3 ms·

But TikTok was not banned… Nor was this about speech. It was about Chinese CCP ownership and control. If the CCP divests and sells it to an American company, Ti

But TikTok was not banned… Nor was this about speech. It was about Chinese CCP ownership and control. If the CCP divests and sells it to an American company, TikTok will live on.

starttoaster 2y ago
Can't you argue that stifling speech is as bad as all out forbidding it? And if it's about CCP ownership and control, I guess we should probably institute a ban on relying on China for anything at all, including building all of the cell phones kids watch TikTok from. Interesting how the narrative is that social media can only be a thing if it's controlled by an entity that the US government can effectively bully into violating our privacy domestically. This doesn't strike you as a plain old case of common xenophobia, does it? Citizens in the US will mock other countries for censoring the internet, but this doesn't strike me as all that different from that.
zardo 2y ago
The actual criteria is greater than 20% ownership by: (A) a foreign person that is domiciled in, is headquartered in, has its principal place of business in, or is organized under the laws of a foreign adversary country;
- nasdaq-txn 2y ago
  I assume this means the law would also force sales of WeChat and VK in the US as well?
  - yogorenapan 2y ago
    The bill doesn’t, but it should. Banning all apps owned by adversaries like China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and Palestine would make it fair
wrsh07 2y ago
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. The law doesn't ban TikTok. It was written carefully with the doj, and being passed by Congress holds real weight vs an executive order (as it should!)
- Simulacra 2y ago
  A lot of people like TikTok and I would venture most of HN falls in that. People want what they want and when it becomes threatened they get angry.
  - corimaith 2y ago
    I do think some of these people here probably don't have the best interests of the US in mind. The reaction to this, calling out "hypocrisy" or essentially insulting Congress does nothing to assuage the central question of whether TikTok is a national security threat. It's only going to make those with suspicions dig their heels in deeper.
    - starttoaster 2y ago
      Explain how it is a national security threat, and I can start to work on explaining why it isn’t.
      - troll_v_bridge 2y ago
        Let’s flip it, explain why US social media is not a national security threat to China.
falcolas 2y ago
While not written as a de jure ban, it is a de facto ban. China has said from the earliest ban attempts under Trump that they would not allow the divestment of Chinese interests. Legislators knew this - they knew that the divestment would never happen, and so in my eyes, they wrote ban into law with a thin veneer of distraction.
janalsncm 2y ago
And one of the consequences of TikTok not divesting would be banning it. So if banning TikTok is illegal, that removes the entire reason they would divest.

But TikTok was not banned… Nor was this about speech. It was about Chinese CCP ownership and control. If the CCP divests and sells it to an American company, TikTok will live on.

starttoaster 2y ago

Can't you argue that stifling speech is as bad as all out forbidding it? And if it's about CCP ownership and control, I guess we should probably institute a ban on relying on China for anything at all, including building all of the cell phones kids watch TikTok from. Interesting how the narrative is that social media can only be a thing if it's controlled by an entity that the US government can effectively bully into violating our privacy domestically. This doesn't strike you as a plain old case of common xenophobia, does it? Citizens in the US will mock other countries for censoring the internet, but this doesn't strike me as all that different from that.

zardo 2y ago

The actual criteria is greater than 20% ownership by: (A) a foreign person that is domiciled in, is headquartered in, has its principal place of business in, or is organized under the laws of a foreign adversary country;

nasdaq-txn 2y ago
I assume this means the law would also force sales of WeChat and VK in the US as well?
- yogorenapan 2y ago
  The bill doesn’t, but it should. Banning all apps owned by adversaries like China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and Palestine would make it fair

wrsh07 2y ago

I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. The law doesn't ban TikTok. It was written carefully with the doj, and being passed by Congress holds real weight vs an executive order (as it should!)

Simulacra 2y ago
A lot of people like TikTok and I would venture most of HN falls in that. People want what they want and when it becomes threatened they get angry.
- corimaith 2y ago
  I do think some of these people here probably don't have the best interests of the US in mind. The reaction to this, calling out "hypocrisy" or essentially insulting Congress does nothing to assuage the central question of whether TikTok is a national security threat. It's only going to make those with suspicions dig their heels in deeper.
  - starttoaster 2y ago
    Explain how it is a national security threat, and I can start to work on explaining why it isn’t.
    - troll_v_bridge 2y ago
      Let’s flip it, explain why US social media is not a national security threat to China.

falcolas 2y ago

While not written as a de jure ban, it is a de facto ban. China has said from the earliest ban attempts under Trump that they would not allow the divestment of Chinese interests. Legislators knew this - they knew that the divestment would never happen, and so in my eyes, they wrote ban into law with a thin veneer of distraction.

janalsncm 2y ago

And one of the consequences of TikTok not divesting would be banning it. So if banning TikTok is illegal, that removes the entire reason they would divest.