32 ms·
ByteDance’s web of apps could get tangled up in TikTok ban
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> TikTok ban bill could make it impossible for most ByteDance apps to operate in the U.S. unless the Chinese firm sells them to U.S. companies. Factually incorrect. The sales must simply be to a non-foreign adversary country buyer.
- rfoo 3y agoI don't know. Even Russia wasn't a foreign adversary 10 years ago. Japan allegedly was one very briefly 35 years ago. So who knows, the safest move is indeed sell to U.S. companies.
- Petersipoi 3y agoWhy? Once ByteDance sells to some company, why would they care if said company because a US adversary in the future?
- rfoo 3y ago> why would they care ByteDance would not care, but would that "some company" care? Certainly. If they are going to care and they think it may happen, does this make them reconsider whether to buy or not, and at what price? Sure.
- IncreasePosts 3y agoRussia definitely was a foreign adversary 10 years ago. They annexed Crimea in March 2014. Of course, the one persons opinion that mattered(Obama) thought "lol it's not the 80s anymore"
- butler14 3y agoto be fair to obama, let's not pretend he didn't have an army of super smart planners, strategists and analysts behind him in various corners of the pentagon, the CIA and the NSA that led him to that decision
- bpodgursky 3y agoDo you have any evidence that the analysis supported the decision "nah let it slide"? You don't need a bench of NSA analysts to grow a spine.
- hermitdev 3y agoThe reality is, the Obama administration kept drawing red lines that kept getting stepped over with no consequences. Syria, Iran, ISIS...Russia saw that and that there'd be no real consequences. Same thing happening now with the Biden foreign policy of "don't". Might call it the anti-Roosevelt doctrine: speak timidly, and what stick? edit: minor grammar fix
- themaninthedark 3y agoNorth Korea. Not entirely his fault but they got the bomb on his watch.
- IncreasePosts 3y agoSure, but were those super smart planners, strategists, and analysts just providing plans, strategy, and analysis that Obama already agreed with? Romney saw Russia for what it was in 2012 - Obama/Romney vote percents in 2012 was 51/47, a fairly close election. If Romney did win, would all of those planners/strategists/analysts be trying to convince Romney that Russia wasn't a threat, or would he just have had a different set that were telling him Russia is a major threat?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- rfoo 3y agoRight, I should have said 11 years ago, or 10.2 years ago.
- nickburns 3y agofrom the language of the now-signed bill/law [1]: (4) FOREIGN ADVERSARY COUNTRY.—The term “foreign adversary country” means a country specified in section 4872(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code. 10 USC 4872(d)(2) [2]: (2) Covered nation.—The term “covered nation” means— (A) the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea; (B) the People’s Republic of China; (C) the Russian Federation; and (D) the Islamic Republic of Iran. in other words—the law is and will continue to be express about which "foreign adversary countries" cannot operate and/or control ByteDance. [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/815/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/815/... [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/4872 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/4872
- ETHisso2017 3y agoNicely written bill of attainder...
- nickburns 3y agoi do believe that determination would be reserved for a court of competent jurisdiction, but tight indeed.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> tight indeed Not even close. Bills of attainders named a person and suspended their rights with no right to trial. (Analogous to proscription.) The only thing this law has in common with those is it names a person, ByteDance, as an intended target of enforcement. The enforcement actions must still be done through the courts to which ByteDance retains access.
- nickburns 3y agoyou miss my point (i.e., i'm on your side). what i've meant to say, like you, is that only a court of competent jurisdiction can make an actual legal determination as to whether or not some challenged legislative act amounts to a so-called and therefore invalid 'bill of attainder' as prohibited by the Attainder Clause, the third of Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution[1]. it's merely my personal opinion that the legislative act at-issue is 'tightly' drafted. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_9:_Limits_on_Federal_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_Stat...
- gwervc 3y agoThis is really broadcasting a bad message abroad: the US can't be trusted anymore (it wasn't to be trusted too much in the first place) when it comes to business. Anyway, using the same logic, I can't wait for the UE to force US companies to sell Windows, iOS, AWS, etc. to European companies so those products can stay within our market.
- VWWHFSfQ 3y agoUnfortunately the EU is irrelevant so they're the ones following along with what USA wants. It's not the other way around.
- Veraticus 3y agoChina already uses the same logic to ban American apps. People still try to do business with China, including other American businesses. And people will also continue to do business with America, including other Chinese businesses
- aprilthird2021 3y agoAnd China is a terrible, autocratic nation which abuses people daily and uses slave labor from NK and Uighurs to produce goods for almost 0 cost. Why do we want to be like that? To prove to everyone that that works?
- Veraticus 3y agoIf you believe that is so, why is it incumbent on us to accept China's businesses worldwide? Shouldn't we be banning them more to protest slave labor and concentration camps? No country has a right to do business anywhere and everywhere. I feel like people are really grasping at straws to squeeze this argument under some kind of "freedom of speech" or "freedom of action" umbrella, but those concepts have only ever applied to humans, not nations.
- aprilthird2021 3y ago
- ETHisso2017 3y agoWhich makes the ban bill a bill of attainder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder
- nickburns 3y agounder the American rule of law, that's a determination reserved for a federal court of competent jurisdiction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
- robertk 3y agoNo, it doesn’t. This concerns a corporation subject to legitimate national security concerns, not “a person, or a group of people.”
- nickburns 3y agoan American corporation does in fact have some recognized legal personhood, and so a 'bill of attainder' could technically be found to exist within a legislative act which violates the legal rights of one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#In_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#In_the_Un...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 3y agoNope. Operant part of an attainder is no due process. In one year’s time, DoC will have to prove ByteDance is in violation of this law in a court. Simply naming a person isn’t enough to make a law an attainder, not even closely.
- Janica 3y agoThey need to get banned as the company is handled as per chinese govt. only.
- nubinetwork 3y agoShame it won't stop bytespider from DDoSing people's websites.
- xnx 3y agoI wondered about this too. CapCut is a really good mobile and desktop video editor. Its shared technology and usability with TikTok is certainly a big part of TikTok's success.
- aprilthird2021 3y agoThis is just the tip of the iceberg. 15 years from now there will be a long list of "banned" apps, and we'll see a resurgence in piracy. It will be like Eastern Europe smuggling in American cassettes all over again but reversed
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ChrisArchitect 3y agoSpeculation before the bill was passed, More discussion since: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40159845 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40159845 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40145963 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40145963
- lionkor 3y agoSomeone commented why this is legislation, not sanctions, but their comment was removed, but I feel my point may still be relevant? Sanctions hurt the people, legislation hurts the companies. When you actually want something, you use legislation. When you want to virtue signal and torture people, you sanction. Not that it works - I'm pretty sure sanctions lead to extremist views in the opposite direction than what was planned. For example, country Monkeyland does a bad thing that they believe is good (ofc otherwise they wouldn't do it). You then sanction them, which hurts the poor (no money, less money due to sanctions), ill (no meds), and inconveniences everyone else and shows them that the rest of the world really is "evil", like their own government says. Legislation gives an illusion of choice, and in these cases usually doesnt lead to pain and hurt.
- 39896880 3y agoWe’re talking about an app, not food or medicine, so this comparison doesn’t seem apt.
- ofslidingfeet 3y ago[flagged]
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y agoThe bill passed through the house and senate with bipartisan support.
- ofslidingfeet 3y ago[flagged]
- add-sub-mul-div 3y ago> Am I getting the vibe across strongly enough? It depends, is your goal to be taken seriously or to use inflammatory words that make you feel good to say?
- ofslidingfeet 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- AnyDayInNov 3y ago[flagged]
- jfyi 3y agoWhen I started this thread I was being assured that the Biden administration was timid and powerless. One page of comments later and they are shaking down the entirety of congress to get their way. Did I miss the montage?
- AlwaysRock 3y ago> resounding disapproval from the public at large Is this true? Is there any real data around this? I don't know any adults who feel strongly about this. I image some very vocal young people are upset. But other than maybe some polls is there any real data saying people are aganst this? And even if there is... The government does things people dont like for safety all the time.
- paulcole 3y agoWhy can't they divest the app/brand/whatever and license the algorithm to the buyer?
- nickburns 3y agolicense the algorithm to the buyer can't. algorithm is expressly contemplated by the language of the law: (6) QUALIFIED DIVESTITURE.—The term “qualified divestiture” means a divestiture or similar transaction that— (A) the President determines, through an interagency process, would result in the relevant foreign adversary controlled application no longer being controlled by a foreign adversary; and (B) the President determines, through an interagency process, precludes the establishment or maintenance of any operational relationship between the United States operations of the relevant foreign adversary controlled application and any formerly affiliated entities that are controlled by a foreign adversary, INCLUDING ANY COOPERATION WITH RESPECT TO THE OPERATION OF A CONTENT RECOMMENDATION ALGORITHM or an agreement with respect to data sharing. (emphasis added.) source: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/815/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/815/...
- qingcharles 3y agoWell, that's pretty clear.
- paulcole 3y agoThen the thing that confuses me is what other companies are affected by this bill? It seems like it's worded to specifically target TikTok?
- imzadi 3y agoIs the bill specifically focused on mobile apps? What about embedded systems in hardware and consumer electronics from China?
- valianteffort 3y agoThose aren't being used to reveal israel's war crimes and ongoing genocide like tiktok is
- nozzlegear 3y agoWhich war crimes are revealed specifically on TikTok that aren't also revealed on Twitter, Reddit or YouTube?
- valianteffort 2y agoThe overwhelming majority of youth use tiktok for their news. That is not the case with the other platforms. Further twitter, reddit, and youtube all censor to a far greater extent than tiktok.
- nozzlegear 2y ago> Further twitter, reddit, and youtube all censor to a far greater extent than tiktok. How do we know that, though? I agree that Twitter, Reddit and YouTube "censor" things – though outside of government takedown orders, I'd just call it moderation. But it's not like ByteDance/the CCP publish their own government takedown orders, nor do they have anything similar to the Freedom of Information Act. In the end, we don't know what they could be censoring; we only know what they're not censoring.
- blackoil 3y agoDoes it apply to only ByteDance or all apps/games like from Tencent also?
- nickburns 3y ago(3) FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATION.—The term “foreign adversary controlled application” means a website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application that is operated, directly or indirectly (including through a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate), by— (A) any of— (i) ByteDance, Ltd.; (ii) TikTok; (iii) a subsidiary of or a successor to an entity identified in clause (i) or (ii) that is controlled by a foreign adversary; or (iv) an entity owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by an entity identified in clause (i), (ii), or (iii); or (B) a covered company that— (i) is controlled by a foreign adversary; and (ii) that is determined by the President to present a significant threat to the national security of the United States following the issuance of— (I) a public notice proposing such determination; and (II) a public report to Congress, submitted not less than 30 days before such determination, describing the specific national security concern involved and containing a classified annex and a description of what assets would need to be divested to execute a qualified divestiture. source: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/815/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/815/...
- sawyerjhood 3y agoThe bill works by fining marketplaces that distribute apps right? Is there a reason bytedance couldn’t host tiktok.com outside of the country and have people go there?
- AlwaysRock 3y agoI think the idea is that if Apple and Google cant/wont host TikTok then it functionally is banned for most users. I'd guess a massive percentage of tiktok usage is directly on their app, not their website.
- kurthr 3y agoTiktok can still be a website or even a side-loaded app. The reason for this article is that the law's authors bothered to prevent the most obvious legal workarounds (shell companies / subsidiaries). That they didn't bother with other constraints implies they're OK with it. Of course this doesn't work for the modern crack dealer, but they can sell the business to just about anyone, in any other country. Not much of a ban really, if free speech was really an issue.
- jmyeet 3y agoI'm torn on this whole Tiktok ban. It's clearly a response to people getting unfiltered news from Tiktok that it otherwise not presented on mainstream media at all. It's why the ban was in the defense spending bill last week. Even outside the current Middle East conflict, the Ohio rderailment last year was extensively covered on Tiktok for 1-2 weeks before it really got any mainstream coverage. The data privacy issue is a lie because Congress could've passed a comprehensive data privacy bill but didn't (and won't). But the more compelling argument, and why I'm torn, is reciprocity of access to the Chinese market. Facebook, Instagram, Google, Youtube, etc are actually or effectively banned in mainland China. China's entry into the WTO sort of allows this and I understand why China does it but if the US took the position that access to the US market requires reciprocal access to the other country's market, that would be a position hard to argue against. I'm surprised that wasn't the argument made. Tech giants have been very effective at arguing the "algorithm" decides what's shown to users and what isn't but the algorithm is merely a vessel for human decisions on what is a feature, what is ranked, etc. Facebook and IG manipulate their ranking too but they do it in a way compatible with US government policy so it isn't an issue. That's the real problem with Tiktok, as far as Congress is concerned.
- Sparkyte 3y agoInformation abuse definitely needs laws, but it needs to skirt around free speech. And I always support free speech, but when I see videos marketing harm toward people it stops becoming something you say.
- makeitdouble 3y ago> reciprocity of access to the Chinese market This is an argument that is too complex to be wrap into the ban of a single company. For instance the US car market has incentives helping cars under some specific conditions that conveniently put all foreign cars and truck at a disadvantage, if there's not an outright "built in the US" specification on it [0]. And China will have other indirect ways to protect specific markets (denying IP protection basically kills some industry sectors for instance). Then the US will raise tariffs, and China put other barriers etc. Reciprocity is a moral assessment, international trade is just way too complicated for that IMHO. On TikTok specifically, the US gov seeking control over a foreign asset is probably not a about following policies or not. Otherwise asking for an ownership change makes no sense: imagine a court deciding that FTX didn't follow banking policies so another entity buying it within a year is the solution. No, in these cases the problematic entity is disolved and people go to jail. [0] https://medium.com/vision-zero-cities-journal/the-chicken-tax-and-other-ways-the-u-s-government-subsidizes-your-ford-f-150-444a5164c627 https://medium.com/vision-zero-cities-journal/the-chicken-ta...
- bedobi 3y agoThat's a good thing, no? I don't understand why you'd ban/force a sale of tiktok but not CapCut and the others. And yes it's illiberal but I don't see why liberal democracies should tolerate totalitarian regimes messing with our kids, voting public, monitoring our phones etc etc. The ByteDance CEO is clearly on a leash and can't speak frankly about lack of human rights in certain countries etc, they're not fit to operate like this. I do appreciate the irony of Facebook et al doing much of the same things and I think that should be addressed too, but at least they're not under control of an antagonistic foreign government.