9 ms·
US Senate passes TikTok divestment-or-ban bill
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- t0mas88 2y agoImagine Europe forcing a sale of the European side of Meta or Google because they have a lot of data on EU citizens...
- presentation 2y agoThough China already has banned plenty of western apps under the same premise. Plenty of precedence on the other side.
- r721 2y agoRussia too: Facebook, Instagram, Twitter/X are banned, Tiktok is severely restricted (no uploads, no non-Russian content).
- satao 2y agoyes, but only the US is seen as an advocate of unlimited free speech: https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/brazilian-government-forced-censorship-x-new-report-reveals https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/brazilian-g... https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/04/18/musk-moraes-brazil-free-speech/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/04/18/musk-moraes-...
- schoen 2y agoBut the U.S. theory (which I advocate) is that this behavior is hurting Chinese people, not just Americans! It's somewhat bizarre to say that retaliating for that in the same fashion is thereby justified. Sure, it makes sense in a trade war sense, but not in a "free speech is actually good and everyone is entitled to it" sense.
- a_humean 2y agoI mean... that isn't outside of the realm of possibility honestly. A lot of European states and the EU parliament have been making noises that could lead down that path. EU states actually take user data seriously, and its not like the US firms have been covering themselves in glory in that regard.
- hackerlight 2y agoYes an ally having access to sensitive data is exactly the same situation as an authoritarian rival having access.
- krapp 2y agoEchelon and Five Eyes would like a word. American data in European hands is a threat to Americans. European data in American hands is a direct threat to Europeans. We still kill people over metadata. And be careful mentioning authoritarianism as if the West hasn't been creeping in that direction for a while. Trump was a clown but also a warning to the rest of the world that American stability and "Pax Americana" could no longer be depended upon long term.
- hackerlight 2y agoThere is so much false equivalence in this thread it's stunning. If you're Europe, do you want to trust the country that just doubled its trade with Russia, or the country who just sent $60bn to Ukraine and is in NATO? The level of naivete from tech people of anything outside their bubble (in this case geopolitics and foreign policy) is unbelievable, it's like they live in a fairy tail world where everyone who does spying is somehow equally hostile to Western interests. It's just not true. Europe cares about Russia and by extension, China. America is an ally helping them fight their enemy. Don't confuse yourself into thinking anything else.
- account42 2y agoLol the US is no one's ally.
- pb7 2y agoThat’s not what the people in charge of your country think.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- a_random_canuck 2y agoBecause Meta and Google are weaponized by a dictatorship? How can people really be so blind to the enormous threat posed by allowing hostile dictatorships unfettered access to our eyeballs and devices within our own borders.
- password54321 2y agoThe current favourite presidential candidate is someone who is claiming election fraud despite having no proof because he lost.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- satao 2y agodo you really think they are not?
- krapp 2y agoBoth Meta and Google have deep, well established ties to the US intelligence and military. So yes, they have been weaponized. Just by whatever the hell kind of oligarchy/plutarchy/neo-reactionary shitshow the US is turning into, and not a dictatorship per se, yet.
- cherryteastain 2y agoUS big tech is weaponized by the US security establishment, and even used against "allies" Mass surveillance program PRISM: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM NSA (agency running PRISM) spying on the German chancellor: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-security-agency-spied-merkel-other-top-european-officials-through-danish-2021-05-30/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-security-agency-spie...
- throwaway4good 2y agoWho in the US could realistically buy it? And how could ByteDance sell TikTok without selling its Chinese counterpart Douyin (that it shares its codebase with)?
- presentation 2y agoFacebook (fold it into Instagram)? Google (fold it into YouTube Shorts)? Elon Musk if he wants to lose even more money? Or any other very rich big tech company that wants to have an insanely addictive social media app? If nobody buys it then it will lose much of its value anyway by not being usable by a huge moneyed market which will apply downwards pressure on the price as buyers play chicken with each other. Plenty of buyers.
- throwaway4good 2y agoFacebook and YouTube. Wouldn’t this be against US monopoly regulations?
- uyzstvqs 2y agoElon will definitely relaunch Vine if the opportunity presents itself here, but in a more similar style to TikTok. It could very well become the top popular alternative if TikTok were to become unavailable.
- richeyryan 2y agoIt seems like the move is to force ByteDance to set up a company incorporated wholly in the United States, which would then be subject to the oversight of the US government. Then, Byte Dance would lease the IP surrounding TikTok to this separate company. All the US customer data would be siloed on US servers and perused by US agencies and Byte Dance would still get their revenue from the US market. I don't know if the close association with ByteDance and China would still make that sort of arrangement a target of the US government.
- iLoveOncall 2y agoThe move is to ban TikTok.
- poulpy123 2y agoI don't like tiktok but the hypocrisy is insane
- arsenico 2y agoWhat's the hypocrisy here?
- schoen 2y agoPeople and companies in the U.S. (and parts of the U.S. government) have frequently said that it's bad of the Chinese government to prevent U.S. companies from having Chinese users, and to prevent people in Chinese from choosing to see material from U.S. companies and users. We've said that this wasn't a legitimate thing for Chinese law to do, on account of human rights law, free speech principles, and also trade treaties. We've tried hard to help people in China circumvent technical restrictions on accessing foreign content and services, and often claimed that was appropriate as a matter of upholding Chinese people's autonomy. (I say "we" here because I've personally done those things.)
- Reason077 2y agoPrinciple of reciprocity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(international_relations) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(international_rel...
- berdario 2y agoNot the parent, but I think the main hypocrisy is to claim that freedom of enterprise and that freedom or speech are paramount, and then cracking down on Tiktok. The fact that Tiktok has 60% ownership by investment funds (most of which are US based), is just the cherry on top. Personally, I think that some amount of censorship is warranted (see the "paradox of intolerance"), but I think that then the US should dial back all of that "land of the free" rethoric
- fernandotakai 2y agoyou realize this has happened before right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grindr#Divesture_and_public_listing_(2020%E2%80%93present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grindr#Divesture_and_public_li...
- r721 2y agoOther discussions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40139681 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40139681 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40139794 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40139794
- presentation 2y agoIf they’re claiming the First Amendment, they’re saying they’re not just a passive facilitator of communication but communicating themselves, which seems to validate it as a state propaganda arm.
- walthamstow 2y agoWouldn't that position would also invalidate section 230 protections?
- schoen 2y agoThere's no such thing as a loss of section 230 protections due to editorial bias. https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre... (Sorry if the title of that article seems hostile, since I assume you were asking a genuine question, so you're not actually "wrong" in any sense!)
- walthamstow 2y agoThanks. It's fair enough, I'm not even from the US. Just so I know, which one of the bold-font misnomers in the article have I just repeated?
- schoen 2y agoIt's potentially adjacent to these issues: > If you said “Once a company like that starts moderating content, it’s no longer a platform, but a publisher” > If you said “A site that has political bias is not neutral, and thus loses its Section 230 protections” > If you said “Section 230 was designed to encourage websites to be neutral common carriers” Basically, section 230 was not designed to ban sites from having or exercising their own editorial judgment, or to require them to be passive in other ways. In a sense, its purpose was actually the opposite of that: to allow sites to make editorial judgments about content without getting sued for the content that they did or didn't choose to block.
- throwaway4good 2y agoAssuming Biden signs this this week - would Trump be able to undo it assuming he wins? Essentially making this an election subject.
- drpossum 2y agoNo, because in the US congress needs to act to repeal a law. He would not be able to "undo" it by himself.
- throwaway4good 2y agoDoesn’t the text of this law leave it to the president’s discretion?
- throwaway4good 2y agoFor example the list of “foreign adversaries” is under the sitting president’s discretion.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- pb7 2y agoPresident’s discretion is in addition to the specifically listed companies, which is TikTok. Don’t think it can be removed, only added to.
- throwaway4good 2y agoI would guess without being a lawyer that the specific mention of ByteDance/TikTok is what is easiest to challenge in court.
- Dalewyn 2y agoNo. The POTUS as part of the Executive Branch serves to Execute laws Legislated by Congress as the Legislative Branch. The Supreme Court or a lower court could Judge the law to be unconstitutional as the Judiciary Branch, and to that end the POTUS can nominate judges and the Senate can approve or deny them. The only thing POTUS can unilaterally enact and/or revoke are Executive Orders, which themselves are grounded in laws Legislated by Congress and Judged by the courts as necessary.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- downWidOutaFite 2y ago[flagged]
- 4ggr0 2y agoWhy would specifically zionists want to ban TikTok?
- downWidOutaFite 2y agoThey blame tiktok for young people not supporting Israel's destruction of gaza.
- aaron695 2y ago[dead]
- uyzstvqs 2y agoTikTok is concerning. With it's data and algorithms it could be used as a very effective tailored propaganda machine in theory. Given that China is a communist dictatorship with a thing for propaganda, and where government is always involved with companies, I believe that this is mostly justified.
- Voultapher 2y agoAs a non US citizen the cognitive dissonance at play here is astonishing, but sadly not surprising anymore. All governments play the propaganda game, no need for autocrats. On my phone right now, but if you want I can pull up sources. One painfully clear example is the war in Iraq. Look at how the US Government portrays itself in that regard, as the invasion force and violent oppressor or as the glorious savior and bringer of democracy and freedom?
- pjc50 2y agoFacebook is concerning. With its data and algorithms it could be used as a very effective tailored propaganda machine in theory. (oh wait, that was the Cambridge Analytica fiasco)
- p0w3n3d 2y agoWhat does it prove? All social media are concerning and owners can manipulate people and I would say even change the outcomes of elections, just by fine-tuning the algorithm. Recently I've noticed that YouTube is sunsetting one of my favourite YouTubers. I watch him every day and every day I need to find him manually because he's not on the first page. If the algorithm was tailored to me, it would find that this guy is the only one who I watch every day.
- pb7 2y agoMakes sense. That’s why it (and TikTok and many others) are banned in China.
- indigo0086 2y agoThey (either political wind that blows in) will use this as precedent and apply it to other businesses it sees as an ideological or technical "danger"
- ChrisArchitect 2y ago[dupe] More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40139681 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40139681