profit. So while I think it’s fair to ask for a reference, it is prudent to assume it’s happening, unless proven otherwise. They don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt.
    • mttddd 4y ago
      Meta seems to be doing fine financially besides the VR money pit. Also in a weird way having TikTok around just bolsters their case against any sort of anti trust enforcement. That said I am sure they would be happy if TikTok did get banned but I also doubt they are sticking their neck out lobbying for that to happen (although I would not be surprised to be wrong)
  • kirse 4y ago
    Actual #1. TikTok is banned in China, but in their similar app (Douyin) their kids are limited to 40min a day and restricted from a lot of the digital opium drip that US kids are receiving in infinite quantities. Sounds like it'd only be fair to follow suit if China itself is limiting the poisoning of their own citizens: https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2023/03/24/douyin-tiktok-comparison-wang-pkg-pt-intl-vpx.cnn https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2023/03/24/douyin-tiktok...
    • charlieflowers 4y ago
      It is mind boggling, and at the same time not surprising at all, that China is enforcing a humane policy to protect its children when we are not willing to do the same.
      • goldfeld 4y ago
        It is also surprising to realize that China and the chinese actually think as a nation and have a sense of collectivism, whereas the US is to each their gun and their million dollars in the bank. China has always had this sense of being one thing, historically, and even the atrocious regimes, emperors, and dictators are always representative of a populace wish to centralize and control things fluidly and efficiently. Who knows, maybe it will work out, even with the price it has that westerners won't ever consider, or ever let go of a philosophical individuality.
        • harvey9 4y ago
          That's a pretty superficial take on both countries.
        • ddoolin 4y ago
          ...because they killed or chased away any dissenters, now and historically. Look at Taiwan, or Hong Kong, the revolution, or Xinjiang. It isn't some innate characteristic of the Chinese, it is intentional.
          • 4y ago
  • kalleboo 4y ago
    > Surprising then that we don't ban Hondas and Toyotas This is a holdover from the US supporting the development of industry in Japan to keep them from turning communist (which was a real threat back in the 60's and 70's)
  • alexfromapex 4y ago
    I think you're conflating the reasoning of the ban to be against Asians, when in fact it's purely against China. Japanese car manufacturers have done absolutely nothing wrong.
    • liujy 4y ago
      Note that the Reagan administration negotiated “voluntary import quotas” with Japanese car manufacturers in the 1980s when US car manufacturers were being beaten by Japanese brands
  • brigadier132 4y ago
    You are also ignoring the fact that China does not allow our social media companies to operate in their jurisdiction. So part of this is a sense of fairness. Why do they get to operate here if we can't operate there?
    • kelseyfrog 4y ago
      Because open markets and free speech are national values, not tit-for-tat teenage diplomatic drama. We're supposed to be better than that.
      • lazyeye 4y ago
        But its not open markets if one partner blocks all access to it's own market? In what other trade context would this scenario be acceptable? And how does giving access to an authoritarian regime, famous for controlling speech, promote free speech?
        • deleted 4y ago
          [deleted]
        • kelseyfrog 4y ago
          Consumer choice is unequivocally good. Besides, the problem is already solvable. People could simply stop using TikTok if they agreed that its disadvantages outweigh its benefits. No one is forcing them. This is a vote with your feet issue, plain and simple.
          • brigadier132 4y ago
            > People could simply stop using TikTok if they agreed that its disadvantages outweigh its benefits A democratically elected government banning something is the people deciding.
          • lazyeye 4y ago
            Ridiculous argument. A lot of people choose meth.
  • throwawaysleep 4y ago
    To correct #1, it is a way that China can fully control.
  • mulmen 4y ago
    > Surprising then that we don't ban Hondas and Toyotas, even though they're far superior to American cars https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax We do ban some import vehicles. Specifically light trucks. Harley-Davidson famously tried to get Japanese V-Twins banned for not leaking oil. Er, I mean, for “stealing their signature exhaust noise”.
  • 1659447091 4y ago
    > 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). Both Honda and Toyota build a lot factories in the US, creating a lot of jobs for US Citizens that actually show up to vote. All while American brands move to Mexico, Canada etc. TikTok might as well be the same as "BigTech" but with the bonus of being Chinese—that is something politicians can work with. I think the root of the problem, though, is we (humans) are easy to manipulate, but I dont even know how we can even begin to tackle that.
• layer8 4y ago
  What does the Pacific have to do with that? I’m sure it would be the same if the adversaries were cross-Atlantic. I’m finding the wording strange because the US arguably has more cross-Pacific allies than adversaries.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• holler 4y ago
  China has banned nearly all US social networks already so is this really surprising given the current status quo?
  • vkou 4y ago
    If we're using China as a role model for our information hygiene, then I think it's fair to say that the free speech experiment that some liberal democracies have practiced over the past few centuries has ran its course, and can be considered a failure. Pack it up, folks, as it turns out, there are some things that are too dangerous to let the public hear.
    • dragontamer 4y ago
      I think you need to study WW2 a little bit more. The Office of Censorship opening up letters to destroy pro-Nazi sentiment, and the Office of War Information buying up Disney Cartoons to show Donald Duck / Popeye / etc. as a Navy Sailor and encourage us to buy War Bonds through very overt propaganda. Free Speech comes and goes in the USA. We tend to lean towards the freer-side of things, but if we need to, we clamp down on it to meet our other goals. ----- WW2 is hardly an outlier either. WW1 had Espionage Act of 1917, Civil War didn't even have a law, Censorship and seizure of printing presses was just so common. Pre-Civil War, the Postmaster General of slave states commonly censored pamphlets from abolitionists. I mean, the "Alien and Sedition Acts" were passed within a year or two of the Bill of Rights, allowing the President to arrest various members of the press in the 1780s. Etc. etc. This stuff has been going on since the dawn of the USA as a country. Book burnings and other such events were also widespread in the USA throughout our history... and even have legal precedent like the Comstock laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comstock_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comstock_laws IMO, we've gone too far into the free-speech side of becoming absolutely idiots about the subject in recent years and all of us can benefit from researching the actual history of the USA. Free Speech, both opening up, and restricting it, has its uses. And if you're a student of history, you'll be able to feel the ebbs and flows of this subject throughout time. ----------- Censorship is a tool. A tool best used rarely, maybe only a few times a century. But I unfortunately think we're coming to the point where we need to start using it within this decade or so. And no, not for the stupid AP African American class crap. I mean for the part that matters right now, the China-Taiwan conflict that is obviously brewing up.
• waboremo 4y ago
  When you are also banning VPN access to whatever tools you deem under the control of "foreign adversaries" (which, more people should look up the government's actual definition on this lol), then privacy is very much a core narrative. If it was just about China then Chinese apps would have been banned off Apple and Google stores years ago. This is going to be one of those things Americans look back at, like the PATRIOT act, and wonder how the hell they allowed it to happen all because of one app/event.
• goldfeld 4y ago
  These guys are ridiculous, they represent the "I'm losing now so gonna take my ball home crying" mentality. Oh what a pity the US is not able to always win and have all the hot new toys made of american silicon! Of course it's very fine and dandy for all social networks that matter to be controlled on their soil, of course it's great that US is phone code #1!!1 and that .com is such an american thing at its birth. The land of freedom and opportunity cannot stomach that Zuker could not buy TikTok too? Come on give me a break. Also, even Rome fell. It's better not to start playing the loser's game, it just accelerates decadence.
• stronglikedan 4y ago
  I don't think it's specifically China. I think it's retribution because ByteDance won't open US offices and be beholden to the US government like other large corporations do. I think this is the US gov using them as an example of what happens when a corporation such as this dares not fall in line.
  • chimeracoder 4y ago
    > I don't think it's specifically China. I think it's retribution because ByteDance won't open US offices and be beholden to the US government like other large corporations do. I think this is the US gov using them as an example of what happens when a corporation such as this dares not fall in line. The bill affects multiple countries, not just China. In fact, it encompasses "any foreign government or regime, determined by the Secretary [to be]... significantly adverse to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons" Depending on how much (or little) you trust the Secretary of Commerce, that's incredibly far-reaching and could easily be abused.
  • starfallg 4y ago
    Bytedance absolutely has US offices. Their Mountain View office being branded Bytedance, while their LA office is TikTok. They also have office in many cities in the US like Nashville and NYC.
  • atlasunshrugged 4y ago
    That's absolutely incorrect. TikTok has plenty of US personnel and is doing something called "Project Texas" to try to assuage US regulator concern. This is about China controlling a channel that millions of Americans use to get their news
• est 4y ago
  > It's quite simple - the US and China don't get along. It's not that simple. The commitee can change the definition of "foreign adversary" under SEC. 2. (8) (B) at their will.