39 ms·
House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban the app
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- crazyrabbitrap 3y ago[flagged]
- organsnyder 3y agoIt's amazing the lengths we'll go in the United States to avoid passing a comprehensive national privacy protections law.
- rusty_venture 3y agoA Chinese company isn't bound by US laws, so this is a necessary precursor to that. Edit: I stand corrected, they are bound by our laws, but it's orders of magnitude easier to enforce those laws on a company based in the US than a company based in China.
- mikeyouse 3y agoIf they operate in the US, they certainly are.
- tivert 3y ago> If they operate in the US, they certainly are. Theoretically, yes. But the US isn't a police state where their activities would be constantly monitored in great detail for compliance. There's a lot they could do under the radar, and a lot of groundwork they could lay for some future inappropriate action.
- notaustinpowers 3y agoIf it wants to operate in the US, yes it does. For the same reason that US companies are complying with EU GDPR/DMA laws.
- barrkel 3y agoNormally how this works is that national laws dictate what an app can do when operating in the nation's territory, and it's then up to the app owner to decide whether they want to do business in that nation's territory or not. This is how EU rules apply to US tech companies. US rules for Chinese tech companies is no different in principle. IMO however the problem isn't privacy, it's being able to stick a thumb on the algorithmic feed and control the information consumption of a slice of society. And TikTok isn't the only problem, it's broadly applicable across consumer tech.
- sickofparadox 3y agoOne could hope that this is a brick in the path towards a solid, comprehensive privacy law at the national level. Especially given bipartisan criticism of "home grown" spying platforms such as Facebook and Google, it certainly doesn't seem impossible (just unlikely).
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> to avoid passing a comprehensive national privacy protections law It’s unclear there is support for that. I’ve worked on privacy issues. Virtually nobody calls in support of them. This, on the other hand, is a national security bill. Every elected I know is being inundated from both sides.
- thomastjeffery 3y agoPrivacy is not an engaging issue. It isn't controversial to most people. The problem is that our first-past-the-post voting system naturally prioritizes engagement over everything else. That's why our elections are always about controversy, and never about progress.
- ryandvm 3y agoPrivacy isn't the main problem. Having an mildly adversarial nation state wielding a massive propaganda firehouse on US citizens is the bigger issue.
- AlphaWeaver 3y agohttps://archive.is/m3UUO https://archive.is/m3UUO
- dang 3y agoAlso https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-house-vote-force-bytedance-divest-tiktok-or-face-ban-2024-03-13/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-house-vote-force-byted... (via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39692202 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39692202, but we merged those comments hither)
- finfrastrcuture 3y agoI understand this would theoretically stop the CCCP from getting info on US Consumers, but is there anything to this that actually limits the data collected? I assume not.
- a1o 3y agoСоюз Советских Социалистических Республик?
- thaumasiotes 3y agoCCP - "Chinese Communist Party" CCCP - "United [Soyuz] Soviet Socialist Republic"
- rbanffy 3y ago[flagged]
- strictnein 3y agoThe one outlet you called out by name is already a publicly traded company, not one that is controlled by a foreign country. 63% of it is owned by institutional investors (Vanguard, Blackrock, etc).
- rbanffy 3y agoI know that, and that doesn't exempt them from accusations of using their reach to actively manipulate the population to gain political power.
- Ygg2 3y agoJust make US a hostile county to US™.
- rbanffy 3y agoI'd qualify the MAGA crowd as that, but that's me.
- amadeuspagel 3y agoRupert Murdoch had to become US citizen to start a US TV network.
- 2four2 3y agoAs much as I don't care about tiktok going away, and acknowledge the privacy and security risks, there's something about banning a highly popular website that doesn't sit right with me. Is there precedent in the USA for anything like this?
- bmau5 3y agoIt's important to note this isn't banning TikTok. It's forcing the sale of it from a CCP-linked parent company. The precedent for this would be US pressuring sale of Grindr from Chinese ownership due to privacy concerns: https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/06/grindr-sold-china-national-security https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/06/grindr-sold-china-national...
- pavon 3y agoI don't disagree that the way TikTok is operated is problematic for the US. But will making TikTok a US corporation prevent any of the problems? Couldn't the company still legally send private information to "partners" which indirectly makes it's way to the CCP? And couldn't it still freely choose to moderate and promote posts according the priorities and values of the company? Being staffed by a large number of CCP-friendly employees, those will reflect CCP policies. For this to have any impact we need privacy laws to restrict this US company anyway. It still seems like security theater to me, which is particularly unfortunate because it is a real security threat.
- whats_a_quasar 3y agoAre you opposing the divestment law? If so, and you think TikTok is a real security threat, what is the alternative measure? I don't agree that this is security theater. Divestment will put the entity which controls TikTok under the jurisdiction of U.S. law, and no, it isn't obvious that the company would still legally be able to export data to the CCP. I also don't understand arguing against a measure on the basis that it won't work well enough - you have to argue that the measure itself is bad.
- vundercind 3y ago
- bmau5 3y agoI thought this was DOA once Trump came out against it (after speaking with major donor Jeff Yass). Wondering who will end up being candidate buyers - Microsoft? Google?
- jayknight 3y agoIt will be bought by Truth Social /s
- andiareso 3y agoI'm a big proponent of free speech and the first amendment, but I agree with the reasonings for banning it or forcing US owners. China most definitely has their hands in the data that TikTok amasses and given its popularity it's not an insignificant risk to U.S. citizens. We all know how easy it is to manipulate users... aka Cambridge Analytica. It'll be interesting to see what legal challenges come up if the bill passes the senate because that is where the real discussion will occur. I ultimately see it being reversed, but I can also see a solid framework for future bills being illuminated via the courts.
- Nesco 3y agoWhy shouldn’t Europeans do the same with US social networks then?
- richbell 3y agoEurope is concerned about the influence and data-collection of American tech companies, and would be fully justified in doing something similar.
- politician 3y agoThey should, and viewed in a certain light that is what the GPDR and DMA are trying to achieve— make room for native companies.
- bonzini 3y agoNot necessarily making room for native companies, as the Silicon Valley giants have adapted. But they enforce certain rights, for example privacy, and if US companies (not just social media) do not want to comply they are forced to leave the EU. Some newspaper websites are not visible from Europe for that reason.
- gretch 3y ago1) wouldn't blame them if they did 2) we are in this military alliance called NATO; if you are depending on each other for military help, you're not thinking about social media based threats
- chzblck 3y agoIs there anyone who is actually upset about this?
- endtime 3y agoYes, just read through this thread.
- nekoashide 3y agoMy wife, me on the other hand? I don't use it
- pixelatedindex 3y agoThe people who work there are probably not happy about this.
- ThisIsMyAltAcct 3y ago[flagged]
- VoodooJuJu 3y agoNurses.
- bhaney 3y agoThe millions of people addicted to the platform probably include at least a few who don't want it banned.
- bluefishinit 3y agoYes, I am. I should get to use any app, under any ownership that I choose. This is a violation of my rights.
- oasisaimlessly 3y agoErrr, you don't currently get to choose who owns your apps. record scratch
- 3y ago
- quyleanh 3y agoSuch a freedom. But it's understandable that the US election day is coming.
- kshacker 3y agoPrecisely. Not sure it gets passed but let's say it does. Today is March 13th plus a week for senate and President. Takes effect in 6 months. Right in the middle of the campaign. Someone will say we did it. Someone else will say not enough. But we get the freedom to not use it :)
- dotnet00 3y agoAmazing how quickly they can pass these kinds of bills and yet how long they take to pass ones that would better help the average person.
- lnxg33k1 3y agoTo be honest, I think they've been talking about this since the Trump campaign or sometimes shortly thereafter, quickly wouldn't be the adjective coming to mind thinking about this situation
- throwaway237289 3y agoDon't be fooled by talk about security or privacy. This is simple Nation State realpolitik. TikTok is a propaganda threat controlled by a non-friendly state to the US. Any other way to look at this is naive.
- xxpor 3y agoNation State realpolitik is security.
- asylteltine 3y ago[dead]
- AndrewKemendo 3y agoYou know they can both be true simultaneously, right? It’s a perfectly well understood fact that our nations use businesses, and literally every other avenue possible to spy on and propagandize each other’s populations As a result, each nation has to counter that it does so mostly privately, but sometimes very publicly. This is all part of the totally broken, absolutely run by children, international relations system. It’s exceptionally mundane and exceptionally bad for all citizens as a result. However it’s great for business. So you’re not going to see a change until citizens demand different international economic, political, communications and relations structure that isn’t based on competition.
- rusty_venture 3y agoWhat's your point? China literally has a nationwide firewall to prevent Western ideas from entering the minds of its subjects. Why should we throw open our digital borders to Chinese influence campaigns? "The supreme art of war is to defeat the enemy without fighting", e.g. to undermine Americans' faith in our democratic institutions, to gain the ability to compromise our critical infrastructure, and to influence our politics. All explicitly stated goals of both Bejing and the Kremlin, and the misinformation and distraction campaigns carried out by Russia in the last presidential election are about to ratchet up again. I don't believe we should be making these objectives any easier for our ideological rivals.
- endisneigh 3y agoPass a privacy law, stop arbitrarily banning. What exactly would be the justification for forcing the sale rather than passing a law solving the actual problem?
- thaumasiotes 3y agoTo do the second thing, you'd need some kind of statement of what the problem was.
- kevinventullo 3y ago… which can be understood and articulated by the median congressperson. A tall order indeed.
- thaumasiotes 3y agoWhy would that be a requirement? There's no need to understand, or state, the contents of a bill in order to pass it. But there do have to be contents, and whatever you put in there is subject to media coverage.
- nickthegreek 3y agoThe actual problem is threat of algo manipulation in times of crisis. But they apparently don't want to make that their argument. It's the only valid justification imo. Data privacy should apply to all companies.
- nrb 3y agoIt’s probably an issue of messaging: telling a population that someone is misusing the information, potentially militarily, is an easier pill to swallow than telling them they are susceptible to algorithmic manipulation by a foreign adversary. And do they even want to open the can of worms about their susceptibility to domestic manipulation?
- BlueFalconHD 3y ago
- tsylba 3y agoGrifter content creator in fear for their revenue stream.
- mynameishere 3y agoSo much trash and they ban this trash because China controls it. I honestly can't think of one thing China has done to harm me. The people who control the US media, however...
- lagichikool 3y agoMaybe not you personally millions of Americans are being directly harmed by China every year. They're threatening to invade Taiwan, a friendly and sovereign country. They're supporting Russia's invasion of Ukraine. They're spying and stealing IP. They're harassing and threatening dissidents in the US. And the list goes on. Probably the most aggressively awful thing China is doing is deliberately flooding the US with Fentanyl and other drugs, killing far more Americans than all gun deaths (including suicides!) per year. The Chinese government is incredibly hostile toward the US government and population. It'd be really great if China and Russia were friendly countries. The way the UK, EU, Japan, and most other major countries relate to the US. No one would like it more than most Americans. But China and Russia are run by dictators and dictators have a tendency toward doing evil. It makes sense to shield ourselves against as much of their evil shit as we reasonably can.
- elfbargpt 3y agoDoes anyone have an idea of the likelihood of the owners divesting vs a ban being enforced? I kind of want to see the owners refuse to divest
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> kind of want to see the owners refuse to divest It will 100% be enforced if passed. There is marginal political will to pass this. There is no political will to bail out TikTok if ByteDance or Beijing throw a hissy fit.
- filoleg 3y agoI think you misunderstood the question. The grandparent comment wasn’t asking about the likelihood of the US enforcing the ban (assuming the bill passes and TikTok refuses to divest). Obviously, the answer to that is somewhere near 100%. The question was, assuming the bill passes, what’s the likelihood of TikTok deciding to divest (and thus remaining non-banned) vs. TikTok refusing to divest (and getting banned).
- JumpCrisscross 3y agoGot it. I think they get banned for a while and then fold. Unless Beijing decides to take a hard line, which they might, though hundreds of billions funds a lot of R&D [1]. [1] https://www.theinformation.com/articles/tiktok-owner-boosts-china-ties-invests-in-state-backed-chip-firm?rc=gtdonx https://www.theinformation.com/articles/tiktok-owner-boosts-...
- maxglute 3y ago0%, PRC won't allow US normalize ability to nationalize her companies, regardless if TikTok is legally based in Singapore, the geopolitics won't allow it. They'll likely retaliate by trying to heavily degrade a major US company with large PRC exposure like Apple or Tesla.
- rusty_venture 3y ago[flagged]
- dauertewigkeit 3y agoShould the Iranians and the Chinese think in the same manner? Isn't this largely a question of how much you trust the official narrative of the local elites?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> Should the Iranians and the Chinese think in the same manner? Yes, and they do.
- LordKeren 3y agoChina has banned YouTube, twitch, wordpress, medium, etc.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> China has banned YouTube, twitch, wordpress, medium, etc. Also TikTok! ByteDance operates a separate app in China [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TikTok#Douyin https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TikTok#Douyin
- xeromal 3y agoIsn't it an education app in China?
- bugglebeetle 3y ago> Domestic spyware masquerading as social media is bad, but foreign spyware and propaganda masquerading as social media is unquestionably worse. The former is unquestionably worse and a far greater threat to citizens of this country than anything TikTok does.
- feedforward 3y agoI've been reading endless headlines about how hard it is to do business in China because the Chinese courts subpoenaed business records from Bain's China offices etc., wonder if I'm going to see endless articles about how hard it is to do business in the US. And as others have said - no privacy protection laws for Americans passed - only if the company is Chinese.
- _fat_santa 3y agoI'm going to ask an intentionally stupid question. TikTok is largely just kids dancing and other innocuous videos, even if Bytedance is sucking up all that data and sending it back to the CCP, how does that constitute a national security threat?
- dauertewigkeit 3y agoYoung people getting bombed by the US and its allies, are posting videos of themselves getting bombed and American teens have enough empathy to find such content moving.
- hotdogscout 3y agoConsidering Israel also has horrible videos of egregious violence being committed at them by Palestinians it's concerning that you don't think that's grounds for propaganda or manipulation.
- nebula8804 3y agoBut that content is freely shared on all mainstream outlets. There is an overabundance of that content.
- endtime 3y agoKids dancing, kids talking about how Osama bin Laden was right, propaganda about ongoing wars, ...
- px43 3y agoOne positive in all this is when Twitter got blocked in China, over night basically everyone under the age of 24 learned how to use VPNs, and learned how to subvert various official software update mechanisms. I'm thinking that this, or something like it, could be what is finally going to break the stranglehold that Apple and Google have on the US app store market, even if it's just an unintentional side effect.
- nebula8804 3y agoIf Hauwei weren't banned they could promote some sort of a "TikTok" phone and maybe a lot of people would buy it. Maybe they should still do it given China 's ability to crank out nth variation of existing devices overnight and make it some sort of underground "drop" kinda like how Gen-Z is going insane over sneaker drops.
- kalverra 3y agoNate Silver did a nice write up on the probability and implications of all this here: https://open.substack.com/pub/natesilver/p/why-the-political-clock-is-ticking https://open.substack.com/pub/natesilver/p/why-the-political... When Biden passes this bill (which he said he would), I can only assume Dems will lose a large part of the younger voting demographic. If jot now, then 4 years from now. Because no chance in hell is China selling this thing, and Trump is already talking about how much he loves TikTok now.
- simpletone 3y ago> Because no chance in hell is China selling this thing, and Trump is already talking about how much he loves TikTok now. Which is insane because in 2020, Trump was the one trying to ban tiktok and Biden was defending it. Now the script flipped? In the meantime, all they've done in the past 5 years is give tiktok free advertisement.
- kalverra 3y agoAgreed it's crazy, but it's a good political move. Everyone agrees we should ban it, but no one wants the blame because you'll have a huge amount of teenagers and young adults who will blindly hate you for it. So if you're the one who isn't in charge of the hard-but-good decision (or in Trump's case, if you don't particularly give much of a shit about it anyway) it's easy to just pick the most politically advantageous side.
- mandmandam 3y ago> it's crazy Yes. > but it's a good political move Domestically, maybe, and only in the short term. Internationally, not at all. It makes America look very weak and hypocritical, at a time when America can ill afford to look even worse. > Everyone agrees we should ban it. No, they don't. The media and political classes agree. That's not the same thing. In reality less than half agree, last I checked [0]. > you'll have a huge amount of teenagers and young adults who will blindly hate you for it. Blindly? Young people already hate Biden, and it's not because of TikTok. It's the two-faced support of mass murder, the economy, the inequality, the lies, the inflation, the oil drilling, the union attacks, the failure to deliver on campaign promises, etc. [1] Blaming TikTok for that is just an easy wedge. There's nothing smart about it; it's cynical, divisive, and extremely stupid in the long term. 0 - https://www.reuters.com/technology/close-half-americans-favor-tiktok-ban-reutersipsos-poll-2023-08-16/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/close-half-americans-favo... 1 - https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/young-voters-explain-re-bailing-biden-whether-d-come-back-rcna130186 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/young-voters-...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- tmaly 3y agoMy understanding is that this is a much broader bill than just TikTok. It would give the president the authority to ban any app or website both foreign and domestic based on the wording of the text of the bill. Can anyone verify if this is true in the text of what was passed?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> would give the president the authority to ban any app or website both foreign and domestic based No, it has to be controlled by a foreign adversary country [1]. The broadest power is in 3(a)(ii) on page 10, which lets the President designate an app as a foreign adversary controlled application if it is a significant national security threat following public notice and reporting requirements. But even then, it’s a divestiture order subject to judicial review, not the power to ban. [1] https://selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/Protecting%20Americans%20From%20Foriegn%20Adversary%20Controlled%20Applications_3.5.24.pdf https://selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites...
- tmaly 3y agoI guess the "and" on 3(b)(i)-(ii) clears up my concerns of "any" website/app. (B) a covered company that— (i) is controlled by a foreign adversary; and (ii) that is determined by the President to present a significant threat to the national security of the United States following the issuance of ... Thanks for the link to the text.
- drexlspivey 3y agoWhat is a foreign adversary? Is there a set list of countries or is it open for interpretation?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> Is there a set list of countries Yes [1]. [1] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-15/subtitle-A/part-7/subpart-A/section-7.4 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-15/subtitle-A/part-7/subp...
- jeffbee 3y agoWhy can't ByteDance just dodge this with a US IPO of a local operating company with dual-class structure?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> Why can't ByteDance just dodge this with a US IPO of a local operating company with dual-class structure? If they sell 80% of the shares (and voting power), sure. That would require either the largest IPO in history and/or massive valuation cuts.
- pelorat 3y agoIf this goes all the way to the White House and is signed by Biden, I think it could completely derail his chances of getting re-elected. Trump has come out against this bill (for insane and corrupt reasons) but would definately seize the moment and capitalize on it. They are giving the Trump campaign a huge amount of ammunition here.
- farleykr 3y agoWhat are the chances that TikTok really gets comprehensively banned in the US? This seems like the kind of thing that would get stuck in a Bermuda triangle of litigation while nothing ever happens.
- LordKeren 3y agoGiven that this passed by a wide margin and largely bipartisan support, it is very unlikely that litigation challenges would be able to stop the ban.
- bhaney 3y agoLow. ByteDance will do whatever they can to delay enforcement by challenging the law for as long as they can, and in the background they'll setup a new corporate structure that maintains their status quo while technically complying with the law, at which point they'll back off from the legal battle and graciously accept the new law that they've already loopholed their way around.
- htrp 3y agoOracle flexing their lobbying muscle to pick up a good asset on the cheap.
- jaylittle 3y agoJust when I think I have a handle on how stupid our politicians are... they find some way to make me realize they are even dumber than I previously thought. According to HuffPost it was a 352-65 vote, so this stupidity was bipartisan. So much for one party being smarter than the other. Banning an extremely popular app, in an election year no less, while providing absolutely zero evidence to prove what you accuse it of doing is really some kind of next level idiocy. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tiktok-ban-congress_n_65f1b244e4b09953f2f866cf https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tiktok-ban-congress_n_65f1b24...
- NicoJuicy 3y agoI'm from Europe. Since China was supporting Russia to start a war on European soil. I sure hope that China's influence is reduced to a minimum as quickly as possible. Ofc, that includes propaganda through TikTok.
- jaylittle 3y agoThis bill does nothing to address the problem of nation state propaganda spreading via social media. It just allows American politicians to claim a fake national security victory over a Chinese owned company while ignoring the fact that American owned social media companies are a steaming cesspool full of such content. Dont get me wrong, I think TikTok is terrible. I won't use it. Ever. But that still doesn't mean it should be banned. Unless you want to ban all social media apps all at once. Probably still not something I would support, but I could definitely see proponents being able to form much more compelling arguments in favor of such an action. As it stands right now, this makes zero logical sense.
- NicoJuicy 3y agoOfc it does. Byte dance literally has a internal Chinese Communist Party committee since 2017.
- MisterBastahrd 3y agoIf China were really THAT involved in the day to day operations at Tiktok, one would expect to see more pro-Russian propaganda with regards to the war. There's little to none that I've seen.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- datameta 3y agoRegardless of what I think of this bill - the chinese accusation is some usual whataboutism: "resorting to hegemonic moves when one could not succeed in fair competition."
- bowsamic 3y agoThis is bombing the front page of HN and completely absent from international news, which is surprising to me
- bno1 3y agoWhy doesn't USA pass a law that enforces data on US citizens to be stored in the US, like GDPR does in EU?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- poisonborz 3y agoI will laugh when they will sell to a newly founded Hungarian company - EU state, but anti-west, and China's biggest ally in the region.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> laugh when they will sell to a newly founded Hungarian company Honestly, I’d be fine with that. (And I think it would stand.) Punts the problem to Brussels, whom I trust far more than Beijing.
- billtsedong 3y agoThe most honest USA competition be like:
- exabrial 3y agoThis is a war over cultural influence. I'm 100% for free markets and anti-regulation (as it nearly all is based on bribes targeted to harm competition), but I've never figured out a good theoretical policy for how a free market should interact with a unbridled dictatorship like China.
- WillPostForFood 3y agoChina is not only a dictatorship, but a market that is closed or highly restricted to most US businesses. Free trade isn't an option if the US wanted it.
- scop 3y agoTo be clear, TikTok's main threat is persuasion and opinion manipulation. Data privacy is a nice thing to talk about, but pales in comparison to being able to influence what a huge portion of a foreign adversary population is watching. Edit to counter likely responses: this also applies directly to US social media and mainstream media and I have extremely dim views of both I can assure you :-)
- aprilthird2021 3y agoBut the US protects people's ability to influence others by protecting the freedom of expression
- bediger4000 3y agoHow about forcing Bytespider to observe robots.txt while you're at it?
- jonathan-adly 3y ago[flagged]
- pokepim 3y agoSo being anti genocide and pro humanity is now China ideals only? Boomers eh
- BriggyDwiggs42 3y agoHonestly what ideals?
- sparrowInHand 3y agoRespect is everything, the mob, eh party wants you to disparage about your own affairs and argue triballistic. The ideal is a civil war within borders of all oppossition. Silo all the dictatorships from the internet, thats the only way to contain the poison. Liberalism has failed
- gmerc 3y ago[flagged]
- hasty_pudding 3y agolol
- jstarfish 3y ago[dead]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- contrarian1234 3y agoLol, the US finally showing its true colors. It's a freemarket until our companies start to lose - then suddenly you gotta think of the children, national security, the brainwashed masses and the evil communists. At this point they're basically using the same arguments the Chinese use to ban Western apps. Bunch of sore losers. We're losing all moral authority over being a beacon of capitalism. The Chinese made a better app for funny videos and showing people dancing - this has made a lot of people very upset
- TMWNN 3y ago>Lol, the US finally showing its true colors. It's a freemarket until our companies start to lose If TikTok were a Canadian, British, French, German, Korean, Japanese, or Taiwanese company, the US government wouldn't have intervened in the first place.
- jessi_lia 3y agoNot supporting the post you responded to, while not sure about your opinion either, something perhaps relative: - To a French company: [The American Trap](https://www.amazon.com/dp/1529326869 https://www.amazon.com/dp/1529326869) - To Japanese semi-conductor industry and others: [The False Allure of Managed Trade - WSJ](https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-false-allure-of-managed-trade-11639666704?mod=article_inline https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-false-allure-of-managed-tra...)
- hobbitstan 3y ago[flagged]
- OJFord 3y agoWhat's the link supposed to be? Are people sharing videos about it/against Israel? (I don't use it, thought it was mostly silly dancing/reactions/pranks/etc.)
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- johnbellone 3y agoI don't know the dots you're trying to connect here, but there's little monetary support from Congress for Israel nowadays. Although, in my opinion, that's more to do with partisan politics than anything.
- aaomidi 3y agoTikTok has been the only popular social media network in the US not censoring Israeli crimes on Palestinians. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/dec/21/meta-facebook-instagram-pro-palestine-censorship-human-rights-watch-report https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/dec/21/meta-face... https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2023/2/28/twitter-under-fire-for-censuring-palestinian-public-figures https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2023/2/28/twitter-under-f... https://www.vox.com/culture/23997305/tiktok-palestine-israel-gaza-war https://www.vox.com/culture/23997305/tiktok-palestine-israel... There is a reason this is one of the things that's passing with bipartisan support. Both parties are excusing, and are on the side of Israel and they know that public opinion turning against Israel will cause them future problems. Reality is, the sudden push for a TikTok ban after it was stalled for more than a year is Palestine.
- ngcc_hk 3y agoThe call your house rep backfired? It actually proved how a chinese firm controlled media can manipulate USA citizen. Coloured revolution in red?
- basisword 3y agoI'm interested to see how this plays out. TikTok is popular enough that I can imagine it's making enough money outside the US to just let them ban it and not sell. The whole thing is interesting to watch from a non-China/US perspective. It feels like a move to make the US government look strong to its citizens. A move that, unusually, can have bipartisan support. It feels like propaganda really. And judging by the comments here and elsewhere it seems to be working. Of all the 'threats' faced by the US, a Chinese social media app is really at the bottom of the totem pole. US elections are far more influenced by nefarious actors on US owned social media platforms - but nobody wants to do anything about that.
- aprilthird2021 3y agoIdk, every person I talk to thinks it's crazy that the US is this close to banning an app because it doesn't like the content. The idea that Americans aren't allowed to view "propaganda" is insane and very against the ideas of free speech. But I come online and there's so much support for banning an app who hires lots of devs in Silicon Valley itself...
- JoeAltmaier 3y agoIt's a different world than the one where our ideas of freedom were born in. Used to be we were talking about somebody on a soapbox in a park. Now, it's a firehose of misinformation spread instantly to hundreds of millions. A tidal wave. A hurricane. What should we do? How do we put the genie back in the bottle?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- frumper 3y agoIt's also a firehose of misinformation you choose to jump into. One can reasonably watch TikTok with the understanding that it might be good for entertainment or learning about things that don't really matter. It's a terrible news source, just like any other user content driven platform.
- wnevets 3y agoThis is embarrassing. Silicon valley couldn't compete with garbage like YouTube Shorts and Instagram Reels so they lobbied congress.
- nova22033 3y agoFYI: TikTok is banned in China
- anticensor 3y agoThey have Douyin instead
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- kohbo 3y agoIt really is a shame, in my opinion, that this is how the US has decided to deal with this issue. I understand how TikTok is a propaganda threat, but also see how Facebook, Twitter/X, or most any other social media is susceptible to that same manipulation. Unfortunately, I can't think of a way to legislate the threat away effectively.
- bushbaba 3y ago[flagged]
- sneak 3y agoPublishing being dangerous is not a reason to begin a program of government censorship.
- riehwvfbk 3y agoWhile he wasn't "right", he was also a more complex character than the cardboard cutout villain that the media presented. I believe a lot of people see through the one-sided reporting and begin to mistrust mainstream media ("what else are they lying about"). Not everyone needs their news dumbed down to grade 4 level.
- goostavos 3y ago"They hate us for our freedom" Anything other than open propaganda seems to be offensive to the government. I've got no clue what they're saying on TikTok about him, but kids understanding that there's some nuance and understandable motivation behind a guy like bin Laden seems like... not something to be terribly alarmed about? Of course, goes without saying, bad dude. However, there's a big difference between cartoon character who "hates freedom" and "guy who is pissed off about (among other things) the effect of US foreign policy on his country." One breeds "turn 'em to glass" sentiments, another breeds "what IS our foreign policy?"
- delfinom 3y agoI mean bin laden wasn't wrong that the US is responsible for much suffering in the middle east and elsewhere due to decades of meddling from funding extremists, to facilitating coups in the name of big business. But he was wrong on many other things since he wanted basically all-out islamic war on the US akin to the fetish evalgenicals have for all-out christian war for end times in israel. Lol. Welcome to the world, it's fucking shit and I can't wait for a meteor to snuff us out.
- nebula8804 3y agoFirst of all that was one post by one rando on the platform that didn't really take off that much compared to all the other trending posts on tiktok at the time. The media picked it up, completely took it out of context and from there it blew up due to the Streisand effect. So much garbage on all the western news channels that it has buried the original content(probably on purpose). Here is a somewhat reasonable timeline of events: [1]:https://slate.com/business/2023/11/tiktok-osama-bin-laden-letter-viral-actually-no.html https://slate.com/business/2023/11/tiktok-osama-bin-laden-le...
- inputError 3y ago"Heyyyy, only we're allowed to spy on our people and feed them propaganda. NO FAIR!"
- Ekaros 3y agoI deeply believe EU should do same with Meta and Twitter.
- carabiner 3y agoTrump opposes this bill so rest assured nothing will come from this.
- JoshuaJB 3y agoBroadcast news and radio are limited to at most 20% foreign ownership by default [1]. Applying a similar requirement to large internet news distributors seems reasonable if they want to do business in the US (even if "banned" they could still distribute content, they'd just be restricted in making money). [1] https://www.foster.com/newsroom-publications-The-Road-Map-For-Potential-Foreign-Investors https://www.foster.com/newsroom-publications-The-Road-Map-Fo...
- aprilthird2021 3y agoBut, every American has access to even government propaganda of foreign adversaries. It's part of the 1st Amendment. Denying access to this information feels really weird. If TikTok doesn't divest, it will be banned and app stores will not be allowed to distribute it and the government telling app stores which content is and isn't approved feels like the PATRIOT Act all over again, all of us handing over our rights for some boogeyman
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> every American has access to even government propaganda of foreign adversaries. It's part of the 1st Amendment. Denying access to this information feels really weird As it should. Fortunately, this bill doesn’t do that. If ByteDance won’t sell, TikTok gets removed from app stores. TikTok.com will remain free to access. The bill curtails distribution and amplification, not speech.
- sillyalbatross 3y agoThe bill explicitly allows the President to designate a "website" as a threat. How that would be applied exactly is a different question, which is why many argue that this is a Pandora's box not worth opening.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> bill explicitly allows the President to designate a "website" as a threat No, it has to be controlled by a foreign adversary country [1]. The broadest power is in 3(a)(ii) on page 10, which lets the President designate an app or website as a foreign adversary controlled application if it is a significant national security threat following public notice and reporting requirements. But even then, it’s a divestiture order subject to judicial review, not the power to ban. [1] https://selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/Protecting%20Americans%20From%20Foriegn%20Adversary%20Controlled%20Applications_3.5.24.pdf https://selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites...
- codekaze 3y agoI think the primary argument for banning TikTok should be based on reciprocity rather than moral and/or security concerns. We can make similar arguments about the negative effects of Facebook, Instagram, and etc. even from the POVs of other countries, but the key issue here is that China heavily restricts foreign apps and services from operating in their market. If China is unwilling to allow US companies to compete fairly in their digital ecosystem, why the hell should we continue to grant Chinese firms unrestricted access to our market?
- aprilthird2021 3y ago>If China is unwilling to allow US companies to compete fairly in their digital ecosystem, why the hell should we continue to grant Chinese firms unrestricted access to our market? Because we are (used to be?) a country that believes in democracy and the will of our citizens. If people want to download a Chinese app and watch straight up Chinese news and propaganda (not even close to what TikTok actually is), they should be allowed to do so. That's the entire idea of the First Amendment... Does that put us at a disadvantage to countries who don't have the same rules? Maybe. But that ideal and that principle is valuable and means something and IS the entire bedrock of American influence over the greater world.
- ThisIsMyAltAcct 3y agoDon't let perfect be the enemy of good.
- bluefishinit 3y agoThis level of censorship isn't good, it's very bad. It's also concerning the speed at which the government mobilized to do this. It's a rapid crackdown on free speech and individual freedom.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> censorship Nothing is being censored. If ByteDance refuses to sell, TikTok will be removed from App Stores and have to find new web hosting. TikTok.com will still resolve fine.
- tharmas 3y ago[flagged]
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago> On Tuesday, officials from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Justice Department spoke with lawmakers in a classified briefing about national security concerns tied to TikTok. I would have loved to be in that briefing.
- Leary 3y agoNext up, China forces Tesla to divest its Chinese operations or face ban
- TheLoafOfBread 3y agoThey did it to all previous OEMs via forcing them into Joint Ventures. So it would be actually equal treatment for Tesla as the rest of OEMs.
- PreachSoup 3y agoYep. Tesla is actually the outlier here where China gave them the special treatment. Now China has their own formidable EVs now. Would China say gave us shares or f** off to Tesla?
- nebula8804 3y agoReading the Musk biography, it seems like they just had the right people who really knew the Chinese government try extra hard to convince them to grant the exception to Tesla. I personally think its more than that. We have firms here in the US that tear down the Teslas, deeply analyze the cars and sell the reports to whoever will buy (essentially other car companies). The Chinese are snapping up all the Tesla reports and multiple firms that do this work are reporting that the Chinese only want Tesla, they are offered info on the other OEMs and they don't care at all. It seems like the Chinese know that Tesla is their primary competition. We see it in their actions as well. When Tesla announced "giga castings" for their cars, the Chinese companies were the first to jump on that train as fast as possible. Everyone else was still debating wether or not if it was worth the cost. [1]:https://youtu.be/L8LN6Vnnyfo?t=1532 https://youtu.be/L8LN6Vnnyfo?t=1532
- luyu_wu 3y agoTBF only majority ownership, which Bytedance already does not have (Bytedance which is also owned 60% by foreign investors). The current situation is already quite a bit like these 'previous OEMs'.
- deleted 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jrsj 3y ago[flagged]
- aaomidi 3y agoTikTok has been the only popular social media network in the US not censoring Israeli crimes on Palestinians. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/dec/21/meta-facebook-instagram-pro-palestine-censorship-human-rights-watch-report https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/dec/21/meta-face... https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2023/2/28/twitter-under-fire-for-censuring-palestinian-public-figures https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2023/2/28/twitter-under-f... https://www.vox.com/culture/23997305/tiktok-palestine-israel-gaza-war https://www.vox.com/culture/23997305/tiktok-palestine-israel... There is a reason this is one of the things that's passing with bipartisan support. Both parties are excusing, and are on the side of Israel and they know that public opinion turning against Israel will cause them future problems. Reality is, the sudden push for a TikTok ban after it was stalled for more than a year is Palestine: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/tiktok-ban-israel-gaza-palestine-hamas-account-creator-video-rcna122849 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/tiktok-ban-israel-...
- kingraoul 3y ago[flagged]
- jrsj 3y agoYou'll notice no one is even bothering to comment why this isn't true, they're just downvoting and flagging anyone pointing this out.
- aaomidi 3y agohttps://www.fridaythings.com/recent-posts/israel-palestine-gaza-misinformation-disinformation-brigading-astroturfing https://www.fridaythings.com/recent-posts/israel-palestine-g... This is an active mis-information tactic unfortunately. And moderation systems do not know how to handle this situation.
- kingraoul 3y ago[flagged]
- ceejayoz 3y agoHow does this pass muster with the Constitution's forbidding of bills of attainder?
- joelfried 3y agoIt passes muster unless and until five vote against it at the Supreme Court.
- JumpCrisscross 3y agoI believe because it’s a civil, not criminal, penalty? Good point, though. Perhaps the section naming ByteDance will be struck.
- harkinian 3y agoDoes the US Constitution care about the rights of a foreign entity?
- ceejayoz 3y agoYes, when within its jurisdiction. It'll use "citizens" where it does not, like voting. Tourists can't be summarily executed, for example.
- MisterBastahrd 3y agoThere are US citizens who have already invested in the platform.
- tzs 3y agoDoes Tik Tok actually need to be an app? On the consumption side I'd expect it could be done entirely web based. I understand it has some content creation support, like recording short videos from the app, but I think there are stand-alone apps for making and editing short videos, and a Tik Tok web based app could probably be made to import from some of those.
- amadeuspagel 3y agoThe closest precedent for this ban are laws banning foreign ownership of TV stations. But TV has always been national. How is global social media supposed to work when every government demands to have its own version, controlled by a local company? Do these representatives imagine a truly separate version of TikTok, like China's Douyin, without access to foreign content, and without anyone else seeing american content, without any connections between american and foreign users? Does the US want to separate itself from the world like that? China has a long tradition of this kind of separation, the US doesn't.
- hellotomyrars 3y agoThe sale of Grindr is a much closer precedent https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/06/grindr-sold-china-national-security/ https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/06/grindr-sold-china-national... The bill doesn't block any content on Tiktok, it is to require American ownership of the company. The penalty for non-compliance would remove Tiktok from appstores, but it wouldn't prevent Americans from accessing it either via the web (Probably easy to sideload on Android at least).
- seydor 3y agoI wonder if this will lead to a successful US clone to be created. The precedent of Coinbase is lukewarm
- dvngnt_ 3y agoinstagram reels exists and is 90 percent as good
- mindslight 3y agoGeneral laws to address the tech industry's anticompetitive bundling of client software with hosted services, and to give individuals meaningful control over surveillance databases being kept on us? Nah, just some simplistic political grandstanding for the narrative of the week.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- angryasian 3y agoThis has nothing to do with all the other nonsense. Pass Data Privacy laws and enforce them.
- anticensor 3y agoThey want their domestic companies to be able to freely sell data, that is the whole point of their long dance to avoid data protection laws. They would otherwise have already taken inspiration from 150+ countries who have proper data protection law (yes, contrary to popular beliefs, it is not just EU that has a proper data protection framework).
- lenerdenator 3y agoIf you look at Chinese cyberwarfare activities over the past ~20 years, it becomes apparent why TikTok can't stick around.
- avgDev 3y agoAlmost half of Americans are using TikTok. If the Chinese govt. can spy on Americans than this is definitely a national security concern. I understand that American companies like FB and Google are doing it too but hopefully they are not selling the data to Chinese companies. After I typed that I feel FB and Google would sell data to highest bidder. Maybe it is time to focus on privacy and clearly understanding what apps are gathering from users and how that data is being used/sold.
- tharmas 3y ago[flagged]
- qpingo 3y ago[dead]
- qpingo 3y ago[dead]
- HeyLaughingBoy 3y agoIn the absence of legislation to the contrary, I'd be surprised if any corporation with any useful data wouldn't sell it to anyone willing to pay their price for it.
- acbullen 3y agoI'd hazard that even with legislation about selling outside the US, a foreign government would still just find a cut-out that looks legit enough and then have them send the data overseas regardless.
- MBCook 3y agoIgnoring everything else TikTok screwed up. They’re m being accused of having the ability to manipulate public opinion and elections. So what did they do? Push alerts to millions of users telling them of a possible ban and helping them call their representatives to change a political issue’s fortunes. Oops. All of a sudden a ton of representatives who were on the fence jumped off and joined the bandwagon.
- avgDev 3y agoApparently some kids were calling crying saying that they will kill themselves if they ban the app. Absolutely crazy. TikTok trying to sway users made a huge mistake.
- neilv 3y agoOr maybe trying to sway users overtly seems like a mistake? Could trying to sway users subtly have still been a win in this instance? I'd think a platform doing manipulation subtly is actually more dangerous, and the bigger potential threat from a platform. Because people being influenced would be less aware of it, and it's much harder for other parties to call out. (Although, when I look at current TV news and some other outlets, there's such blatant manipulation and dumbing-down, from both political "sides", I wonder how more than a small minority of people can tolerate watching that, much less mimicking it. And calling it out just gets tossed into ineffectual echo-chamber sports-fandom-like noise. So maybe subtle isn't as additionally threatening as I'd been assuming.)
- tempsy 3y agoThere’s a story every few weeks of a kid who saw some challenge on tiktok and copied it and ended up dead.
- MBCook 3y agoIt’s unfortunate. They went about it honestly by doing it in the open, and that provided proof that they were dangerous. If they had done it subtly, that would have proved that they had the power to do it too but if they weren’t caught it wouldn’t have blown up in their face. Of course if they were caught it would be an even bigger deal. Catch 22 for them.
- bdw5204 3y agoIt is concerning that this bill seemingly includes a very specific carve out for Yelp[0] which is not owned by China, Russia, Iran or North Korea as far as I'm aware. Sure seems like the bill probably does more than just crackdown on TikTok. [0]: https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1767540941378744586 https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/17675409413787445...
- Invictus0 3y agoAgreed, would be interested to hear why that was added in the first place.
- Cub3 3y agoDo you have a non-twitter link?
- bdw5204 3y agoFrom the text of the bill[0]: (B) EXCLUSION.—The term “covered company” does not include an entity that operates a website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application whose primary purpose is to allow users to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews. [0]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521...
- TeaBrain 3y agoYelp doesn't need a carve out. It seems like it is more likely a reference to apps like Baidu Maps, which is used by travelers from China. Baidu Maps was banned in India in 2020, but it would be excluded from a similar ban in the US due to that exclusion. It would also exclude Meituan from a ban, which is a Chinese alternative to Yelp.
- emgeee 3y agoIt bears repeating that this bill only bans tiktok if it isn't spun out of Bytedance. Given how American owned social media companies are treated in China, this doesn't seem entirely unfair.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- slibhb 3y agoThis whole thing is embarrassing. Banning an app is something the CCP does. It's not supposed to be something the US government does. That's leaving aside the feasibility. I suppose tiktok could be banned on Iphones easily enough but it's less clear how the web app or android apps could be banned.
- paulryanrogers 3y agoBans don't have to be perfect to be effective. Free speech isn't absolute, not even in the US. It's normal and healthy for a society to adapt it's view on speech over time and as the world evolves. Hopefully toward being more open, yet openness must be balanced against the negatives.
- slibhb 3y agoEvery generation is scared of "what the kids spend their time doing". In the 80s it was the PMRC. Later on there were at least a few video game scares ("What if my son plays Mortal Kombat and tries to rip my head off?"). Today it's "evil Chinese apps". Embarrassing.
- paulryanrogers 3y agoI'm not advocating taking all social media from kids. Just limits and at least corporate oversight. I grew up in the 80s, with limits on my BBS and AOL time, and I survived. Now that the Internet is cheap free and everywhere it's reasonable to ask if unfettered access and megacorps need some guardrails.
- bgentry 3y agoTikTok is not being "banned" by this bill. It's being prohibited from being owned by a "foreign adversary" (a defined term in US Code), with the threat of being banned from app stores and hosting providers if not divested.
- DueDilligence 3y ago[dead]
- AlbertCory 3y agoWho are the Thought Police? A comment by qpingo is [dead] within seconds of his posting it (and no, he and I have no connection). btw, in your profile, set showdead to "yes." dang: you need to do something about flagging. It is out of control.
- corytheboyd 3y agoThis is going to be a shit show. I don’t even really know where I stand. On one hand, we have to acknowledge that an adversarial government has massively succeeded in installing a botnet in our population— even if that wasn’t the initial intent of ByteDance, it’s effectively true now. On the other hand, you can’t stop people from installing spyware, donating money to fraudster politicians, surrendering themselves to cult leaders, etc. without invoking freedom of speech concerns (rightfully so). Pretty interesting situation, in a morbid way, to live through. I have no idea what’s going to happen.
- hypeit 3y agoIt's no worse that what Facebook or Twitter does (or has done). I would prefer to have a plurality of options and not be limited to apps that are owned by countries the US deems "allies".
- franciscop 3y agoBut Tiktok is much worse for US citizens: - Facebook+Twitter are US-based entities and have to follow US laws and regulations in a much more strict way than Tiktok - They are not controlled by a politically-motivated adversarial government You are also conflating apps "from a country" vs apps "under a country's gvmt control". I think most here would agree "apps from a plurality of countries" is a good goal to strive for, while "apps under a dictatorship's gvmt control" is not.
- hypeit 3y agoTikTok has to adhere to the exact same laws as Facebook and Twitter, foreign ownership doesn't change that. Adversarial to whom? Not me, I'm far more concerned about the US government who in this case is directly limiting my choices as a US citizen.
- segasaturn 3y agoTikTok is run out of the United States and adheres to the same laws as Twitter and Facebook. Its CEO, Shou Chew, was just at a hearing in front of Congress last month.
- kyrra 3y agoThe actual bill is here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521 And I think the interesting bit is what is considered a covered company: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521/text#H0C18E356CFD5481CA6152BBD60619405 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521... The wording could be applied to many companies, including chat apps like Telegram. The only saving grace is that the company has to be controlled by a "foreign adversary", and it seems to explicitly list and target byte dance only.
- Invictus0 3y agoSeems fairly written to me.
- kyrra 3y agoMy issue is that this could be applied very broadly: > (B) a covered company that— > (i) is controlled by a foreign adversary; and > (ii) that is determined by the President to present a significant threat to the national security of the United States following the issuance of— > (I) a public notice proposing such determination; and > (II) a public report to Congress, submitted not less than 30 days before such determination, describing the specific national security concern involved and containing a classified annex and a description of what assets would need to be divested to execute a qualified divestiture. --- The above gives the president the ability to shut down many websites out there from operating in the US if they are "controlled by a foreign adversary". Btw, the definition is here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/4872 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/4872, which says: "Covered nation.—The term “covered nation” means— (A)the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea; (B)the People’s Republic of China; (C)the Russian Federation; and (D)the Islamic Republic of Iran."
- cryptonector 3y agoIt's less bad than I'd expected. I half expected that the "owned or controlled by a foreign adversary" text wouldn't be there.
- markus_zhang 3y agoA perfect legal way to rip off and take profit. Now I wonder who (which company) is going to get the chance to take the golden goose with a steep cut, considering they have to sell it in 6 months.
- codedokode 3y agoIf US bans TikTok then other countries should ban US apps because they can be used for spying and manipulation of public opinion the same way. Either a country makes its own apps or it becomes a subject to foreign influence.
- its_ethan 3y agoI think you'll find that essentially all US social media is already banned in China...
- criddell 3y agoOther countries do ban US apps. For example, Twitter/X is banned in China, Iran, Russia, North Korea, and a few other countries.
- aprilthird2021 3y agoGood to see the crowd we're joining then.
- criddell 3y agoI don't see it as being significantly different from our laws prohibiting foreign ownership of tv and radio stations.
- aprilthird2021 3y agoIt's very different. There are tons of foreign owned apps and websites, like Spotify for example. Are we going to force them to become an American company too?
- criddell 3y agoMaybe if Sweden joins the list of adversary countries.
- HKH2 3y ago
- sivm 3y agoLet’s ban AIPAC first.
- karaterobot 3y agoThe arguments I can think of for why you wouldn't support restricting social media owned by foreign adversaries: * You don't believe social media companies can become literal or de facto extensions of the countries they are located in. * You don't believe social media can influence people's beliefs and behaviors. * You believe the above, but think a government cannot (or should not) regulate companies operating in its jurisdiction for those aforementioned purposes. * You believe the above, but don't think that it amounts to a serious risk, even theoretically. * You don't care about any of that, you just like the product. * You don't care about any of that, you oppose the bill on ideological grounds other than the legislative scope, or civil liberties issues. For example (but not limited to) purely partisan reasons. * You have issues with the specific provisions or wording of this bill, which override your general agreement that something like it may be legitimate and desirable. Am I missing any? None are convincing me, personally, except maybe the last one, and I am guessing most people who oppose it have not done a line-by-line parsing of the text of the bill either.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- wongarsu 3y ago> You don't believe social media can influence people's beliefs and behaviors. > You believe the above, but think a government cannot (or should not) regulate companies operating in its jurisdiction for those aforementioned purposes. Isn't freedom of speech (as understood in the US) exactly that, a prohibition on any regulation that prevents you from influencing people's belief and behavior? Sure, there are limits on free speech. You aren't allowed to freely slander people, to engage in false advertising, to commit fraud, treason, etc. But a new law that specifically prevents a company from showing you a selection of videos on fears that this selection might be biased in a way that influences people is another level. It not only prevents them from speaking directly, it specifically bans them because of how they might choose which legal speech they might show you. I completely understand why people want to do it. Allowing foreign adversaries this much influence is dangerous. But it is also unprecedented, and because of the indirection feels like a heavier restriction than say banning a Chinese newspaper from publishing in the US.
- ilrwbwrkhv 3y agoRidiculous bill. Maniacs are running everything these days only based on wild populism. Freedoms are over in America. Time to move to Saudi or some shit.
- avgDev 3y agoOh yes, Saudi is definitely the freest country. /s
- ilrwbwrkhv 3y agoThats what its not, and the US is turning into that. At that point just go there, get the free money tax free.
- mempko 3y agoPeople in the US just want Healthcare. When can we have a unanimous vote on that?
- tharmas 3y ago[flagged]
- avgDev 3y ago[flagged]
- takoid 3y agoWhat evidence do you have to support this belief?
- bluefishinit 3y ago[flagged]
- tharmas 3y agoWhat evidence has Congress presented that Tiktok is a National Security threat? Didn't Congress try to shut down Tiktok before but it failed? https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/dec/31/us-tiktok-ban-federal https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/dec/31/us-tiktok... From the article: "But none of these bills ever made it to a vote, and many have stalled entirely as lawmakers turned their attention to the boom in artificial intelligence. ...In a preliminary injunction blocking the ban [Referring to state of Montan's ban on Tiktok], US district judge Donald Molloy said the law “oversteps state power and infringes on the constitutional rights of users”." But things started to change after the Gaza War happened and the body count of Palestinians began to rise; young people who watch videos on Tiktok began to call for a cease-fire etc, etc. Congress members became re-enthused about the ban.
- 1970-01-01 3y agoIt feels like they are after the modern equivalent of the 18th amendment.
- youniverse 3y agoI like Scott Galloway's take on this which is that ByteDance will simply be forced to divest/sell the US business to western interests because they won't take a $250B loss or whatever the valuation is. So we will keep our cocaine app and still secure the security interests. Sounds like a win win to me if this happens.
- mise_en_place 3y agoThis type of protectionism could really backfire on the United States. We are a heavy net importer, and I don’t think our Congressmen understand what kind of can of worms this opens. The cynic in me wonders if Microsoft is behind all of this, as they stand to gain the most from a forced sale.
- wongarsu 3y agoNot just a net importer, but also the main exporter of algorithmic feeds. If the US bans TikTok for fear of China manipulating public opinion via their algorithmic feed, lots of other countries might think twice whether they want to allow the same influence from the US via Twitter, Facebook, Threads, Youtube, Instagram, etc.
- mise_en_place 3y agoWhat’s even worse is that our elected officials had an opportunity to protect consumers and their data. Instead it’s a front for regulatory capture. I used to think it was malice but it really must be incompetence. Astronomical levels of incompetence enabled by an uneducated and complacent public.
- OhioMan2943 3y agoI wouldn't say no to more localised social media platforms that revolve around a country or region- who really needs to hear about what americans in beverly hills are doing all the time. Like line in japan or something
- archagon 3y agoThe idea that a piece of software can be “banned” on a national level shows how far we’ve fallen in terms of general purpose computing. In a reasonable world, banning an app would be a non-sequitur, because you would always be able to find a mirror if you wanted to use it. Once governments discover that they have this power, they will make every effort to close the PC loophole and subsequently ban anything unfavorable to the ruling class and their patrons: torrent clients, software cracks, VPNs, end-to-end encryption, etc.
- ambichook 3y agothere's absolutely nothing illegal about installing the app, if you can find a mirror that's operated outside of US borders by a non US company then you can just download it still
- archagon 3y agoThe problem is that this is not an option on many devices due to walled corporate gardens.
- Invictus0 3y agoSo, you think it should be technically impossible to ban child pornography? There should be no consequences for possessing this in a "reasonable world"?
- archagon 3y agoCSAM is not software. It is content. In a reasonable world, there should be consequences for possessing it. Implementing these consequences on a technical level would be an egregious affront to our freedoms.
- Invictus0 3y agosoftware vs content is an irrelevant distinction, they're both digital objects composed of files and bytes. I see no reason the government should not able to regulate either one of them. The government already regulates lots of software via ITAR laws.
- ergonaught 3y agoDid American TikTok users want this? No? Then it needs to die. It's fascinating watching the government interventions sans voter support that HN celebrates vs eviscerates.
- zeroonetwothree 3y agoWhat a weak argument. Presumably burglars would rather burglary was legal too.
- tjpnz 3y agoGot to love ByteDance's insistence that they wouldn't hand over US data if asked to by the CCP. They're not even trying to hide how fucked they are anymore.
- coupdejarnac 3y agoI'm seeing a lot of "censorship is bad" propaganda coming from the shills. This resonates with liberal minded people who are against censorship. Now, that's not to say that most people here are shills or wrong for being against censorship. However they are unwittingly being coopted just as anti-racists were when China deflected any responsibility for a lab leak.
- rchaud 3y agoThe way the US had dealt with issues like this is in the courts of law through an evidentiary process, not by political decree, which will get slammed down in the courts anyway. Show that TikTok causes active harm compared to FB/Twitter, put that on the public record, and clear the obstacles for a bill to ban.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- hollerith 3y ago>The way the US had dealt with issues like this is in the courts of law How would that work in the case of TikTok. If for example the US Department of Justice were to sue TikTok, what law or regulation would it allege TikTok to have violated? >the US had dealt with issues like this This suggests that there were law suits in the past. Who were the plaintiffs and the defendants? What law were the defendants alleged to be in violation of?
- rchaud 3y ago> If for example the US Department of Justice were to sue TikTok, what law or regulation would it allege TikTok to have violated? That's exactly what DOJ would be tasked to do, build the case against them. Surely if the risks are so dire, they can find something to persuade a judge.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- takoid 3y agoIn a previous discussion thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39692670 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39692670), there was a significant amount of discussion regarding the belief that the push for this legislation may be influenced by the pro-Israel lobby, specifically in reaction to the uncensored flow of information via TikTok following the events of October 7th in Gaza. These discussions were quickly downvoted and flagged. However, I believe it is crucial to engage in this conversation respectfully and with a genuine intent for understanding. The potential influence of such lobbying efforts, if substantiated, carries profound implications that merit thoughtful discussion, irrespective of one's personal stance on Israel, Gaza, or the broader political dynamics. If you share these concerns, I encourage you to reply with any evidence supporting your viewpoint, so we can engage in a constructive and good-faith discussion about this issue.
- jrsj 3y agoIf this is true, AIPAC is a greater foreign threat than TikTok. Maybe we should ban AIPAC instead.
- nebula8804 3y agoHow do you ban AIPAC when they are basically malware that is running at all layers of the stack from OS to Firmware to CPU Microcode? Good luck with that!
- horrysith 3y agoTrump was right.
- l3mure 3y agoAnything with the potential to disrupt internal and external American/Western propaganda is a threat. --- [1] > With a majority of Americans calling the war a mistake despite all administration attempts to sway public opinion, the Pentagon has focused in the last couple of years on cultivating in particular military analysts frequently seen and heard in conservative news outlets, records and interviews show. > Some of these analysts were on the mission to Cuba on June 24, 2005 the first of six such Guantánamo trips which was designed to mobilize analysts against the growing perception of Guantánamo as an international symbol of inhumane treatment. On the flight to Cuba, for much of the day at Guantánamo and on the flight home that night, Pentagon officials briefed the 10 or so analysts on their key messages how much had been spent improving the facility, the abuse endured by guards, the extensive rights afforded detainees. > The results came quickly. The analysts went on TV and radio, decrying Amnesty International, criticizing calls to close the facility and asserting that all detainees were treated humanely. > The analysts, they noticed, often got more airtime than network reporters, and they were not merely explaining the capabilities of Apache helicopters. They were framing how viewers ought to interpret events. What is more, while the analysts were in the news media, they were not of the news media. They were military men, many of them ideologically in sync with the administration’s neoconservative brain trust, many of them important players in a military industry anticipating large budget increases to pay for an Iraq war. --- [2] > Likewise, a charge that Russia had turned to China for potential military help lacked hard evidence, a European official and two U.S. officials said. > The U.S. officials said there are no indications China is considering providing weapons to Russia. The Biden administration put that out as a warning to China not to do so, they said. It's only a little white lie here and there, just trust us bro! --- [3] > Cable television channel Al Jazeera claimed 600 civilians had been killed and filled its broadcasts with images of dead children at the Fallujah hospital and other locations within the city. Al Jazeera’s broadcasts so stung U.S. national leaders that they considered withdrawing all U.S. forces—including CENTCOM’s forward headquarters—from Qatar if its government did not do more to “bring Al Jazeera under control.” > With little time to prepare for the mission, MNF-W had not embedded Western journalists with I MEF forces, so that the critical ground of information operations was effectively ceded to an insurgency that could distribute a one-sided message. Worse, the haste with which the operation was executed precluded the opportunity to evacuate the city of civilians properly, essentially ensuring that the insurgency had the opportunity to exploit footage of civilian casualties. Al Jazeera "claimed," but whoops it was also true, and we can't stand the exposure. --- [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html [2] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/us-using-declassified-intel-fight-info-war-russia-even-intel-isnt-rock-rcna23014 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/us-using-... [3] The US Army in the Iraq War, 2003-2006
- codedokode 3y agoIf you believe that people generally are not dumb, and think rationally, and therefore cannot be influenced by falseful information, foreign propaganda then you wouldn't propose such law.
- bluecalm 3y agoI wonder why Meta stock is not jumping on this news. Either the market believes the ban won't stand or is going to be circumvented somehow or the market believes Meta is not in good enough position to take that audience anyway.
- harkinian 3y agoProbably priced in already.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- tamimio 3y ago[flagged]
- EasyMark 3y agoI'm really hoping that the Senate acts responsibly and pushes this no-nonsense bill through. I think it's a step in the right direction for cutting off access to information about USA citizens by foreign advesaries. This is an important step in bringing it to the forefront of Americans minds how important privacy is. Hopefully such a shift will next lead to concern against Facebook, Instagram, X, etc. who are also running a vast information network to monetize the personal lives of Americans for anyone with enough $$. NA-GPDR here we come. I would love nothing more than to see the bankruptcy of companies like LexisNexis and Verisk.
- hellojesus 3y agoDoes Congress have any idea how software works? Anyone could just sideload the app directly from the web. Or you could create wrapper apps around it. Once installed, can Apple or Google steal it off your phone? If so, don't buy their products (or by a Pixel and install grapheneos). This entire charade is ludicrous.
- yawboakye 3y agoamericans have beamed their culture to the rest of the world through all sorts of means. the moral debauchery and propensity to crime (hi hiphop) introduced by american entertainment in several regions of the world aren’t spoken about enough. someone allows the rest of the world to beam new/foreign type of poison into your own territory and now what? we can’t have this here? imbecilic cowards.
- andrewstuart 3y agoFor context, this is a list of banned websites in China: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_mainland_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_ma...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ultrasaurus 3y agoRaw vote information here: https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/202486 https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/202486 & Bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521 This bill prohibits distributing, maintaining, or providing internet hosting services for a foreign adversary controlled application (e.g., TikTok). However, the prohibition does not apply to a covered application that executes a qualified divestiture as determined by the President. Under the bill, a foreign adversary controlled application is directly or indirectly operated by (1) ByteDance, Ltd. or TikTok (including their subsidiaries or successors); or (2) a social media company that is controlled by a foreign adversary and has been determined by the President to present a significant threat to national security. The prohibition does not apply to an application that is primarily used to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews. The bill authorizes the Department of Justice to investigate violations of the bill and enforce the bill's provisions. Entities that violate the bill are subject to civil penalties based on the number of users. The bill requires a covered application to provide a user with all available account data (including posts, photos, and videos) at the user's request before the prohibition takes effect.
- aydyn 3y agoI think a lot of the HN crowd are beyond the target age for a lot of tiktok trends, and don't realize the extent of sociopathic behavior being enabled on tiktok. Even ignoring overtly political trends, the social contract is being shredded for money and clout. Tiktok is not just another social media platform. It is a mass digital propaganda machine controlled by a foreign government.
- tstrimple 3y agoPeople who make statements like this sound just like "concerned parents" talking about D&D and rock and roll music. 30-40 years ago. Wildly out of touch. Seriously, go take a look at what others are actually sharing from TikTok. It's none of this Chinese propaganda nonsense people are ranting about. Here's a few examples of videos ruining the youth of today! * https://v.redd.it/8yktpgwzl4oc1 - Iron Maidens * https://v.redd.it/n0p299qt1znc1 - If Korn wrote "1000 Miles" * https://v.redd.it/dqpj11wk03oc1 - Ok, this is pretty genius, if you can't use chopsticks * https://v.redd.it/ye820pezj5oc1 - On Confidence * https://v.redd.it/lj1mwh0080oc1 - Trans man handles hateful comment in a respectable way * https://v.redd.it/2vkx2sh624oc1 - Listen to your grandma. All extremely typical of what I've seen on TikTok and the kinds of things my kids will send to me on occasion.
- aydyn 3y agoOkay, how about this? https://www.reddit.com/r/ImTheMainCharacter/comments/1bdopik/main_character_films_himself_being_creepy_at_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ImTheMainCharacter/comments/1bdopik... Or this? https://www.reddit.com/r/ImTheMainCharacter/comments/1be3b75/tiktoker_punched_by_the_dad_of_the_woman_he/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ImTheMainCharacter/comments/1be3b75... Randomly sexually harassing strangers for clout, what could go wrong. This shit enabling sociopathic behavior happens 9 out of 10 times on tiktok and not other social media platforms. I'm out of touch? You're literally old enough to have children who are the primary demographic of tiktok,your kids are only sharing you the cutesy videos. You have no clue, newsflash you millennials aren't hip anymore. Stop projecting.
- 3y ago
- cheif-lama 3y ago[dead]
- rudolph9 3y agoThe weird thing to me is how little concern there is for sale of data by any social media company. Very intimate details about many Americans lives can easily be purchased by US adversaries. That’s reportedly the motivation for the bill but effectively it really only change who is profiting from the data by forcing a bargain price for a foreign company and directing the ongoing revenue to us company vs a Chinese company. I suppose it would be easier to regulate a us based company should the rules around user data sale change but this bill alone effectively does nothing to advance the security principles the bill is sold on beside make it slightly more expensive for the Chinese government to use the data.
- LinuxBender 3y agoThe move escalates a showdown between Beijing and Washington over the control of technologies that could affect national security, free speech and the social media industry. I will get beat up for this question but here goes. They are using the word "could". Does this mean there is no evidence of TikTok exfiltrating sensitive intelligence data to the CCP? The reason I ask is that if this were actually taking place there would be no need to vote on breaking up TikTok or even mention the US constitution. Such actions would immediately be an act of war or at very least trigger sanctions. So is the real purpose of this to mitigate war or to confine US communications to platforms that the US already has intercept and social manipulation capabilities on or something else beyond the reasons given in the article?
- jrsj 3y agoThere's no evidence of that happening & it really isn't even about that. It's about the popularity of pro-Palestinian content on TikTok. The other social media giants have censorship policies on this that tilt things towards a pro-Israel perspective, but TikTok does not and is being targeted for it.
- lettergram 3y agoIt's worse than that, it gives the president authority to remove any application and force a sale or take it over in the US. Provided it's owned by an "adversary to the US government".
- pbiggar 3y agoThis is because the kids are pro-Palestine [1], and because of that, so is content on Tiktok. The massive killing and destruction of Gaza is visible and the kids don't like it. And so, AIPAC is pissed that everyone can see the apartheid and the bombs dropping on families in Gaza. The US would rather control the media (like they did in the invasion of Iraq, and like they have now which led to the scandal in the nytimes). [1] https://www.vox.com/culture/23997305/tiktok-palestine-israel-gaza-war https://www.vox.com/culture/23997305/tiktok-palestine-israel...
- ClassyJacket 3y agoI thought America had freedom...?
- corimaith 3y agoIt's interesting how the bill can have such a heavily bipartisan approval yet there are so many opposing the decision in HN. That goes also with the general US anti-China consensus that has virtually no political lashback from domestic voters. So I would naturally assume from that then the plurality of the american voterbase would support this. So is this opposition really coming from the voterbase or elsewhere?
- saq7 3y agoTo be completely honest, it’s a bit naive to assume that congress people represent their constituents first. It is commonly known, and backed up by evidence, that they will back their financial backers first and foremost. It is unclear who the backers in this case are. But when in doubt, follow the money
- hellotomyrars 3y agoPeople largely don't seem to read past a headline that says US to ban Tiktok (or whatever other permutation of Tiktok and ban). It is an incomplete and dishonest picture of what the actual legislation does and the purpose of it. I'm not surprised people at large get up in arms if you say congress is going to ban Tiktok. If you tell them the full story, that the legislation requires them to divest from Chinese ownership or no longer be widely available, I think the response would be somewhat different. I'd certainly like to think so, anyways.
- zeroonetwothree 3y agoDo you think that everyone commenting here is from the US? Also naturally negative comments are more likely to be posted
- jjfoooo4 3y agoNo, the majority of US voters didn’t know of this effort until a few days ago. Support is currently polling in the low 30’s https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/tiktok-bill-ban-house-vote-af4d0800 https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/tiktok-bill-ban-house-vo...
- ssernikk 3y agoWouldn't introducing actual privacy laws be better than censoring part of the internet? I doubt that American social media corporations hoard less data about it's users than Chinese. I am not defending TikTok here, because I believe it's a danger, but this new bill is equivalent to treating the symptoms instead of the cause.
- Jochim 3y agoThis bill isn't intended to benefit the population at large.
- zeroonetwothree 3y agoWhy do you think that a Chinese company would follow American privacy laws? What will we do to them if they violate these laws? Also I think a lot of the concern isn’t around privacy but rather control of broadcasting.
- tomohawk 3y agoHow is this not a bill of attainder? https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C3-1/ALDE_00013186/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C3-1/...
- polemic 3y agoThis is – fairly obviously – the US working to maintain it's primacy in the control over technology (broadly) and social media (specifically). It's certainly convenient that various security and privacy concerns align, but as many comments here point out, they don't stand up to much scrutiny, and they certainly don't warrant this level of policy response.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- bluish29 3y agoThis bill if passed and enforced could be the beginning of a very deep change of the structure of the internet. Since the internet developed mainly and the infrastructure relied on US companies, it was excepted that US will play nice and will not use this to cause problems. Of course, Snowden showed us that even American are not safe. Now you are basically telling each government that we will use our tech advantage against anyone we seem an adversary. And I think WMD stories may still be fresh in the eye of any decision maker and would take this as a security issue. This might propose the actual Balkanization of the internet, as each country or group of countries might think that seeking independence from US infrastructure dominance is a national security interest. I think this might have much deeper impact that the obvious and short term effects proponents see.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- yalok 3y agoIf you try to publish your app in any of the Chinese app stores, you will be required to add an SDK to your app that basically allows them (Chinese government) to track user activity in your app. This basically means that not only TikTok, but any app originating from China is mandated to have this tracking SDK integrated, and it's a much bigger problem than just a single app...
- shuckles 3y agoWhat are the Chinese app stores? Do you mean the China storefront of the Apple App Store or something else? Do you have any documentation about this?
- rajamaka 3y agoHuawei AppGallery, Tencent My App Store , XiaoMi MIUI App Store. Apple only have about a 17% market share in China.
- yalok 3y agoThere’s no explicit documentation. It’s just that if a non-Chinese company/individual will want to publish something there, they need to obtain a license. This license can’t be obtained so easily, so you would have to go through some publishing company like AppTutti. These companies require you to rebuild your app with their specific SDK, without which you just can’t publish the app. One can only guess what’s in that SDK… but from my other experiences, I’m pretty sure there’s some back channel. Here’s a quote from appinchina dot com: Currently, foreign companies are not allowed to directly publish their apps on Chinese Android app stores. This restriction does not apply to iOS or the Apple App Store in China. All foreign app companies must either have a Chinese entity or use an authorized local distributor to publish their mobile apps and games.
- nittanymount 3y agoneed to pass the votes in senate or this is final ?
- endisneigh 3y agoNeeds senate approval.
- hsuduebc2 3y agoWell it is a new age of bipolar world in which it is not wise to use your enemy spyware. Dont forget we have our own.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jackblemming 3y agoUS spyware = OK Chinese spyware = BAD And of course the argument to strip citizens freedom to choose what they want to use is in the name of safety! Politicians need a new red herring or I’m going to start thinking they’re either lazy or stupid. This might be great: Americans will see firsthand how corrupt and oppressive their government can be if it wants to.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- keybored 3y agoDomestic elites put on a whole show about foreign companies spying on citizens is bad while (implicitly) asserting that domestic companies doing the same thing is okay. Classic us versus them.
- OhioMan2943 3y agoI wonder what impact this will have on biden in the election- tiktok users are young and progressive and trump positioning himself as pro tiktok recently is interesting
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 3y agoWhere archive.is is blocked: https://web.archive.org/web/20240313202003if_/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/13/technology/tiktok-ban-house-vote.html https://web.archive.org/web/20240313202003if_/https://www.ny...
- propagandaalert 3y agousa is so funny, the 1A this, the 2A that... Nobody has thinked this is just another anti competition practice more in a large list of similar cases? Read something about ur country that wasnt written in ur country please
- rf15 3y agoA lot of comments here assume that two countries are either "at war" or not, even though it's much more of a gradient in which military escalation is one of the last steps. In fact, you can financially support an endeavour of a country while also sanctioning them for another thing they did. Relationships are complex.
- sfmike 3y agoAre temu ads still going to be allowed on meta and youtube? Its essentially data mining using physical goods to offset costs
- lrvick 3y agoRather than single out and ban Tiktok, we should instead mandate any application mass collecting data be open sourced, so anyone technical can verify any claims about security and privacy for themselves. It will never happen, but it would solve the problem.
- spacebacon 3y agoHuzzah