6 ms·

As 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 d

by 2four2 3y ago

As 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 ago
It'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 ago
  I 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 ago
    Are 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
[flagged]
robg 3y ago
I didn’t know that Rupert Murdoch had to become a U.S. citizen to own a U.S. newspaper. So precedents for old school media but of course the problem is new media not needing physical distribution that can be readily monitored.
- rchaud 3y ago
  Good thing that rule was in place, otherwise it could have opened the door for some unscrupulous person profiting off of national division and disharmony.
  - robg 3y ago
    Sarcasm aside, it was the end of the fairness doctrine that led to this era.
beezle 3y ago
A better middle ground at this stage could have been requiring TikTok to daily display to users (and require they confirm/accept) a message stating the indirect CPC ownership, the risk to their personal info, and the serious risk of seeing state directed disinformation campaigns. Most would still use TikTok but perhaps it might get drilled into their heads to actually question some things they see on it. Personally think the data protection issue are overblown. The ability to influence through disinformation campaings, whether for CPC, Russia or whomever is their friend, is a way bigger thing for me.
- htrp 3y ago
  so every gdpr cookie modal
- hawthornio 3y ago
  Has there been any evidence of disinformation campaigns on TikTok?
javajosh 3y ago
Uncertainty and doubt is a good and honest position. It is an unusual situation, and it could potentially create a dangerous precedent, particularly in other countries where US-owned software is dominant. There is strong evidence that TikTok is being used to spy on Americans, especially those in the military and those in power, and that this represents a real risk to American interests. The downside is this may unleash a waive of retributive banning (e.g. other countries banning US-owned apps). I personally don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, globally: geographically partitioned services (and therefore power) are fine by me. Of course rich donor corps in the US won't like having their addressable market reduced. We'll see if they can convince us to invade another country to force them to use eBay though.
ngcc_hk 3y ago
How about china … do not just look inside guys.
TulliusCicero 3y ago
China bans a shitton of Western websites. What's wrong with reciprocating? Free trade should go both ways, shouldn't it? I would definitely be more okay with allowing Chinese websites/apps in the US if China wasn't banning so many Western ones: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_mainland_China https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_...
- grecy 3y ago
  I think that is a slippery slope race to the bottom of morals/ideals. Pretty soon you have "China doesn't let people say bad things about their leader, neither should we" and "China uses force to take things from other countries, why shouldn't we" Your ideals and morals should be strong enough they don't change based on a bad actor.
  - TulliusCicero 3y ago
    Ridiculous comparison when we're literally talking about trade with that country. Reciprocal free trade is the principle.
  - kyleamazza 3y ago
    I think you totally missed the argument: it's not about copying anything China does, it's about reciprocating restrictions that they place on your country. If China places a tariff on US imported goods, then the US places a tariff on Chinese goods. This is and has been the case even for non-adversary countries, and is bread-and-butter foreign policy
    - grecy 3y ago
      > it's not about copying anything China does, it's about reciprocating restrictions Your justification is literally "They're doing it to us, so we should do it to them". Apply that logic to everything China does. Do you want to behave like them? Wait a few years and it will be about reciprocating other things China does.
emursebrian 3y ago
Yes, it was done with Grindr in 2019. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/27/us-pushes-chinese-owner-of-grindr-to-divest-the-dating-app-sources.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/27/us-pushes-chinese-owner-of-g...
jiggyjace 3y ago
More or less. Since the 1790s the USA has regulated banks, communications, energy, and technology situations in similar fashion: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/tiktok-vote-house-5-things-1.7142043 https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/tiktok-vote-house-5-things-1.7...

by 2four2 3y ago

bmau5 3y ago

It'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 ago
I 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 ago
  Are 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

[flagged]

robg 3y ago

I didn’t know that Rupert Murdoch had to become a U.S. citizen to own a U.S. newspaper. So precedents for old school media but of course the problem is new media not needing physical distribution that can be readily monitored.

rchaud 3y ago
Good thing that rule was in place, otherwise it could have opened the door for some unscrupulous person profiting off of national division and disharmony.
- robg 3y ago
  Sarcasm aside, it was the end of the fairness doctrine that led to this era.

beezle 3y ago

A better middle ground at this stage could have been requiring TikTok to daily display to users (and require they confirm/accept) a message stating the indirect CPC ownership, the risk to their personal info, and the serious risk of seeing state directed disinformation campaigns. Most would still use TikTok but perhaps it might get drilled into their heads to actually question some things they see on it. Personally think the data protection issue are overblown. The ability to influence through disinformation campaings, whether for CPC, Russia or whomever is their friend, is a way bigger thing for me.

htrp 3y ago
so every gdpr cookie modal
hawthornio 3y ago
Has there been any evidence of disinformation campaigns on TikTok?

javajosh 3y ago

Uncertainty and doubt is a good and honest position. It is an unusual situation, and it could potentially create a dangerous precedent, particularly in other countries where US-owned software is dominant. There is strong evidence that TikTok is being used to spy on Americans, especially those in the military and those in power, and that this represents a real risk to American interests. The downside is this may unleash a waive of retributive banning (e.g. other countries banning US-owned apps). I personally don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, globally: geographically partitioned services (and therefore power) are fine by me. Of course rich donor corps in the US won't like having their addressable market reduced. We'll see if they can convince us to invade another country to force them to use eBay though.

ngcc_hk 3y ago

How about china … do not just look inside guys.

TulliusCicero 3y ago

China bans a shitton of Western websites. What's wrong with reciprocating? Free trade should go both ways, shouldn't it? I would definitely be more okay with allowing Chinese websites/apps in the US if China wasn't banning so many Western ones: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_mainland_China https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_...

grecy 3y ago
I think that is a slippery slope race to the bottom of morals/ideals. Pretty soon you have "China doesn't let people say bad things about their leader, neither should we" and "China uses force to take things from other countries, why shouldn't we" Your ideals and morals should be strong enough they don't change based on a bad actor.
- TulliusCicero 3y ago
  Ridiculous comparison when we're literally talking about trade with that country. Reciprocal free trade is the principle.
- kyleamazza 3y ago
  I think you totally missed the argument: it's not about copying anything China does, it's about reciprocating restrictions that they place on your country. If China places a tariff on US imported goods, then the US places a tariff on Chinese goods. This is and has been the case even for non-adversary countries, and is bread-and-butter foreign policy
  - grecy 3y ago
    > it's not about copying anything China does, it's about reciprocating restrictions Your justification is literally "They're doing it to us, so we should do it to them". Apply that logic to everything China does. Do you want to behave like them? Wait a few years and it will be about reciprocating other things China does.

emursebrian 3y ago

Yes, it was done with Grindr in 2019. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/27/us-pushes-chinese-owner-of-grindr-to-divest-the-dating-app-sources.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/27/us-pushes-chinese-owner-of-g...

jiggyjace 3y ago

More or less. Since the 1790s the USA has regulated banks, communications, energy, and technology situations in similar fashion: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/tiktok-vote-house-5-things-1.7142043 https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/tiktok-vote-house-5-things-1.7...