58 ms·

Biden signs TikTok bill into law, starting clock for ByteDance to divest

• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• skilled 2y ago
  I think the biggest effect of this is going to be that a lot of creators are about to lose a lot of money that they were generating from sponsorships: whether above or below the table. But most will slowly migrate to other platforms due to uncertainty (users and advertisers), though it remains to be seen exactly to where. Maybe Snap? YT Shorts is bad, as are most other “shorts as a feature” platforms where discovery UX is terrible. Just speculation for the time being as we need to see what ByteDance decides to do. Can’t recall the exact article but I think they do plan to fight this decision.
  • yreg 2y ago
    Why not to instagram?
    • skilled 2y ago
      Haven’t looked into it. What is the discoverability and does it come close to TikTok’s algorithm?
      • FalconSensei 2y ago
        I don't know if it's the lack of content or what, but doing the same searches on Instagram usually return garbage. And their algo refuses to understand that I want to see music/books/movies reels instead of girls dancing almost naked.
  • jvanderbot 2y ago
    Why do people believe that TikTok will stop functioning? That is not the intent, and is not the likely outcome. TikTok will just not be owned by a Chinese company.
    • skilled 2y ago
      That’s not how people think in a time of crisis and ByteDance will need to be swift in their response/decision if they want to retain users.
    • nickthegreek 2y ago
      The same tiktok? I highly doubt any sale will come with the algo, which is literally the bread and butter on what makes Tiktok so great and better than the competition. For users who only surf the FYP, the quality is set to seriously decline.
• lispisok 2y ago
  Maybe I'm ignorant but can somebody explain to me how the federal government can just ban TikTok? If I create an app or business can the feds just decide to ban it and it's over?
  • mik1998 2y ago
    It's a bill of attainder, which is unconstitutional in the USA. May or may not be struck down in court.
    • imzadi 2y ago
      No it's not. China doesn't have any civil/constitutional rights in the USA.
      • troglodynellc 2y ago
        The constitution makes no reference to citizens with regards to what congress can and cannot do. Nearly all these things are couched with "congress shall pass no law" -- the focus is restricting the behavior of congress rather than the citizenry. This is a totally bunk argument. If you want an argument that does work against the constitution, SCOTUS' "empty shell" or Lysander Spooner's "Constitution of no authority" are of far more weight, but have more disturbing implications (e.g. You can disregard it completely; our system is precisely the "odious arbitrariness" the founders denounced).
    • Aloisius 2y ago
      It's not. A bill of attainder declares a specific person guilty for past actions and punishing them - thereby denying them the right to a judicial trial. While this bill does refer to a specific organization, it doesn't punish them for past actions, but rather constrains US companies in the future. That is perfectly ok as shown in cases like Huawei v. United States or Kaspersky Lab, Inc. v. DHS. Like Kaspersky, it's "prophylactic, not punitive."
  • legohead 2y ago
    They are claiming a national security threat.
• segasaturn 2y ago
  99% Invisible recently introduced me to the political concept of Noticeably Improving People's Lives (abbreviated as NIPL), which refers to how politicians get votes by making visible, positive improvements to people's lives. Not only is this bill bad policy (does nothing to protect people from foreign surveillance and violates free speech), its shit politics. All it's going to do is make the 150m Americans who use TikTok angry. So I am pretty baffled by US politicians insistence to go down this route.
  • martinky24 2y ago
    You claim that this bill "violates free speech". Can you expand on that? That's... quite the claim to just throw out there without any references.
    • nickthegreek 2y ago
      Today's issue of Platformer explains it as the following: >The Supreme Court has previously held that Congress can’t ban foreign propaganda, including propaganda from China. In Lamont vs. Postmaster General, the court considered a law that required the postmaster general to detain “communist political propaganda” sent through the mail. The Post Office was then required to send the addressee a card asking whether they wanted the propaganda to be delivered, in what the court ultimately ruled had an unconstitutional chilling effect on speech. https://www.platformer.news/tiktok-ban-bill-senate-legal-challenge-first-amendment/ https://www.platformer.news/tiktok-ban-bill-senate-legal-cha...
      • zeroonetwothree 2y ago
        It’s obviously not the same situation so blindly assuming that precedent means the same outcome is wrong. In particular TikTok is not being “banned” based on content, so it’s likely strict scrutiny will not apply.
    • orwin 2y ago
      US version of "free speech" is that the congress cannot make a law that prevents someone from speaking. It was an example of extreme freedom (i don't have the English translation, but basically a freedom that supersede other freedoms, its philosophy 101 or close to that) It's less true now, starting from when the mafia used this freedom to threaten judges and jury (Basically, when 80% of people think "full freedom of speech is stupid in this particular case", the US government will effectively suppress it). I've talked with someone who argued that it effectively never truly existed, and gave me a lot of pre-prohibition examples i can't remember, and even a few from pre-civil war era, that targeted white people (which was surprising because most of the other did not), but i don't know if i trust him, and don't really know US history well, so if you're interested, you should research it yourself and not trust what i just wrote (which is basically, "Yes, No, It's complicated and i don't really know". I'm such a helpful person :/) [edit] Not saying if it's good or bad btw, extreme freedoms are a cultural foundation of the US, and in my opinion define the country.
• mullingitover 2y ago
  Nine months kicks the can down the road past the election. I doubt that's a coincidence.
  • mondobe 2y ago
    At least we know who both sides will blame for any real or imagined election interference.
• willio58 2y ago
  I can almost hear the Meta execs cackling in their bathtubs of cash. Seriously though, this decision just feels unsubstantiated and rushed. There are so many claims of manipulation and our data being used by China via TikTok but I can't help but feel a company like Instagram does the exact same thing but it's not a Chinese company so we are just... okay with that?
  • yieldcrv 2y ago
    yes, we’re okay with that - or its not a statement on that, the goal is for TikTok to be sold to Americans with a ban being the fall back outcome
    • Brybry 2y ago
      I don't believe it has to be sold to Americans. It just can't be "controlled by a foreign adversary" (which is a very specific set of criteria in the law). [1] There are plenty of scenarios where TikTok ends up under non-American control. Only four countries (China, Iran, North Korea, Russia) are foreign adversary countries. [2] [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8038/text#HAD383DF6A9D14CAF9B027748AB024CF7 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8038... [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/4872#d_2 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/4872#d_2
  • toomuchtodo 2y ago
    When whacking moles, you cannot whack all moles at once. Pick the one closest/easiest, and keep whacking.
    • frameset 2y ago
      I fear the US government will be whacking just the one mole and then putting down their novelty mallet.
      • toomuchtodo 2y ago
        The schlep never ends, it just ebbs and flows, always in constant tension. Stay engaged and involved in the political process.
• jMyles 2y ago
  It seems to me that the most likely outcome is that some money will opaquely change hands and that TikTok will remain available, either because of a shell game divestiture or because of a policy change. There's just too much money at stake. But even if that doesn't happen, and the US state starts to regard TikTok as banned, what makes anyone think people will stop using it? Many western resources are banned in China, and it seems that the primary effect of this is simply the proliferation of tools to subvert the ban. One thing I don't understand, at a high level: how, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, can anyone believe that the internet will shape itself around the whims of legacy states on anything but very short timescales? There is no case of successful censorship of this nature, let alone with such a large and popular resource. Conversely, there are many, many cases of failed attempts at censorship, even by the largest and most powerful states and corporations in the world. Is there some reason to believe that this trend will very suddenly reverse?
  • THENATHE 2y ago
    The thing about China banning stuff is that it is sponsored by the whole government, so every ISP in China is forced to comply with the ban. In the US, unless all of the ISPs are forced to ban tiktok at a network level, the ban will essentially be on new downloads I'm sure. If the ban is on new downloads, it will mean that the ban doesn't hit particularly hard, except for there will be no more platform growth, which would mean that the company sees all of the issue with it, but the users do not which would stagnate the platform and lead to its eventual death. Frogs in a pot of water turned up to a boil, instead of dropped in at a rolling boil kind of thing. If it is banded in ISP level, there is essentially no real chance that anybody will put any effort to get around it. I see big statements all the time about how people slightly younger than me don't even know what command prompt is, which is frankly a wild statement because even people I know my age that are not techy. Like I am still know how to do almost all of the basic commuter commands and know how to download a VPN and similar. We are either going to see a Renaissance of tech people opened up because of the ban on tick tock and them learning about technology to try and circumvent it, or we are going to see the total death of the platform because most people don't really know how to do anything technical on a phone or computer anymore. Either way, it's going to cause some fairly large shifts until something is done, and if nothing is done, maybe the main shift will be just to a different platform rather than a different societal state of mind.
• yayr 2y ago
  If I read the bill correctly, any entity with an at least 20% chinese ownership stake (by a person or company) falls under this law... What are the other 2nd and 3rd order effects of this?
  • jvanderbot 2y ago
    I guess I implicitly assumed that TikTok was the poster child for a more general / sweeping legislative push. Consider tech companies, startups, etc, operating under Chinese funding either directly or indirectly.
  • btown 2y ago
    https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/815/text#HF98E74DB07F44FE9871830B02846B8C1 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/815/... is the relevant text of the bill presented to the President. It's restricted to companies with 1M+ MAUs that allow users to create profiles and share content, and only then if the President makes a public notice and public report to Congress of that determination for a specific company. Covered countries are here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=10-USC-1197798417-780045830&term_occur=999&term_src=title:10:subtitle:A:part:V:subpart:I:chapter:385:subchapter:III:section:4872 https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840... In theory, this could be used more broadly. Not a lawyer, but there's a reading that it would give a president the ability to unilaterally force divestiture in companies that have as little as a "choose your username for your online account" functionality. It's unlikely to affect B2B supply chains, though. Presidents have many existing tools at their disposal anyways if they want to disrupt those.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• mrtksn 2y ago
  From the world where the USA was the bastion of free speech which was condemning countries like Turkey for blocking social media to a world where the USA blocks social media. I guess when the reasons are about money(i.e. Chinese block American companies) its all good because it can't be about national security since the countries who used to block American social media were condemned for doing it in the name of national security. Or is it? Anyway, this bothers me so much. It wouldn't take that much time before every country adopts the China/North Korea model once the USA leads the way, because you know, other countries also have national security concerns. Maybe the Spanish or Irish will want to protect their citizens being indexed by the US for their support for Palestine? Who know, banning apps is a thing now. Maybe soon all country-to-country communications will need to go through monitored cables with keys provided for inspection(maybe businesses can get an exception with acquiring a license?). We are progressively sliding in a segregated world and it is a scary world because the tech to control all the communications is in place. I wish the USA took the EU model where its free but regulated. The desire for control over communications and the support by the people disgusts me. You will end up finding out that the Chinese/North Korean way of doing things is not going to provide you with security or prosperity. Very sad day.
  • jvanderbot 2y ago
    TikTok will continue to function as normal. This is only a ban if bytedance does not divest, which they will.
    • Thiez 2y ago
      What makes you say that? What do they possibly have to gain by selling their main product?
      • zeroonetwothree 2y ago
        They gain the full value of the product rather than the lower value it will achieve under the future ban.
        • 2y ago
• nova22033 2y ago
  https://berthub.eu/articles/spice.jpg https://berthub.eu/articles/spice.jpg
  • zeroonetwothree 2y ago
    There is no requirement that it must be US-based.
• dwnoble 2y ago
  Fun fact: according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_mainland_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_ma..., tiktok.com has been blocked in mainland China since 2020.
  • jMyles 2y ago
    And yet, at least anecdotally, it is very widely used, along with virtually every other resource that that Chinese state regards as banned.
    • seattle_spring 2y ago
      I think they meant the US domain tiktok.com is banned. TikTok itself is not banned in CN, and its web presence there is likely available at the respective CN domain. I’m guessing it’s tiktok.cn, but I’m not checking so I take no responsibility if it’s a phishing domain.
      • United857 2y ago
        The Chinese equivalent is DouYin, douyin.com
      • jMyles 2y ago
        Yeah, I think you're correct. ...but seriously: The Chinese state pretends that Wikipedia is banned in China. Does anybody seriously think that Chinese people don't use Wikipedia, like every day? Routing around a ban of this nature is so utterly trivial, and the primary audience of TikTok is strongly integrative of demographics which are digital natives accustomed to subverting such bans (heck, they got almost universal training in this area by having to jailbreak their school-issued tablets).
        • deleted 2y ago
          [deleted]
        • insane_dreamer 2y ago
• robotnikman 2y ago
  Last time this was discussed during the Trump admin it was going to be Oracle that TikTok would be divested to, I wonder if that will still be the case now
• wumeow 2y ago
  For everyone here having the vapours over this, note that the US government also prohibits more than 20/25% foreign ownership of radio/tv stations and airlines, and has for almost 100 years. It’s going to be ok.
  • insane_dreamer 2y ago
    Good point. I wonder how did Murdoch (Australian) end up owning Fox News?
    • myroon5 2y ago
      He switched to American citizenship in 1985 for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch
      • ggm 2y ago
        Which did not improve his public image in Oz
• waihtis 2y ago
  Good. Tiktok is a threat to humanity’s survival, or at least an extremely potent gateway drug to it.
• nadermx 2y ago
  This is Idiocracy
  • spiderfarmer 2y ago
    This is forcing the US government to show their true colors.
    • throwaway35777 2y ago
      What exactly is their intention?
      • NegativeLatency 2y ago
        Banning content that is both critical of the government and extremely popular with younger people There's a lot more leftist/anticapitalist content (and political content in general) on tiktok compared to youtube shorts and instagram reels.
        • nickthegreek 2y ago
          Is there more of that type of content? Or is it pushed up by the tiktok algorithm more than other social media? I don't think this is the case, but you are not in a position to state that categorically.
          • NegativeLatency 2y ago
            I don't think you'll ever be able to get a straight & correct answer to that question, but I don't think it really matters, because the effect is the same. I and every friend I've talked to about tiktok has seen much more political content on tiktok than other short video apps.
            • encoderer 2y ago
              You don’t think it matters whether you are viewing the authentic crowdsourced views of your countrymen, or the boosted political propaganda of an adversary? Really?
• returningfory2 2y ago
  The work "ban" is in scare quotes for a reason. The law doesn't ban TikTok. Rather, it bans TikTok from having Chinese owners. If the law stands, the end result will likely be that TikTok will be sold to US owners, rather than TikTok going away. It's surprising to me that this this pretty significant distinction has been glossed over both in media reporting and in general comments here on HN. To be clear, I'm not supporting the law with this comment, just clarifying what the actual content of the law is.
  • barfingclouds 2y ago
    Nope it doesn’t ban TikTok from having Chinese owners. TikTok could very well continue to have Chinese owners, and if so the US will ban the product domestically
  • dpflan 2y ago
    It's glossed over because it creates a more emotional response framing it like that rather than giving the technical details that reveal the actual situation is perhaps less sensational?
    • nickthegreek 2y ago
      If by glossed over you mean put in quotes in the title and made clear in the first sentence of the article.
      • dpflan 2y ago
        Sure, raise that to the original commenter.
  • nickthegreek 2y ago
    While I get the point... if the EU said Facebook could not be available in the Country unless the company divested from US interest, would we not call it a ban?
    • 2y ago
• superkuh 2y ago
  >app stores in the US would have to drop the app, and Internet hosting services would be prohibited from providing services that enable distribution of TikTok in the US So just install it like a normal application instead of using an "app store". But does this mean if I host the .apk or whatever on my personal website I would be breaking the law?
  • spiderfarmer 2y ago
    I hope they improve their website so it won’t even need an app. And make it easier for external apps to upload content to the platform.
  • dfxm12 2y ago
    This little blurb is not the actual law, so it's not worth considering what it means. You'll have to read the text of the law with a lawyer to see how clear it is. Even if the letter of the law leaves a little room for interpretation, think about what you would be trying to prove because I think the courts will agree that the spirit of the law is clear.
  • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > does this mean if I host the .apk or whatever on my personal website I would be breaking the law Yes, provided you are doing it in a way "through which users within the land or maritime borders of the United States may access, maintain, or update such application" [1]. (It would be perfectly legal to go to TikTok.com, however.) [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521... § 2(a)(1)(A)
    • Klathmon 2y ago
      Why would tiktok.com be allowed? The bill itself says: > The term “foreign adversary controlled application” means a website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application that is operated... So the website is explicitly included in that
  • ipaddr 2y ago
• api 2y ago
  Hopefully it'll be sold to someone who will ruin it and we'll have one less addictionware monstrosity ensnaring millions of people into mindlessly scrolling through schlock. Unfortunately that leaves Instagram, which is in many ways worse. Maybe Elon Musk can buy that one and destroy it next. He already did us a solid by ruining Twitter.
• ok123456 2y ago
  I won't stop using it.
  • jjordan 2y ago
    You won't have to, but if an actual ban went through, and an iPhone is your only means of connection, you would be truly SOL, because Apple's captured ecosystem only allows users to run what Apple will permit. We need open ecosystems and access to full root-level control of our devices by default. Accept no substitutes.
    • dantheman 2y ago
      Don't use an iphone if you don't like it, don't use tiktok if you don't like it. It's really very simple, the government has no role in either case.
    • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > if an actual ban went through, and an iPhone is your only means of connection, you would be truly SOL No, you'd just go to the website.
      • ipaddr 2y ago
        Tiktok website is limited. You can't even change your display name.
        • deleted 2y ago
          [deleted]
        • wyldfire 2y ago
          They wouldn't necessarily have to keep it that way.
    • nebula8804 2y ago
      Correct me if I am wrong but this only limits people who already haven't downloaded the app yet? People who already have the app wouldn't just have it forcibly uninstalled from their phone right? I have had apps that didn't make it to the 32 -> 64 bit transition stay on my phone when my apps get transferred from phone to phone.
• superkuh 2y ago
  >app stores in the US would have to drop the app, and Internet hosting services would be prohibited from providing services that enable distribution of TikTok in the US So just install it like a normal application instead of using an "app store". But does this mean if I host the .apk or whatever on my personal website I would be breaking the law?
  • THENATHE 2y ago
    Yes. Hosting it for personal use would not be a crime, but distributing it would be. Additionally, even if people were to get it from you without you getting in trouble, they would all have to use a VPN to even begin to see anything, which is past the capabilities of most of the populace currently, which would make hosting it and distributing it via sneakerware basically useless.
• lovegrenoble 2y ago
  When Appropriation Becomes a Tool...
• anonuser1234 2y ago
  US companies are not allowed to fairly compete in China. I think that reason alone is justification.
  • insane_dreamer 2y ago
    It's funny how many of the comments here have really no idea the level of restrictions that are on US (or European) companies who want to operate in China (not just manufacture for export).
• helpfulContrib 2y ago
  [dead]
• bluSCALE4 2y ago
  Crazy, all the spying we do and we can't provide any definitive proof of anything yet we're jumping to banning a company. Looks like all that red scare stuff isn't a thing of the past, eh? And we all get to suffer for it. From losing a platform, to facing shadow bans with no recourse, to laws being passed that continue to stamp out our civil liberties to the point that we forget they were even there, what's it all for?
  • MaxHoppersGhost 2y ago
    China can and already has used tiktok to influence the U.S. population. Just because the US spies a bunch doesn’t mean we shouldn’t protect our best interests.
    • blackoil 2y ago
      You misread OP. With all spies they should have found some evidence of CCP trying to influence.
      • tempestn 2y ago
        They may well have done. It seems a lot of lawmakers moved toward the opinion of banning tiktok after receiving classified intelligence briefings.
        • luyu_wu 2y ago
          As a non-american (Canadian) citizen, I'm genuinely curious why this evidence can't be made public? Wouldn't that be a far better way to end this debate and un-fracture opinions?
          • tempestn 2y ago
            I'm Canadian too, but my guess would be that sharing what they know publicly would give away too much about how they learned it, and would give adversaries a better chance of hiding more in the future.
• MaxHoppersGhost 2y ago
  About damn time. We should reciprocate any bans China has on US companies.
• spiderfarmer 2y ago
  If I were Bytedance I would cut off the US. I certainly would not sell to a competitor. And I’d probably do a licensing deal for the content with a new entity without US based shareholders.
  • sgt 2y ago
    This is your perfect time to sell the crap before it goes stale. Come on, have we learned nothing?
    • spiderfarmer 2y ago
      Maybe I just value not being bullied over being rich.
      • kenjackson 2y ago
        If you leave the US then you've accomplished what they wanted anyways. And now you're much poorer for it. The upside is you feel like you did it on your terms or something?
        • spiderfarmer 2y ago
          Yes.
  • encoderer 2y ago
    How can they do that without upsetting the record labels? They get a free pass to use licensed music because it’s a huge marketing channel for the labels. Lose America and that goes away.
  • Buttons840 2y ago
    If TikTok truly is a Chinese psyop, the most effective thing they could do is spend their remaining days sewing discontent with the government, refuse to sell, and let the whole thing burn down, thus riling up "the youths" and teaching them that their own government is a problem. They could also tell TikTok users to install a VPN and access the servers in China directly. I actually see this as a silver lining. I want young people to realize the government effects them and can directly ruin things they enjoy. I want young people to be more involved in politics and to vote.
• intellix 2y ago
  if you've been to China, you'll know that they ban all western products: facebook, google, etc etc and replaced them with their own variants. If they want to run around free-range without any restriction with their own products then they should respond by loosening restrictions in their own country. This is an absolute no-brainer. If you want Tik Tok in the US, lower your middle finger. Am I missing something?
  • themgt 2y ago
    The story back in the ancient history of ~1989->2021 was our free open liberal system was so obviously superior that we were just going to wait around for China to realize their dumb mistake and join us at the end of history. Their great firewall would cripple their economy until then. The new story is we're copying China's tactics because China did it first and it works great. I mean, sure, go with that. But it doesn't negate the irony.
    • j0ba 2y ago
      Nonsense. A free and open system does not require foreign adversaries to be given free access to manipulate and control the population. That's not an open system, that's pure stupidity.
    • tristor 2y ago
      > The story back in the ancient history of ~1989->2021 was our free open liberal system was so obviously superior that we were just going to wait around for China to realize their dumb mistake That story worked out fine until US companies started sending all their IP over to China for manufacturing which resulted in 3 key outcomes that broke the initial strategy: 1. It funded and supported the buildout of China's manufacturing base. China now has the best manufacturing base in the world, and in some cases is the only place in the world certain things can be feasibly made. 2. It guaranteed an export market for Chinese goods which helped to drive their economic engine. 3. It allowed unfettered industrial espionage. There is a reason that nearly every product in existence has a Chinese clone/counterfeit available within a week of launch. The strategy failed, because the Great Firewall only keeps information out of China that the government wants kept out of China, but any other information goes in, but it prevents pretty much all information from flowing out. Firewalls are not binary, they are tunable with policy, and the Chinese government has historically had a strong strategy and nuanced policy, which has allowed them to see great economic success despite reducing freedom of information. Fundamentally, it's economics that drives the rise and fall of governments.
• dirtybirdnj 2y ago
  If your not banning tiktok for it's ownership opacity... ban it for destroying attention span and training people into being mindless content consumption robots. We regulate cigarettes and heroin this is a much bigger problem than people give it credit for. It's an even worse problem if a bad actor is using it subtlety to influence a population. It doesn't matter if ByteDance or FB are doing this they should both burn to the ground for the damage they have done to the Internet and society.
• GardenLetter27 2y ago
  They have a year though, and this will certainly go to the Supreme Court.
• MaxHoppersGhost 2y ago
  [flagged]
• slg 2y ago
  >The "Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act" was approved as part of a larger appropriations bill that provides aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. Regardless of your opinions on TikTok, this type of thing is incredibly frustrating and routine practice in American politics. Can't actually get support for the legislation you want? Just add it on to some other completely unrelated piece of legislation that is more popular.
  • encoderer 2y ago
    No, in the house they voted on this bill by itself and it passed overwhelmingly - 360 to 58
    • slg 2y ago
      And that wasn't expected to happen in the Senate. Also that is the vote total for this bill, not the previous one that passed the House last month.
      • encoderer 2y ago
        getting a clean up/down vote on a bill is pretty rare (as you said yourself) so it’s strange to critique this bill when it actually had one.
      • meepmorp 2y ago
        The previous House vote was 352-65, so not much different.
  • darknavi 2y ago
    It was a series of bills
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • brentm 2y ago
    It's either this way or pass nothing ever. Unless the country tilts away from basically 50/50 with two parties that constantly try to undo the other there are few options to get anything through congress.
• lovegrenoble 2y ago
  When Appropriation Becomes a Tool...
• option 2y ago
  Controversial, but right move by US.
• waihtis 2y ago
  Good. Tiktok is a threat to humanity’s survival, or at least an extremely potent gateway drug to it.
  • afavour 2y ago
    If that’s the argument then you need to regulate social media as a whole. Instead this is specifically geopolitical intrigue rather than any care about the mental health of the American people. Microsoft/Meta/A conglomerate of record labels(?) will buy TikTok and it’ll continue to exist just as it does today.
    • ipaddr 2y ago
      What would be interesting is a cap on followers. Would change the platform into being more social and less influencers driven.
    • waihtis 2y ago
      > you need to regulate social media as a whole No, actually we dont. There is no divine mandate that requires us to do that, especially in a scenario where the geopolitical rival is using our credulity to their advantage.
      • Slava_Propanei 2y ago
        [dead]
  • enterprise_cog 2y ago
    [dead]
• vezycash 2y ago
  Didn't Democrats kick against it when Trump made the same move?
  • enterprise_cog 2y ago
    [dead]
• linearrust 2y ago
  Biden signs bill into law giving $60 billion to ukraine and $26 billion to israel. Isn't that what the bill actually does. The tiktok part is just legal distraction as it punts the tiktok issue to the next administration.
  • gretch 2y ago
    > Isn't that what the bill actually does The bill actually does multiple things, and it's okay to talk about the components in isolation.
• cljacoby 2y ago
  As I understand the bill is solely focused with the national security implications of ByteDance being China-based, and not the social impacts of short form video platforms on mental health, attention span, etc. Good news for Instagram Reels. I also wonder if this goes through, does this set a precedent for enforcing similar divestment expectations for any companies operating in China. Is this isolated to social media platform, or could this also eventually extend in to other industries like manufacturing?
  • LordKeren 2y ago
    The government already forced Grindr to be sold back in 2019 , so this isn’t a new precedent. The only difference is scale and user base — and this time around it was even included in a bill. The Government has a long history of interfering with foreign businesses in the name of national security. Feds have blocked sale of infrastructure like ports many times
• autoexec 2y ago
  I get why they did it, but it's disappointing to have congress decide what software we're allowed to use. I wonder if China or other countries will do the same for US apps now.
  • lm28469 2y ago
    > I wonder if China or other countries will do the same for US apps now. Is this sarcastic ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_mainland_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_ma...
    • autoexec 2y ago
      The Great Firewall of China was a horrible idea when they did it. We don't need to make the same mistake in the US.
      • Buttons840 2y ago
        If TikTok users start connecting directly to servers in China via tiktok.com (or whatever), I predict the US will move towards a national firewall as well.
  • LordKeren 2y ago
    China has banned innumerable pieces of software. They banned YouTube more than a decade ago
  • viscanti 2y ago
    > I wonder if China or other countries will do the same for US apps now. China has been doing this for a very long time, to keep US apps out of the Chinese market (or forced IP transfers to Chinese companies) so that Chinese apps can thrive. There's no room for them to retaliate because they've already gone as far as they possibly could.
  • junon 2y ago
    They literally already do, I'm not sure what rock people have been living under but whenever I read comments like this it feels like misinformation campaign material given how common knowledge it is that China regulates foreign apps, internet traffic, and data.
• Liftyee 2y ago
  Honestly might benefit the US if TikTok gets shut down. Short form content is an endemic attention parasite.
  • ConanRus 2y ago
    [dead]
  • nickthegreek 2y ago
    The bill doesnt ban shortform content.
• FalconSensei 2y ago
  Now let's get Facebook/Instagram and Twitter banned from EU/Asia since they are owned by US companies
  • NickInSF 2y ago
    American social media is already banned in China. TikTok is also banned in China in favor of the state-controlled Douyin.
• pelorat 2y ago
  So, press F for Bidens re-election campaign I guess? Watch every republican and jump on this (even though they support it).
• duxup 2y ago
  I'm not opposed. Granted my basis would be that China effectively bans such social media apps from the outside ... I'm ok with doing the same for them.
  • bink 2y ago
    I should hope we hold ourselves to a higher bar than China. This would effectively set the precedent that the US Congress can choose winners and losers in the market and even force a sale of a foreign company to an American company. That's the type of action taken by Russia and China that is rightfully condemned. I'd prefer if we focused on why the app is dangerous and maybe pass some comprehensive privacy or anti-monopoly legislation that removes the danger rather than playing whack-a-mole with whatever company has attracted the most attention at the time.
    • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > should hope we hold ourselves to a higher bar than China We do. TikTok.com won't be blocked here the way Facebook and Google are in China.
      • Buttons840 2y ago
        If TikTok tells users "our app is being banned, so just use the website instead", I predict America will move towards a national firewall. Let's see, it will be interesting to look back on these comments in a decade.
        • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
          > If TikTok tells users "our app is being banned, so just use the website instead", I predict America will move towards a national firewall Sure, yes, it can always get worse. The point is it isn't, and we're nowhere close to false comparisons with the CCP.
    • LordKeren 2y ago
      The forced sale of Grindr already demonstrated this precedent
• barryrandall 2y ago
  What improvements should Americans expect to see in the next 6-12 months?
  • gretch 2y ago
    Probably exactly zero given that's the basic clock for divestiture to even happen > The company has an initial nine months to sort out a deal, though the president could extend that another three months if he sees progress. But I do hope to see improvements in the next 5 years. I'd like to see less trends around destructive behavior: eating tide pods, destroying/defacing property, harassing others. The algorithm should not be unbiased. We must take manual intervention to hinder the destructive tendencies in human behavior
• nme01 2y ago
  This shows that values such as “freedom of speech” are only key words used to enforce US policy in other countries. For such a long time it was advocated that free speech is an important thing and good in and on itself. Now it turns out the free speech is good only as long as it’s US who dominates the information market.
  • thinkingtoilet 2y ago
    How is this an attack on free speech? What individual is getting punished for their speech by the government? There is hardly a lack of spaces online for you to say just about anything.
    • NegativeLatency 2y ago
      Google and Meta have limited what political content they'll show to you, feels like a pretty clear attack on something the establishment doesn't like but justifying it with the boogey man of communism: https://www.npr.org/2024/03/26/1240737627/meta-limit-political-content-instagram-facebook-opt-out https://www.npr.org/2024/03/26/1240737627/meta-limit-politic...
      • thinkingtoilet 2y ago
        Your response has absolutely nothing to do with the first amendment. If a private company wants to limit discussion on their platform they can. Facebook is not a right. If it's limiting the speech you don't like, leave.
        • sillysaurusx 2y ago
          The most overused argument. I wonder if you’d feel the same way if every bank decided to ban you. Or every grocery store.
          • moshegramovsky 2y ago
            If you go into a grocery store or a bank and harrass people or behave badly, you will get banned. Try getting a bank account if you have a felony for bank robbery. There was a guy who received a lifetime ban from Safeway for driving through their garden displays and breaking windows in their stores. The US does ban people from using banks. See also: list of specially designated nationals, etc.
• hobotime 2y ago
  TikTok made the mistake of making life difficult for the party. Boosting pro-Palestine voices has consequences.
  • wilsonnb3 2y ago
    The idea of banning Tik Tok or forcing Bytedance to sell it has been cooking for much longer than the current Israel-Palestine drama, it would have happened anyways
    • Slava_Propanei 2y ago
      [dead]
  • hdlothia 2y ago
    https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-addressing-threat-posed-tiktok/ https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/ex...
    • BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
      I would be politically illiterate to pretend that a tik tok ban hasn’t been cooking for a long time, but I think the final impetus for this latest, successful push is the youth seeing non-mainstream perspective on the war.
      • troq13 2y ago
        [flagged]
• nickthegreek 2y ago
  dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40145963 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40145963
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• deepfriedbits 2y ago
  Why target TikTok only? They should ban any Chinese social media app or network, and that should remain in effect until China agrees to open its domestic audience to Instagram, Google, Facebook, X, etc.
  • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > should ban any Chinese social media app or network The law permits the President to similarly designate any entity that meets the law's thresholds for a covered company [1] controlled by a foreign adversary [2]. [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521... § 2(g)(2) [2] Id. § 2(g)(1)
    • deepfriedbits 2y ago
      Thanks for highlighting the language. I fear it's not being framed as that, though, and there will be another battle in the court of public opinion for the next TikTok.
• SamPatt 2y ago
  This just proves that some principles (such as free speech) are only upheld conditionally when those in power feel they don't actually threaten their control. Actions speak louder than words.
• efitz 2y ago
  I see the feedback here is overwhelmingly negative. My biggest problem is that it’s too narrowly targeted. I have worked for several US businesses with global footprints and working with China (and some other countries) required whole or part ownership of the business by entities within that nation. So we partnered with businesses in China to set up and operate our infra, and had to manage everything through contracts. Further, Chinese government officials would show up unannounced and plug shit into our networks, and required access to our encryption keys and accounts databases and employee & customer lists etc. We had to build independent systems just for China to prevent sharing information about non-China based customers and employees. Where we couldn’t do that, we had to build filtered replication “diodes” to prevent data leakage. China and other countries do far worse to us than just requiring local ownership of businesses; and if they feel that is in their national interest, why can’t we return the favor when we feel it’s in our interest?
  • nebula8804 2y ago
    >China and other countries do far worse to us than just requiring local ownership of businesses; and if they feel that is in their national interest, why can’t we return the favor when we feel it’s in our interest? This is bigger than China for a lot of people. TikTok has given an alternative voice to groups typically marginalized on pro-Western platforms. We typically see hypocrisy from the West when it comes to Israel and current times are no different. Tiktok has allowed nearly more access to whatever footage is capable of sneaking out of the warzone whereas Meta platforms tend to suppress. (ex: they recently auto-defaulted a restriction on political content without informing their users).
    • slowmovintarget 2y ago
      TikTok amplifies whatever is in China's interest to amplify. Today, it happens to be voices opposed to Israel. Tomorrow, it could easily be the opposite. The goal is to generate geopolitical chaos to veil other actions (Taiwan, South China sea, Chinese migrant injections into Panama...). A society's strength comes from its unity of will and resolve. Social media can be used to attack that unity... and has, not just by China.
• elfbargpt 2y ago
  Is there any evidence that the content on TikTok isn't a result of the beliefs and interests of its users in America?
  • zeroonetwothree 2y ago
    It doesn't matter, but also that isn't the stated reasoning for the law.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
• smohare 2y ago
  [dead]
• AbstractH24 2y ago
  What does this mean for their US employees, their job security, and even office morale?
  • troq13 2y ago
    What will happen to the creators that make a living on TikTok...
    • AbstractH24 2y ago
      Honestly, less concerned about them. They’ll move to whatever platform users move to
• onepremise 2y ago
  I think people are conflating way too many issues here with politics vs actual threats. China and Russia are not our allies. The CCP and Kremlin do not have our best interests in mind or even our most basic needs. They want to be global super powers and spread dictatorships. Democracy is a threat to absolute power. For years, the CCP and Kremlin authorities have been spreading disinformation to polarize politics in our country. TikTok, Twitter (X), Facebook, and Truth social have been abused and leveraged to manipulate many into thinking conspiracies are all real. This also includes media outlets and corporations that allow foreign Chinese (CCP) and oligarch investors. The difference with TikTok is that its owned by the CCP and they are very intent on getting everybody to dislike our government and splinter our democracy. While TikTok is mostly garbage, I think there are many that leverage the platform for income and have been quite successful off it. I still think it should be moderated in a way that doesn't turn citizens against each other and their own government. The only way to do this is to ban or sell the corporation. I'd also add disallowing foreign investors that are not Allies to the US. What Does Free Speech Mean? https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-re...
• hindsightbias 2y ago
  I wonder if Ellison and Elon could swing a deal for it.
• btown 2y ago
  https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/815/text#toc-HA3ED19E8F4F24124B4029233F64B1549 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/815/... - the relevant section of the final version of the bill.
• onepremise 2y ago
  I think people are conflating way too many issues here with politics vs actual threats. China and Russia are not our allies. The CCP and Kremlin do not have our best interests in mind or even our most basic needs. They want to be global super powers and spread dictatorships. Democracy is a threat to absolute power. For years, the CCP and Kremlin authorities have been spreading disinformation to polarize politics in our country. TikTok, Twitter (X), Facebook, and Truth social have been abused and leveraged to manipulate many into thinking conspiracies are all real. This also includes media outlets and corporations that allow foreign Chinese (CCP) and oligarch investors. The difference with TikTok is that its owned by the CCP and they are very intent on getting everybody to dislike our government and splinter our democracy. While TikTok is mostly garbage, I think there are many that leverage the platform for income and have been quite successful off it. I still think it should be moderated in a way that doesn't turn citizens against each other and their own government. The only way to do this is to ban or sell the corporation. I'd also add disallowing foreign investors that are not Allies to the US. What Does Free Speech Mean? https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-re https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-re...
  • autoexec 2y ago
    TikTok isn't violating any US laws. If the US outlawed 'spreading disinformation to polarize politics' they'd have to ban youtube/facebook/twitter/reddit too. Do you think we should block all websites in China and Russia? Should we block their IP space entirely? We used to say that censoring the internet was something that only happened in Evil countries like China. We'd poke fun at their Great Firewall, but to preserve our own hypocrisy the US has decided to join in on the internet censorship game. Now congress is telling you what software you're allowed to install on your own hardware. I think it's better to have freedom. As an American I should be able to view any media from any country I like as long as that media doesn't violate US law. Americans should have the freedom to use any software written in any country they like. In this case, we lost freedom to censorship and Democracy did nothing to stop it.
    • xdennis 2y ago
      > TikTok isn't violating any US laws. Not a very good argument. This post is literally about the signing of the "Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act". The loophole which is being closed is allowing foreign adversaries to control your social media apps. It will be in violation if it doesn't sell.
• jauntywundrkind 2y ago
  I wonder how effective being banned would really be at slowing down usage? Across various threads there's a lot of info on how large & what a revenue source the US is for TikTok, and an assumption that that goes away. But do people think the ban would be 100% effective, that no one would workaround? Would TikTok accept the ban or try to help people work around it? I kind of want to see an example of the US trying to control things at out. It's probably not enough for ByteDance, but if they could retain 20% of the US in spite of the ban, that'd be a pretty big cultural victory, would be an impressive way to show up congress.
  • nebula8804 2y ago
    It is finally time for the Year of Linux on Mobile? Probably not lol but maybe this will push people to learn how to sideload or "tiktok install services" might crop up to do so. Maybe this might force Apple to open up iOS also if enough users go to sideloaded Android to get their tiktok fix. Correct me if I am wrong but Didn't Epic also get removed from the Android and Apple stores? They are still going somehow though.
• cwyers 2y ago
  I feel like if TikTok didn't want this to happen, they should have not had their CEO commit perjury in front of Congress. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexandralevine/2023/05/30/tiktok-creators-data-security-china/?sh=3eab0e5a7048 https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexandralevine/2023/05/30/tikt...
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    Or literally having the Chinese embassy lobby on their behalf [1]. I guess we can laugh now that we're on the other side of this ham-fisted fiasco. [1] https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/17/china-lobbying-tiktok-congress-00152819 https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/17/china-lobbying-tikt...
    • Spivak 2y ago
      Are we reading the same articles? The Forbes story is just suggesting that there's a possible interpretation of their statements as lying and your link is saying that China wants TikTok to remain owned by a Chinese firm -- and of course they do, for the same reason the US would resist huge chunks of our own hugely profitable companies being sold off. There's no actual evidence of anything. Like I'm ready to get out the pitchforks but this is just weird FUD.
      • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Forbes story is just suggesting that maybe they lied Yes, lying under oath is called perjury. > your link is saying that China wants TikTok to remain owned by a Chinese firm Say a foreign country were considering banning Lockheed Martin. And the U.S. ambassador picked up the phone--not to fellow diplomats, but individual legislators--to argue against it. Do you not see how the fact that this rose to the level of state-level mediation concedes there are non-economic factors at play? > US would resist huge chunks of our own hugely profitable companies being sold off It's been happening in Russia for the past two years. The cases where it rises to diplomatic incident are not strongly correlated with value as much as strategic worth.
• Balgair 2y ago
  I'll admit, I never really thought that social media primarily revolving around dancing teens would ever be a front in the Second Punic War... err, sorry, second cold war.
• nunez 2y ago
  Does this mean that Cheetah Mobile apps are also going to be purged from US app stores? That would be a huge net benefit if so. What does this mean for the INSANE number of Chinese-owned IoT companies that sell products in the US that store some data in China?
• MaxHoppersGhost 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • nebula8804 2y ago
    So are the pro-american bots. You can literally watch the vote counts go up and down in near realtime and as far as I know they don't follow the Reddit style of obfuscation. There aren't many topics where I tend to see this on HN so its fascinating to watch.
  • wumeow 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • MaxHoppersGhost 2y ago
      Nice username, very topical.
  • insane_dreamer 2y ago
    It's the first time I've seen what definitely looks like wumao comments on HN posts.
    • Slava_Propanei 2y ago
      [dead]
  • luyu_wu 2y ago
    Genuinely don't see them (this is the 20th post I'm on or so?) Is it further down? Also, just out of curiosity, is bots ironic or not. I don't really see any reason for a government to send literal bots to Hacker News. Pretty sure changing our opinions aren't worth that much.
    • MaxHoppersGhost 2y ago
      Changing American opinions and perceptions is worth everything.
• pelagicAustral 2y ago
  Will be nice to see how this going to be implemented. Good luck with that.
  • cranberryturkey 2y ago
    seriously, tiktok canibalizing ad revenue at bigtech so they ban it? how is that not communism?
    • throwaway5959 2y ago
      Pray tell, what do you think communism is?
      • AvieDeckard 2y ago
        Socialism is when the government does stuff. The more stuff it does, the more socialist it is. And when it does a real lot of stuff, that's communism.
      • cranberryturkey 2y ago
        banning competitors?
        • astrange 2y ago
          They aren't banned. Their owner ByteDance is banned from owning them. (TikTok is banned in China though, so it'd be fair if they were banned.) Anyway, Chinese communism doesn't ban competitors.
        • kstrauser 2y ago
          Destroying competitors is just about the most laissez faire capitalist thing imaginable.
    • notyourwork 2y ago
      This is because of ad revenue?
• vyrotek 2y ago
  @dang, Am I imagining things or did something unusual happen with the ranking of this submission? Shot up and then dropped despite votes and comments.
  • phone8675309 2y ago
    You'd have to know how many people have downvoted this to know that for certain.
  • sethammons 2y ago
    He has previously said that there is governing logic in place to put the breaks on rapidly progressing stories to act as a dampener on potential contentious posts
  • kevingadd 2y ago
    Threads with comment counts vastly exceeding their upvote count historically get suppressed, it's an anti-flamewar mechanism. Not sure if it's still in effect, but it would have applied here based on the # of upvotes.
• paulcole 2y ago
  Are any other companies going to have to divest as a result of the bill?
  • zeroonetwothree 2y ago
    Not immediately. It's possible for the president to extend it to cover other companies in the future.
• majani 2y ago
  Asset seizure over data that mainly contains mindless entertainment? This is a new low for the US as a business environment in my opinion.
  • beretguy 2y ago
    But isn’t China spying through tiktok? https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/08/tech/tiktok-data-china/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/08/tech/tiktok-data-china/index....
    • WhereIsTheTruth 2y ago
      TikTok? what's the goal exactly? looks like this goes beyond China, what other laws do they want to pass? China spying on people having fun dancing and cooking! https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/how-the-nsa-spies-on-international-bank-transactions-a-922430.html https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/how-the-nsa-spies... https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-cia-and-nsa-research-grants-for-mass-surveillance https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-ci... https://www.mediapart.fr/en/journal/france/290615/revealed-massive-us-industrial-espionage-against-france https://www.mediapart.fr/en/journal/france/290615/revealed-m... 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... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11562433/Facebook-riddled-ex-CIA-agents-ex-FBI-agents-work-Twitter.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11562433/Facebook-r... Should the world ban Swift, Google, Microsoft, Meta, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube? Where is CISCO, CISCO?! And finally, should the world ditch the USD? Reciprocity, at what price? :)
      • beretguy 2y ago
        > Should the world ban Swift, Google, Microsoft, Meta, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube? Where is CISCO, CISCO?! I say yes.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• nonethewiser 2y ago
  Can someone explain why the previous "ban" was blocked but this wasnt? As I recall TikTok filed for an injunction and they argued it was unconstitutional (violated the 5th ammendment) and the injunction was granted. Then Biden rescinded the executive order and it ended there.
  • timerol 2y ago
    As I understand it, the unconstitutionality of the initial executive order was based on the balance of power in the US government. Doing this kind of thing by executive order is not allowed. Doing this kind of thing by passing a law through Congress is allowed. The Constitution gives a lot of power to the legislature, especially given the interpretations of the Commerce Clause over the history of the US.
    • nonethewiser 2y ago
      That would make sense if the initial reasoning wasn't that it violated the constitution. Neither executive orders nor laws can violate the constitution.
• droptablemain 2y ago
  If China passed a similar law, I wonder what the U.S. state dept. would say about it.
  • insane_dreamer 2y ago
    Uh, Google was kicked out of China for not censoring search results, Meta and others are blocked for not submitting to censorship. This is tame by comparison.
    • droptablemain 2y ago
      Kicked out for not complying with rules vs. being forced to sell.
  • jmbwell 2y ago
    From what I understand, Google, YouTube, the web site that used to be called Twitter, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Facebook are all banned in China already. So I suspect the state department would say something like, "the state department recommends banning TikTok."
    • droptablemain 2y ago
      I suspect the state dept. would say China banning Facebook/Twitter, etc. is an example of it being a "bad" or "totalitarian" "regime." But the U.S. banning Tik-Tok? Why that's just good ol' democracy at work!
      • jmbwell 2y ago
        One potential difference might be that china could be banning western media to stifle opposition, while the US could be banning TikTok primarily to protect its commercial interests. Though I guess you have a point if they are, fundamentally, indistinct justifications
• danieltanfh95 2y ago
  It is maddening to see people who usually are pretty serious and mature turn into zombies parroting whatever political propaganda the state decides to push out this year. Some key facts: 1. Tiktok isn’t allowed to sell because their AI models and algorithms are trained on Chinese citizenry data. These items have been marked as non-exports for some time now, and this is a well known fact by the people pushing for the bill. 2. The bill was only passed since it was shafted into a bundle of other more urgent bills that have to pass. 3. Not all American media companies are banned in China. Some refuse to comply with local laws and pulled out. For example, Apple and Microsoft complied. However the competition in China is immense and not every business can survive the capitalistic competition. 4. While there were talks about the ban, it was not until the overwhelming amount of Pro Palestinian content that led to the heavy push for the ban. 5. The US is a relatively tiny market for tiktok, so tiktok is likely to just pull out. What I think: 1. The date set for the sale is highly political, and IMO its meant to weaponise Gen Z against the democrats. 2. Pro Palestinian content is highly searchable on tiktok, and that made a lot of people unhappy and uncomfortable.
  • segasaturn 2y ago
    Agree strongly w/ this post. The irony of the comments claiming that TikTok is a Chinese propaganda tool is that TikTok is one of the only major social platforms that isn't totally controlled by Western propaganda. Reddit, Facebook, X etc. will all ban and downrank you for anti-Western wrongthink.
  • MaxHoppersGhost 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • insane_dreamer 2y ago
      any time you see a post talking about "compliance with local laws" when it comes to media companies, as if it were some sort of zoning or worker safety compliance issue, you know where the talking points are coming from :)
  • abvdasker 2y ago
• hogepiyo 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• icar 2y ago
  Given the recent law in the US to give the NSA full access to user data without court order, forcing Tiktok to be owned by a US company makes more sense.
  • wumeow 2y ago
    It does not force US ownership. Read the bill.
    • jtriangle 2y ago
      You're right, it's "US ownership or get banned". Not just tiktok either, this will wind up applying to many companies.
      • wumeow 2y ago
        > US ownership or get banned Wrong. Read it again very carefully.
        • jtriangle 2y ago
          I've read the complete bill at every stage of it's development. It places substantial fines on American companies who provide services that distribute, maintain or update any sufficiently popular apps where a company is headquartered in, or has more than a 20% ownership share of the company held, in a country that has been determined to be a foreign adversary. So sure, it's not "banned', it's just that they're made completely inaccessible to US users because nobody is going to be ok with paying substantial fines in order to allow it on their networks/servers/app stores. You do realize that, in english, we often use shortcuts to refer to things right? If something is "effectively" a ban, we just call it a ban and move on, because our language provides many, many facilities to improve efficiency. You being pedantic is, remarkably, unpleasant, and speaks poorly of your overall level of social adjustment, specifically because you are using the very language you speak incorrectly as you do so.
          • 2y ago
• eganist 2y ago
  The raw text of the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/815/text?itid=lk_inline_enhanced-template#H1DAB5129BC0949429666E66593E18128 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/815/...
  • 7373737373 2y ago
    Thank you! To repeat a comment I saw in another thread, including sources like this should be a journalistic standard
• themagician 2y ago
  Honestly, the loon who lit himself on fire the other day might have been onto something. The bill that the President just signed seems like an attempt to alienate at least 50% of voters under 30. It almost feels like the current administration is trying to give people a reason to vote for the other guy.
  • hall0ween 2y ago
    I interpreted it differently. That Biden was putting national interests ahead of reelection interests. That said, I should caveat that I tend not to read US based news cause it’s a cesspool of outrage based clickbait.
    • BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
      I think Biden continually torpedoes his appeal to the youth because he thinks there’s no need to appeal to leftist votes when the opponent is Trump.
• jquery 2y ago
  I don't use TikTok, but I strongly disapprove of this. Feels like we've stooped to China's level when it comes to free speech? All this has done is validate them banning Google and Facebook. What a petty move. I understand the theoretical security concerns, but this feels like total overkill.
  • MaxHoppersGhost 2y ago
    They already banned Facebook and Google. We should reciprocate everything they do to us.
    • latentcall 2y ago
      Why?
      • xdennis 2y ago
        Because you can't have good relations with someone when they profit off of you but don't allow you to. If your neighbor kept borrowing cups of sugar from you, but never lends you any sugar, would you keep giving him sugar?
        • gembeMx 2y ago
          Yes, it’s what Christ requires of us
  • asadotzler 2y ago
    This is either a bullshit argument or a wildly uninformed opinion. We've been banning foreign ownership of TV and radio in the US since 1934. How is this any different?
    • hnpolicestate 2y ago
      This isn't accurate. The government has never banned Americans from watching a foreign television show or listening to a foreign radio broadcast. Please don't distort history.
• ThinkBeat 2y ago
  I hope this will show the severity of threats countries face from social media and that things are no longer business as usual. Every European country /and/or EU/ECC as a block, as well as every other nation or block, should follow this up as soon as permitted to have all social media apps operated by a foreign country be subject to the same legislation. TikTok will have to sel to the US, Netherlands, France, Germany, Turkey, Gabon, Vietnam, Thailand, Mexico, Egypt etc etc etc. That will of course also go for all other social networks as well. The threats this bill highlights are universal to all social media operated outside the control and ownership, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube, WhatsApp, will either have to stop operating outside of the Unites States or they will need to be sold to every country they wish to operate in. Certainly, a small state has the same rights and the same cause to protect their citizens from the surveillance and manipulation from foreign owned social networks. From a geek perspective this would be great. We would get smaller entities that would need to interact with each other in so far as that would be possible or attainable.
  • vizzier 2y ago
    De-facto international antitrust, I like it.
    • malfist 2y ago
      I believe this would be de jure, not de facto.
      • paulddraper 2y ago
        It wouldn't be explicitly anti-trust, but that would be the practical effect.
  • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube, WhatsApp, will either have to stop operating outside of the Unites States or they will need to be sold to every country they wish to operate in TikTok can sell to a French, Hungarian, Indian, Brazilian or even Iraqi person and be in compliance with this bill's terms. It doesn't require American ownership, it forbids control by a foreign adversary. If the EU and U.S. passed legislation subjecting all tech companies to these rules, the only ones who would have to do anything are those owned and controlled by a foreign adversary state.
• EasyMark 2y ago
  I wonder if they couldn't sell to a more "friendly" to China country somewhere in Europe and then backdoor info out of there? Away from NSA/SS/FBI scanning and FISA courts. That would seem to be the best of all worlds for ByteDance if they could make it hard to audit the potential company and if the court challenge fails to have the whole thing dismissed as unconstitutional.
  • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > wonder if they couldn't sell to a more "friendly" to China country somewhere in Europe and then backdoor info out of there? It only counts if "the President determines, through an interagency process, would result in the relevant foreign adversary controlled application no longer being controlled by a foreign adversary" [1]. So presumably if a pair of Hungarian millionaires show up and place a bid, there would be additional questions. [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521/text*§ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521... 2(g)(6)*
    • ZoomerCretin 2y ago
      So this is almost certainly to ensure it lands in the hands of pro-Israeli censors.
      • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > this is almost certainly to ensure it lands in the hands of pro-Israeli censors No. Whomever is elected executive.
• moneycantbuy 2y ago
  good, not only is it malware/spyware, the chinese government can shape the beliefs and behaviors of > 100,000,000 americans at the flip of a switch. albeit users are idiots for giving their attention in the first place. and because capitalism = god, will probably end up selling to the saudis.
  • gverrilla 2y ago
    so this must be true for american social media in other countries aswell??? or is it exclusive to tiktok "because communism"?
    • moneycantbuy 2y ago
      yes, facebook can/does propagandize the populations of other countries, though perhaps slightly less nefariously than if an authoritarian/totalitarian government was at the helm. fb is banned in china so there is that. interesting times. all hail king zuck in his fbverse.
• electriclizard 2y ago
  What are the logistics for this? Does ByteDance clone their repo and make America the owner?
  • zeroonetwothree 2y ago
    Companies have divested in the past. You could look up some previous cases.
• ein0p 2y ago
  Reciprocity is a thing. I’m sure it won’t be difficult to suggest that certain US businesses operating in China “need to have Chinese owners” too. So I predict this will badly backfire. But on the whole I’m in favor of any and all laws undermining the mind cancer that is “social media”, irrespective of who controls it, worldwide.
  • lowbloodsugar 2y ago
    They already do that.
  • beambot 2y ago
    This action is reciprocity. X, YouTube, Facebook, New York Times & hundreds of others are already blocked in China...
  • warbaker 2y ago
    Forcing the sale of TikTok _is_ reciprocity. Facebook, Google, etc. are already banned in China. This is the CCP's policies backfiring.
    • ein0p 2y ago
      I mean reciprocity not just on the de-facto government propaganda outlets like US-controlled social media and search engines, but on the more tangible things related to all sorts of manufacturing and access to the vast and still growing Chinese markets.
  • insane_dreamer 2y ago
    They already do, for the most part, require a JV that is majority owned by Chinese. That has been around for a long time. (This is if you as a foreign business are operating locally and selling to Chinese consumers. If you're just doing your manufacturing in China and exporting abroad, you're in a different category.) Plus, foreign social media are blocked altogether unless they submit to Chinese government censorship. So there's not much that can backfire.
    • 2y ago
• devhead 2y ago
  we'll see what the courts say with this. American government used to decry "the great china firewall" yet here they come all holding hands to raise up an American one, against the American people. This is not a Ban on TikTok, it is a blockage and suppression of our freedom of speech, and to freely associate. The US government suddenly can find common grounds to do something and it's to restrict US? no thanks.
• GreedIsGood 2y ago
  If the US wants to argue reciprocity then it should in a trade bill. Requiring TikTok to sell is an overreach by the state. It will leads us on a path where companies will be strictly regional. Not a fan.
• ddp26 2y ago
  I looked into this, and here's what I think will happen [copied from another thread where I posted this]: - ByteDance will challenge the ruling in court (>95%), but they will lose (80%) - They then will succeed in selling TikTok US to a US company, despite what ByteDance execs and China are saying (75%) - The sale will be for $30-50B (CI 50%), it won't include important ByteDance IP that will have to be recreated by a US-based company, likely Snap or X. - Walmart and Oracle won’t compete to buy it this time. Microsoft or Amazon are the top contenders, also quite likely is a consortium led by someone like Steven Mnuchin. Rationales for the above in https://github.com/varunaai/tiktok-ban https://github.com/varunaai/tiktok-ban
  • josu 2y ago
    >The sale will be for $30-50B (CI 50%), it won't include important ByteDance IP that will have to be recreated by a US-based company, likely Snap or X. Why replicate it? Can't ByteDance license the IP to the US company?
    • ddp26 2y ago
      Maybe. Steve Mnuchin said he wants to partner with an AI company to replicate it. The CCP might prevent ByteDance from licensing it?
    • djur 2y ago
      The law doesn't technically prohibit this, but the President has to sign off before the app becomes un-banned, and the law does specifically call out "any cooperation with respect to the operation of a content recommendation algorithm" as the type of thing that the executive might take into account. So just renting a black-box recommender from ByteDance would likely be a no go.
  • nashashmi 2y ago
    it will have to be bought by a US company. The US company will have to be connected to the govt. The gears are already turning to make sure it happens just like they planned. Why else is Steve interested??
  • 2y ago
• luyu_wu 2y ago
  The thing that ticks me off is that there hasn't been conclusive evidence that actually justifies this ban. I'd be perfectly happy if the CIA came out with documents of how the data goes to China, but all I've seen is evidence to the contrary (e.g. servers in US, headquarters in SG etc). If I'm wrong, I'd gladly look at some linked articles of course.
  • RIMR 2y ago
    There isn't really any evidence of the supposed threats we've heard about from Congress. It's pretty much bog-standard sinophobia / anti-communist scaremongering.
    • coffeemug 2y ago
      If any ideology or regimes espousing it have earned scaremongering, it's communism.
  • AlphaSite 2y ago
    If nothing else the ban on foreign ownership of Chinese companies alone feels like it justifies some reciprocal action. No US (or otherwise) company can operate in China, but the reverse is not true.
    • bogdan 2y ago
      Exactly. It's unclear whether the primary goal of TikTok regulation is to genuinely safeguard young users or to prepare the public for further restrictions on other Chinese companies. Regardless, given China's advanced development beyond what many in the West perceive, I think it's important for western countries to start taking protective measures. TikTok is unimportant in the grand scheme of things.
    • aragonite 2y ago
      > No US (or otherwise) company can operate in China Not true taken literally, obviously; not true if taken as saying "only JVs are allowed" either. According to the Department of Commerce (https://www.export.gov/apex/article2?id=China-Establishing-an-Office https://www.export.gov/apex/article2?id=China-Establishing-a...): > A large majority of new foreign investments in China are WFOEs [wholly foreign owned enterprises], rather than JVs. As Chinese legal entities, WFOEs experience greater independence than ROs, are allowed exclusive control over carrying out business activities while abiding by Chinese law and are granted intellectual and technological rights. Also (https://arc-group.com/china-company-setup/ https://arc-group.com/china-company-setup/): > WFOE refers to a limited liability company that is 100% invested, owned by foreign investors, and independently operated. Almost 60% of foreign-owned companies are WFOEs, making it the most adopted business type. Famous multinational companies such as Apple, Amazon, Oracle, and General Electric are all examples of WFOEs.
• whyenot 2y ago
  US lawmakers are deeply concerned that TikTok might exploit some of the data they collect on their users, ...yet they turn a blind eye to the fact that GM not only collected driving data on their users, apparently in some cases without consent, but they sold it to others, including auto insurers, who used the information to increase the insurance rates of those who were spied on.
  • BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
    Hey come on man it’s America. Pretending poor people dont exist is the name of the game.
  • ZoomerCretin 2y ago
    Poor drivers who are likely to cause accidents should pay higher rates. If you don't like it, you're more than welcome to drive a 10 year old clunker. There is no difference between what GM did and what any social media company does. At least with GM selling driving data, there is significant public benefit to making bad driver pay for their poor driving instead of the rest of us having to pay for it.
• markus_zhang 2y ago
  Since we are already being controversial, can we simply ban or regulate all short videos -- similar to the duration cap the Chinese government put up for gaming for people less than 18? My wife has been doom scrolling for hours every day. At least get something good in return. Even if Tiktok decides to leave US, there are a whole lot of other short video apps that can fill in the blank.
  • BLKNSLVR 2y ago
    This isn't about making anything "better for society", this is about nation state power games. That's why there's been no movement on data privacy legislation in 15+ years: because it would hobble a heavily US-centric profitable industry (with the side benefit that the data can be mined by US law enforcement and intelligence - which is directly the problem the US government has with TikTok / China)
    • markus_zhang 2y ago
      Yeah I know that, just saying.
      • BLKNSLVR 2y ago
        Sad innit.
  • spiderice 2y ago
    Maybe your wife should be a big girl and gain some self control instead of needing the government to take it away from everyone. Just because she has a problem doesn't mean actual adults need their freedom taken away.
• throwaway69123 2y ago
  China should retaliate and ban all US ownership of chinese companies
• FpUser 2y ago
  They can make web client and show middle finger. If this happens the US will be forced to block domains and VPNs.
  • charonn0 2y ago
    The law applies to websites too.
    • FpUser 2y ago
      What law? They can block domain but that's about it.
      • charonn0 2y ago
        The law in the OP specifically includes websites, DNS, hosting, etc. And this isn't some greyweb torrent site with a thousand heads. Without access to US advertisers there's no reason why Tiktok should even want to have US users.
• Tiktaalik 2y ago
  Not entirely sure what evil thing the CCP is doing with the TikTok data that I like cat videos.
• resters 2y ago
  There is absolutely no justification for the US copying CCP policies. This is an embarrassing day for the US. Tiktok has been the only place to see videos about police brutality and one of the main places to see the movement supporting the Palestinian cause. I feel so much shame as an American that my country did this.
  • commie 2y ago
    [flagged]
  • mjfl 2y ago
    > one of the main places to see the movement supporting the Palestinian cause. hmmm....
    • resters 2y ago
      It reveals the extent of suppression of those ideas on other platforms, nothing more. I don't think there is anything scary/bad about Americans seeing content that humanizes people who have been dehumanized by the US media for as long as I can remember.
  • hnpolicestate 2y ago
    [flagged]
  • anon373839 2y ago
    > I feel so much shame as an American that my country did this. You’re ashamed that TikTok can continue to operate here so long as it’s divested of CCP control?
    • resters 2y ago
      The relationship between TikTok and the CCP is no different than the relationship between Google/Meta/Microsoft and the US Government.
      • 2y ago
• hnpolicestate 2y ago
  [flagged]
• rvz 2y ago
  A fine is much better than a ban. But you all voted for Biden to 'save TikTok' and he is banning it anyway 4 years when Trump was about to ban it himself. [0] Congratulations, you've played yourselves back to back. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24024491 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24024491
• hankchinaski 2y ago
  Insiders at TikTok say US is a relatively small market for them and they would not mind pulling out of the market. This is the most likely scenario than an outright sale to US entities
• BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
  Look, I think this is potentially oversimplifying things, but imo this is just a reaction to the youth seeing pro-Palestinian positions on social media. The fervor around banning tik tok was reignited around the time that it started being more common to see such things on the app.
  • djur 2y ago
    Congress has been working on this for 3+ years. This really started heating up after Shou Zi Chew's poorly received testimony to Congress in March 2023.
  • Argonaut998 2y ago
    Absolutely. Trump proposed banning TikTok during his term and he was laughed at. As I said in another comment this is censorship (and Chinese style protectionism) being disguised as national security. Even if there were efforts to ban TikTok before that time, this obviously escalated it.
• danielhep 2y ago
  The way I see this is that democracy is extremely susceptible to tools that can change public opinion en masse. This of course applies to Western social media as much as TikTok, and I'd love to see regulation around all social media algorithms to ensure they're unbiased. I see this as a good start to counter a real threat, which is China's ability to influence US elections through TikTok.
  • hnthrowaway0328 2y ago
    Overall we would want to give good education to children but sadly many parents resort to electronics quite early. There really should be a law to ban cell phones and pad for children less than 5.
    • r14c 2y ago
      Improving the economics would help too. Raising a kid when both parents probably have to work presents challenges that just don't exist if most careers could support a family on a single income.
  • mjfl 2y ago
    This is the same logic as would be used in banning the translation of the bible or the printing press. For any sufficiently concerned state, 'unbiased' means 'agrees with me'. For example, it may be seen in the USA to be 'unbiased' to be completely uncritical of Israel (anti-Zionism is anti-semitism according the US congress bill H.Res.894). However, this is not the case anywhere else in the world, including Israel (which criticizes itself sometimes), in fact it would seem quite insane.
  • roncesvalles 2y ago
    If this were true, TikTok wouldn't have ended up in a ban.
    • tptacek 2y ago
      It's not being banned.
• hnpolicestate 2y ago
  This is the 3rd time I'm trying to share a perspective that keeps getting flagged. Bytedance does not have to divest because it's against the law for the U.S government to prevent Americans from reading, viewing or saying what they want. Will be struck down by SCOTUS. Does this comply with HN's site guidelines?
  • lr4444lr 2y ago
    I think you're getting downvoted, because the right of congress to manage affairs interstate and foreign commerce has nothing to do with the content Americans read. The objection is ownership/controlling interest, and any SCOTUS ruling will have to speak to that, not first amendment issues.
    • hnpolicestate 2y ago
      I appreciate the feedback but I disagree. The law would prevent Google and Apple from hosting the TikTok APK on their app stores if the company refuses to divest, yes? I don't think it's legal for the government to tell Google or Apple what apps they can host.
      • asadotzler 2y ago
        It is absolutely legal. You are simply under-educated in this area. Read up and try again.
  • cheriot 2y ago
    TikTok isn't going away. It's changing owners. There's existing laws about the citizenship of property owners (broadcase media for example).
  • anon373839 2y ago
    I don’t know why you’re being flagged, but your constitutional analysis is wrong.
  • JoshuaJB 2y ago
    This law does not prevent Americans from reading, viewing, or saying anything. You will still be free to visit TikTok's web client and do that. This prevents US companies from doing business with the company (eg. ads, app distribution, etc).
• tamimio 2y ago
  All of this just to limit the spread of Palestinians contents in the young generation, since the ADL has a strong “influence” on all other big social media except TikTok (there’s even videos of ADL’s CEO complaining about tiktok Palestinians contents and young generation not supporting Israel), AIPAC came to the rescue and asked its puppets in both red/blue parties to pass the bill, while they also make some cash out of it as reported that some politicians bought $META stocks before voting the bill. That’s the root reason, any other reason mentioned is just a diversion. The illusion of freedom and democracy in the US.
  • mjfl 2y ago
    You are correct.
  • phailhaus 2y ago
    India banned TikTok in 2020, so this conversation has been going on way before the current conflict in Gaza. Not everything is a conspiracy related to the issues you care about.
    • tamimio 2y ago
      What I listed above are facts, not a conspiracy, you are welcome to look them up. > India banned TikTok I don’t know much about India and I’m talking about the US, but I know India has a law to control the contents of social media and requires these companies to hire local employees that will be held as “hostages” if the content in question is not removed, something Elon mentioned few times too about twitter in India. > before the current conflict in Gaza. The war on Gaza has been going for more than 16years and the Palestinians issue for more than 70years. You can read more about the issue here (1) Additionally, when the senators invited TikTok CEO last year, several senators (and I remember Ted Cruz specifically) mentioned the anti-israel contents back then, which you can also look it up, it’s just you don’t pay attention or lack the ability to connect the dots. (1) https://ifamericansknew.org https://ifamericansknew.org
      • phailhaus 2y ago
• mjfl 2y ago
  The problem with the logic, that a geopolitical adversary shouldn't control a social media company, is that our domestic political system has, as of late, acted quite adversarial to its own population. For that reason, it's not clear to me if China is really a foreign enemy, or an enemy of an enemy. For now, I and many of the younger generation clearly consider it to be the latter, and I will resist all efforts of the current regime to suppress it, until all members of the current regime are swept from power.
  • asadotzler 2y ago
    You can vote out your own representatives, you cannot do the same for China. If this isn't an obvious distinction to you, maybe consider why.
    • mjfl 2y ago
      not if both candidates are captured.
• tonfreed 2y ago
  I don't see why the West should allow government corporations from China to operate within their borders. It's not like there's reciprocal agreements in place that allow the inverse.
• freeopinion 2y ago
  This, to me, is one of those defining actions that will stand forever as a sign post for what America is at the moment of the event. As such, it is incredibly discouraging to me. I don't write this in defense of TikTok or China. I'm just sad for the United States. I imagine a scene where a wagon train of poor pilgrims is surrounded on all sides and all the poor children are crouching behind anything they can find. As the camera angle widens out you see a U.S. Cavalry officer order a rescue team to single out attackers and pull them out of their perches. They go around inspecting attackers one at a time, checking their footwear. Anybody in mocassins is pulled off the line and sent packing. Anybody wearing boots is left in place and encouraged to keep shooting. Especially if they are wearing a cavalry uniform. Just before the scene ends you see somebody in mocassins run back to their horse and pull out a pair of boots, hurrying to get back into the action.
  • krapp 2y ago
    Outdated racist stereotypes aside, how are we meant to interpret the scene you're setting?
• troll_v_bridge 2y ago
  I’m surprised I don’t hear many speak on the trade embargo aspects of something like TikTok. US social media is blocked from China, so from an economic policy perspective why wouldn’t the trade embargo me mutual, Tit4Tat.
  • benced 2y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40151662 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40151662
  • dareal 2y ago
    this is not an economic nor trade issue though
• andy99 2y ago
  I'm very late to this - how do you ban something on the internet? Can't they just keep operating and people will learn how to sideload the app or use a VPN to get it or whatever they need to do? Presumably it will mean some friction but couldn't the company just call the bluff?
  • crindy 2y ago
    I believe this will legally mandate that Google and Apple remove the app from their app stores. It will still be available online.
  • tijtij 2y ago
    How does China ban Facebook? Rhetoric aside, it will be done through blocking commercial activity on US soil. The US government can seize tiktok.com for example.
  • callalex 2y ago
    There’s a lot of nuance to the answer, but the easy way to understand is: They don’t host videos for fun, they host videos so you will watch ads. If they can’t sell ads for US$ then they won’t host videos either.
  • system2 2y ago
    Who do you think controls VPN? Do you still trust VPNs?
    • troq13 2y ago
      Unclear what your conspiracy is, it is a fact you can get around a government ban with a VPN. It just doesn't solve the problem at hand.
      • system2 2y ago
        You realize they can also ban VPN IPs right?
        • 2y ago
• barfard 2y ago
  [dead]
• benced 2y ago
  The WTO allows China to ban American social networks - which would otherwise be required to be allowed under its general principle of parity - because of its "public morals" exception (https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/repertory_e/g4_e.htm#G.4.2 https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/repertory_e/g4_...). I personally don't think that exception should exist and I'm OK banning it solely on trade parity grounds.
  • seanmcdirmid 2y ago
    China doesn't actually ban American social networks, not officially at least. They just don't work for some reason due to technical issues. China has never said "we ban Facebook and Google", you just wake up one day and they aren't working anymore.
    • vitorgrs 2y ago
      And as far I know, if you go there with roaming ON with your phone, these social networks still work as well.
      • tivert 2y ago
        > And as far I know, if you go there with roaming ON with your phone, these social networks still work as well. That's because roaming phone traffic is routed through your home carrier, through whatever telephone traffic peering agreement the phone companies have. If a Chinese person roams to the US using a Chinese cell phone plan, it works in the other direction. So their phone is still behind the great firewall even though they're physically outside of China.
    • dluan 2y ago
      in practicality it doesnt matter because you can easily circumvent it with a VPN and nearly every single person does
      • nmfisher 2y ago
        That was the case when I was living there, but I've read a lot of people saying that VPNs aren't nearly as effective any more.
• dluan 2y ago
  ultimately, china operates on an entirely separate internet that the NSA can't get access to without having to be explicit about it in some very public way. when reddit removed their warrant canary, it was seen as just a cost of doing business an american social media platform. the US can't do full take even with a company based in singapore. the mask comes off when all the senate testimony yesterday focused on 'national security' and it comes wrapped in defense spending for ukraine and taiwan.
• 0xB31B1B 2y ago
  If the security angle is the real issue here, how would "divestment" improve security here at all? Tiktok engineering in the US is like 90% chinese H1B holders, they speak mandarin at work broadly across the company including in work meetings to the extent that many people say you can't work there without mandarin knowledge. The codebase is massive. I don't think it is possible for any amount of auditing or reviewing to create sufficient separation between US/tiktok and China/Bytedance. Bad actors and CCP plants can and will put in backdoors, and bytedance will have access to all of the encryption keys for the important services and databases. It just seems completely unworkable to me. I'm support the full ban, I don't think divestment makes any sense.
  • ClumsyPilot 2y ago
    > create sufficient separation between US/tiktok and China/Bytedance What are the code standards for American social media anyway? It’s not like Twitter has to meet any criteria on being free of Bias, they could suppress all bad news about China tomorrow and they wouldn’t be breaking any laws I think it’s plain as day, this is simply a trade war, along with noises about China dumping cars and what not. All the stuff about security is just a cover story.
  • mu53 2y ago
    They won't divest. The option for divestment just makes the US look less bad. They didn't ban the app. They chose to leave
  • nine_k 2y ago
    I think this is the point, and the outcome desired by the bill's proponents. There's no way to meaningfully achieve separation, so the only viable way to comply is to largely cease active operations. Maybe access to previously shared / liked content would remain, without a way to discover, access, or post new content, or register a new account.
• tptacek 2y ago
  There's nothing really new about this, right? The same thing happened in the last administration with Grindr, so famously that it was a plot point on Silicon Valley.
• doakes 2y ago
  Misinformation is a security risk that comes both from deliberate sabotage as well as monetary incentives. If it bleeds, it leads. I'm not in favor of censorship like this or social medias tagging things as "fake news" but how else do we prevent people from believing everything they see on these platforms?
• ngcc_hk 2y ago
  Should be an eye for an eye. If china allow WhatsApp and Facebook etc in then USA can have WeChat …. If not all should not be allowed. Not just TikTok.
• homefree 2y ago
  Good - the ccp influence over what content is elevated or censored on TikTok is a serious national security problem, forcing a divesture is good independent of the inequality on trade with the ccp blocking American companies. If they refuse to divest it’ll be even more obvious it’s the ccp tool we suspect it is. Also the TikTok ceo lied about this under oath in Congress: https://www.rubio.senate.gov/rubio-calls-for-doj-investigation-into-tiktok-ceo-committing-perjury/ https://www.rubio.senate.gov/rubio-calls-for-doj-investigati... Stratechery also had a good write up on this issue from a while back: https://stratechery.com/2020/the-tiktok-war/ https://stratechery.com/2020/the-tiktok-war/ Nice to see some bipartisan support on something.
• anon291 2y ago
  I'm so happy Biden has continued to basically keep Trumpian policy on China. Say what you like about Trump, but his election actually changed American policy for the better in this regard.
• LeroyRaz 2y ago
  I support this move. It seems pretty naive to me for people to whine about this ban curbing free speech or fairness when TikTok can directly be used by a belligerent superpower (China) to undermine those values.
  • bl4ckneon 2y ago
    Do we have proof of that though. Other than "China bad" and the parent company being partially owned by China. It's really banning it on a hypothetical and TikTok doesn't exist in a vacuum. There are many other platforms and I would argue that X does more censorship than TikTok does.
    • LeroyRaz 2y ago
      Yeah, I think there is lots evidence that social media companies use their platform to support favourable narratives. X is one example. X spinning a pro X narrative is problematic, just as it is bad Facebook hid their problem with teenage mental health, etc... all these types of things are problematic and can often harm people and society. The reason TikTok is a greater concern is that TikTok is fully controlled by China, and that hence it is not just pro TikTok narratives that might be amplified but any narrative China wants to amplify. The risks are greater, and the existing mitigations are weaker as the company isn't US owned. If you ask me, the US in recent history has had incredibly anemic corporate regulation, and there should be a lot more intervention to prevent companies acting nefariously.
      • janalsncm 2y ago
        Just to be clear, your position is that it could be used by China, not that it is being used? I agree with this position.
        • asadotzler 2y ago
          And that's sufficiently concerning to nip this in the bud now. It is either happening or could be made to happen with ease and neither of those are good outcomes.
• chiefalchemist 2y ago
  Question: Biden will also soon sign the extension to the FISA surveillance powers. How is the ownership of TikTok (and location of the data centers) impacted by the expansion of FISA powers? https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-renews-fisa-section-702-spying-privacy-rcna148394 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-renews-fisa...
• ojbyrne 2y ago
  One thing that confuses me about all this is that ByteDance has significant US ownership. Is this just a way for Jeff Yass-led hedge funds to get a cheap price on the rest of ByteDance?
• JimmaDaRustla 2y ago
  Biden better cancel some debt forgiveness in order to pay for the lawsuit
  • esalman 2y ago
    That's not how it works.
• whatasaas 2y ago
  If you told me Facebook directed some AI chatbots here to discuss how great this is, I'd believe you. It seems the initial comments are positive, followed by a lot of arguing. It's usually pointless debates, like whether it's a ban. Yes, it is effectively a ban, similar to imposing a million-dollar tax per gun, or required to be age 85, which essentially bans something protected by an amendment. Then there are those calling for regulations and bans, which is strange. I can manage my app usage and my kids', but I can't control safety regulations for trains carrying toxic chemicals. And then there are the trade war advocates; at what point does this back-and-forth justify losing rights and access? I don't care if China becomes like North Korea. The bill also mentions website and service providers, meaning it could block access through websites too. We should have rights to privacy, encryption, and anonymous whistleblowing without government interference in every social media platform.
  • PM_me_your_math 2y ago
    [dead]
  • budududuroiu 2y ago
    It’s not about you and your kids’ usage, it’s about the general population. Let’s not be naive, TikTok is the 2020s version of “Radio Free X”, a state-backed propaganda tool where anyone can run targeted ads with pinpoint geo accuracy, and cause division and social unrest. And unlike Facebook or YouTube, you can’t hold a company owned by a near-peer geopolitical adversary liable in the US.
    • Golden_Wind123 2y ago
      At this point Tiktok is getting more regulatory action against it than Facebook has....and Facebook's lax moderation spread the wildfire of genocide in Myanmar.
      • budududuroiu 2y ago
        As it should. This might sound insensitive, but we’re drifting back to an era of realpolitik in geopolitics. Facebook fanning the flames of a genocide in Myanmar has little effect on US citizens, TikTok does.
• dareal 2y ago
  It's absurd that people are rationalizing this by saying "oh, China doesn't allow US companies to enter their market either," which has been this case in the past 50 years, or "backdoor used by CCP bad bad" without any evidence other than the company being Chinese. It shows how easy people will buy into whatever you feed them when everyone else is saying the same thing. China is never a country with free market. The hypocrisy is glaring when one claiming as a free market while passing a law that outright rob a company in the day light, under the name of "national security". American people should be embarrassed by this. The government is using to the same tactics as a so-called authoritarian communist country, if not worse.
• dareal 2y ago
  It's so ironic that in the future, some Americans may use a VPN to log onto TikTok to practice their right to freedom of expression, while all the local social medias will ban them, lol.
  • djur 2y ago
    The law doesn't require or permit blocking access to Chinese servers, and virtually no current TikTok users are going to use VPNs to access it.
• IronWolve 2y ago
  Cars spy on more americans than tiktok.
• codelord 2y ago
  If you are on TikTok and you don't think CCP has all your personal data TikTok has collected from you, I have a bridge to sell you.
  • root_axis 2y ago
    Why is that a problem?
    • wordsinaline 2y ago
      [flagged]
      • waihtis 2y ago
        [flagged]
        • wordsinaline 2y ago
          Are there seriously neo-communists on YC? I can understand reddit, but here?
          • waihtis 2y ago
            Yes. It's paradoxical, but apparent if you engage in any kind of political discourse over here. Nerds have always had some of the worst political stances, not because they're dumb but because they bend in face of the slightest pressure of losing social capital - in the current climate, this usually means submitting to the most psychotic leftist interpretation that is physically proximate to them. Explains the politics of places like SF quite well.
  • nimih 2y ago
    I think this is a pretty commonly held belief at this point in time, and I'd be somewhat surprised if you could change even a single American TikTok user's behavior by convincing them of it, since, anecdotally, people seem to lump it in with their general feeling that tech and advertising companies already harvest and share vast amounts of personal information, and conclude that protecting that information is a lost cause, and they may as well use the fun app.
• newcommer 2y ago
  I suggest US and China to be merged in to One Great Country in the planet.And as a result, US will be great again, so as China.
• consumer451 2y ago
  I happen to personally agree with the general concept of making the CCP divest from the leading social media platform in the USA. I also wonder if the KSA should be forced to divest from X/Twitter. Prior to owning part of X/Twitter, they did this [0], which led to to the worst of what one could imagine. What is happening now? But my main question is, are there any other examples of forced divestiture, aside from Firefly Aerospace? [1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_infiltration_of_Twitter#Aftermath https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_infiltration_of_Twitter#... [1] https://spacenews.com/firefly-halts-launch-preparations-after-federal-government-seeks-divestment-of-foreign-ownership/ https://spacenews.com/firefly-halts-launch-preparations-afte...
  • jeswin 2y ago
    > I also wonder if the the KSA should be forced to divest from Twitter. There is no equivalence. The KSA has no ability or ambition to shape the world. The royal family just wants to keep their kingdom business running, and even for that they're dependent on the US.
    • TaylorAlexander 2y ago
      > The KSA has no ability or ambition to shape the world. This seems obviously false. They host conferences talking about how they want to shape the world. KSA has interests, and they will want to use any power they have to further their interests.
      • jeswin 2y ago
        China's economy is 20 times their size, and their population about 40 times larger. And there's no comparison in industrial capability.
        • consumer451 2y ago
          How is this at all a response to the parent comment?
    • 2y ago
• jeswin 2y ago
  The US should have the courage to do more. Order a full investigation into whether personal data was ever made available to the CCP. If data was ever shared, then there should be no payout to ByteDance.
  • otabdeveloper4 2y ago
    Does the US have a legal definition of what exactly constitutes "personal data"?
  • mapasj 2y ago
    This is a tech-savvy bunch in HN. I’d like to encourage my fellow hackernews users to counter this narrative that imo is being pushed by TikTok and the CCP, which is this one about data privacy. It’s a comfortable one for TikTok to attack since they can point to abuses by other tech giants. Every breath spoken or word written about personal data feeds into the CCP strategy. Instead we should be educating our peers, friends and families about the real danger from TikTok which is that it can spread propaganda. Not just influencing Americans to support pro-CCP positions. But there is a lot of negative press about the CCP that TikTok can hide or suppress. This isn’t hypothetical, it’s been happening already. I have faith young TikTok users can understand this. Congress understands this and they did the right thing (for Americans).
    • labrador 2y ago
      More simply put: The issue is propaganda, not privacy
  • silenced_trope 2y ago
    They have to divest in 9 months, in other words, Biden is potentially kicking the decision to Trump, who is now against a TikTok ban. Why such a long timeline? It leaves open the door for Trump getting into office and immediately rolling it back such that they don't have to.
  • gigatexal 2y ago
    This whole thing is so very simple. There is a brewing (cold for now) conflict with China and the US and it just makes 1000% sense to me that TikTok not be in the US. It poses to severe a potential national security threat from it being on phones of members of the military, or Congress, to being able to subtly influence elections or shape the minds of the next generation with tweaks to the algorithm. The algorithm for tailoring content to the user is just so very good the POTENTIAL is there for abuse that an outright ban needs to happen. (I know they’re trying to allow it to be spun but I’m more hardline here and think it just needs to be removed from the US.) Why would the US or any power allow a social network with such a powerful algorithm to learn so much about every user when US or other social networks can’t or don’t operate in China? China censors content a la the thought police of Orwell’s 1984. Yet democracies largely allow speech to be free and accessible which is why the most popular podcast host in the world often hosts crazy people like Alex Jones and that’s okay — it’s not illegal to have insane opinions or conversations. So China is exporting a social network that COULD be used to control, shape, etc — otherwise emit propaganda on US users, it could spy on those same users be it location data or otherwise (imagine the dirt it probably has on members of Congress) and yet US social networks don’t get to operate in China to the same extent. The US government is under no obligation to this US voter, at least, to share some bombshell investigation because the potential is there and it shouldn’t be. This is not different than removing ZTE and Huwawei hardware and software from sensitive US networks and such. In the event of a conflict do we really want companies who have members of the CCP in their upper mgmt or who are otherwise expected to do as told to be in sensitive areas like military or power generation or telecommunications? Of course not.
• Deprogrammer9 2y ago
  Oh im sure come election time this wont come back to bite them at all lol.
• webworker 2y ago
  There is some weird inversion going on here. First, I can't find a reason why anyone would laud banning this app. It seems like it's done A LOT for the creator economy, more than Snapchat or Instagram did for anyone before TikTok took off. Second, I'm surprised at the amount of China-hate I'm seeing in here, and elsewhere, over this app. So far, they don't appear to have actually committed any crimes, it's a lot of posturing about what they could do. Meanwhile, things that were actually a threat (the "weather balloons" over DoD installations) were hand-waved away by TPTB and allowed to traverse pretty much the whole country before any action was taken. Huh??
  • Argonaut998 2y ago
    Go into any thread in the past surrounding this TikTok ban and the comments are the exact opposite.
• gigatexal 2y ago
  I see this as a national security threat that it is. The potential for abuse from the CCP on the minds of US users exists as does the tracking the app could do and every data point that is generated is stored and potentially useful for blackmail or otherwise on members of Congress or others. The US and its allies got rid of Chinese telecom hardware from their networks for the very same reasons now it’s time to do the same with TikTok. Would you let an enemy supply you with the very same kit you would use to fight them? No. Would you let that same adversary install an app on your most used device to watch and track you? Hah no. A spin to a US company is not enough. It needs to cease operating in the US because there’s no surety that even with a spin data and sharing won’t get back to ByteDance China. Parallel to this we need a federal national data privacy law that protects us but also cracks down on the huge industry of data brokers selling Americans’ data to anyone that has cash.
  • logicchains 2y ago
    >I see this as a national security threat that it is. The US government is a far greater danger to the average American than the Chinese government is, and this bill just gives even more power to the US government to dominate its citizens.
    • computerfriend 2y ago
      This statement is not obviously true.
      • retrochameleon 2y ago
        It is also a logical fallacy. Even if it is true that the US is a greater threat in some sense, that doesn't invalidate that China is also a threat. It also doesn't justify not taking this action.
      • BeFlatXIII 2y ago
        [ citation needed ]
    • nyokodo 2y ago
• up2isomorphism 2y ago
  US can easily use the free trade as the ground to ban TikTok, instead it uses an subpar excuses that often used by CCP. This shows how incompetent and how bad current US leadership is in term of understanding what makes US to a the most powerful country in the first place.
  • chipdart 2y ago
    > US can easily use the free trade as the ground to ban TikTok, instead it uses an subpar excuses that often used by CCP. I think this is the absolute best way to address this. It forces people to realize and acknowledge that even China's CCP is well aware that companies like TikTok are a major security threat which justifies this type of action. I wonder why we have anonymous accounts spreading this nonsense that this is a mere trade issue, as if the problem is a company that generates well below $5B in revenue, and not the data harvesting operation and propaganda arm that it is designed to be.
• nme01 2y ago
  Totally for it. Now it’s time for EU to ban TikTok but also Instagram, Facebook and other socials for the very same reasons US bans TikTok
  • angio 2y ago
    I love how the EU introducing privacy laws and fining american companies when they break said laws is bad and the EU is overstepping their boundaries, but the US forcing the sale of a foreign company is totally cool.
• andy_ppp 2y ago
  Look if Facebook and Google aren’t allowed in China why the hell should we allow Chinese tech firms in the US or Europe for that matter?
• morpheuskafka 2y ago
  If I understood the law correctly, it bans providing US-based hosting or distribution services to TikTok, but doesn’t require ISPs to ban traffic to it (which is not always straightforward to do anyway). Could TikTok just revert to fully Chinese hosting (or more likely a third country) and operate as a totally foreign company? You can already access many Chinese sites like Baidu Maps or Zhihu or Xiaohongshu from the US.
• squigz 2y ago
  Can someone convince me that, as a Canadian, China poses a greater threat to me, my country, or global security, than the US does? Because I have a hard time buying into the "China's the big bad" narrative when America does everything they do.
  • mapasj 2y ago
    For starters, I don’t think America will hold Canadians hostage to be used as bargaining chips, like China did with the two Michaels.
    • ranguna 2y ago
      I wish that I had more exact knowledge and sources at hand to counter your example, but I don't. Not because they don't exist, but because at the moment the only source I can get with relative ease are these YouTube videos: https://youtu.be/R5au74auD_k https://youtu.be/R5au74auD_k https://youtu.be/jUGILxwkpVc https://youtu.be/jUGILxwkpVc And the channel itself is pretty great. So I do apologise for not getting a list of factual examples supporting the OP's statement, but your argument was not barely enough to make me disagree with the OP. On the contrary, I do agree with the OP very much.
  • RomanAlexander 2y ago
    Do you actually need reasons why a liberal society wouldn't want the largest source Americans receive news from to be run by a wildly illiberal society?
    • squigz 2y ago
      I don't think that's what I asked about at all.
  • ThalesX 2y ago
    With you on this one. As a European, I can't help but laugh at the comments in this thread. Words like 'obviously', 'clearly' when it comes to the dangers of TikTok and not a single piece of evidence. It's hilarious to see the psyopped scream psyops.
• rafaelero 2y ago
  What a pathetic move. Feel bad for the state of the US.
• pkphilip 2y ago
  This whole subject of blocking Tiktok raises the question as to why companies such as Bytedance aren't punished as malicious actors when the data being captured by them is clearly meant for malicious use. We really should have a way of judging if any data being captured by an app is in good faith or if it is being done in a clearly fraudulent or malicious manner and then punish or shutdown the malicious operators. Tiktok has been proven to be manipulative and also as an arm of the CCP. However, what about other apps which seem to capture data that makes no sense to them? For example, if your note taking app is secretly uploading data from your contact list - that should be clearly seen as malicious in comparison to say your e-commerce app storing details about your purchase history made on that app to determine what may be going on with you. Even the second part is a bit shady but at least you can make a case that it may be just a way to sell more things. But many apps capture data that cannot make any business sense to the company behind that app other than being something quite malicious - like for example: - Uber secretly recording your screen on iphone EVEN WHILE the app was NOT EVEN BEING USED using API which Apple conveniently did not disclose to anyone else other than Uber and perhaps other shady operators! - Chrome caught secretly sending audio transcripts back to the Google servers. Why would a browser need to send audio transcripts by secretly tapping into the microphone? - Nest using microphones which were only revealed much later. Why would a smoke alarm need audio? - Why do apps like Whatsapp - even in the web version, secretly take the data from the clipboard (copy buffer)? Why would an app need the data in the clipboard before it is even pasted into it? Any company capturing or using such data should be required to provide evidence that this data was captured for a legitimate reason - and be punished if they are not able to provide this data with the principals of the company being treated like organized crime operators. Anything else is just pointless.
• zhengiszen 2y ago
  Tiktok is banned indirectly because of the Gaza war and and its coverage by American youth. It is too free and is one of the last medium that show the reality on the ground and thus must be shut, banned to smithereens. Next step like Israelis have done is to shut Al Jazeera from the US. The same had been done in Europe against Russian media... "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then ..."
• zrn900 2y ago
  > Would you think it would've been a good idea to have foreign investors from Nazi Germany run newspapers and radios in the states in the 1930s and leading up there? They didn't need to - William Hearst - the Murdoch of the era - signed a $500,000/year contract with the Nazi Government and did that propaganda on their behalf. It was worse after the US entered the war - legions of US companies kept trading with Nazis and even provided technology to them - like the technology that was used in developing half trucks. The oil, equipment and technology that the US companies were still selling to the Nazis through intermediary countries were killing American soldiers. Did anything happen to them? No - they were persecuted for 'trading with the enemy' and got off with a slap on the wrist and KEPT TRADING with Nazis until the end of the war. ... So no, your example does not hold any weight. The only reason the US is trying to ban Tiktok is because it cant compete and it doesn't own a big piece of it. Its anti competitive behavior and its not new - despite yammering about 'free trade', the US applies trade quotas even to the allies it has 'free trade' agreements with. 'Free trade' is in quotes, because the 'free trade' always happens on the US side - if the other side starts doing too much 'free trade', the US does what it is doing to Tiktok - ban them. This is despicable as hell. It will gimp the position of the US in world trade A LOT.
• jonesn11 2y ago
  The algorithm's novelty and recommendation accuracy is so far beyond what other competitors like Google, Snapchat, and Meta have that this seems like a coordinated effort by the private sector to push forth their mediocre products and centralize social media service which I absolutely DETEST. The saddest thing is that it seems like the U.S citizens, (i.e ANY of tiktoks 160 MILLION US users) have absolutely no say in the operations, yet we actually interact with the app not these old people in Congress. The fact that Biden so swiftly signed the bill too makes me frustrated as I want to vote for him, but he keeps doing or okaying things that are counter to my values.
• Log_out_ 2y ago
  If China suddenly became democratic, that law would be repealed?
• slim 2y ago
  the length they go to singling out one social media company, to avoid regulating the whole market and protecting peope from mass control and manipulation
• plnii 2y ago
  I’m for this. China cannot be trusted to let TikTok simply be a business running an app. This can and will be weaponized against the US whenever it benefits China. Which is to say likely right now.
• Slava_Propanei 2y ago
  [dead]