5 ms·

EFF: Forcing ByteDance to sell TikTok or face a ban is unconstitutional

20 points by skilled 2y ago

azinman2 2y ago
Maybe, but we have all kinds of laws on foreign ownership of media. And for good reason: you don’t want the primary source of input to come from a hostile government. TikTok IS the primary news source for the American youth and is used by half the country. To not intervene is to give away future minds and the country to outside influence. And for those who say FB is also ruining minds, I don’t disagree, but at least it’s “our problem” which means it’s up to us to solve it as well.
- aeurielesn 2y ago
  Somehow this sounds so wrong. I really hope TikTok won't sell because what this is trying to achieve is concerning.
  - zer00eyz 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - deely3 2y ago
      > There is no world where TikTok should have been allowed to even go this far.... Sorry, what are you talking avout? How "far" is far? How TikTok is different from Twitter, Facebook, Instagram? Probably because Twitter, Facebook, Instagram is US based, so they by definition is good?
      - mandmandam 2y ago
        > Probably because Twitter, Facebook, Instagram is US based, so they by definition is good? That's for real one of the two main reasons being given to force the sale of TikTok. It sounds insane because it is. It's also isolationist, supremacist, deeply unconstitutional and categorically stupid. 'You will eat only the info we allow you' has never lead anywhere smart. The other reason begin floated is because TikTok has been showing young people what Israel are doing with the unflinching rock-hard support of damn near our entire Congress. Also categorically insane. Also deeply supremacist and unconstitutional. 67% of Americans support an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, compared to just 11% of Congress.That's a hell of a disparity. TikTok pierced corporate and social media's veil, so they are being explicitly treated as a threat to 'US interests' (read: the interests of the international ultra-wealthy).
        zer00eyz 2y ago
        > It's also isolationist, supremacist, deeply unconstitutional and categorically stupid. 'You will eat only the info we allow you' has never lead anywhere smart. You should look up the laws around television. This concept is not without precedent. https://www.fcc.gov/general/foreign-ownership-rules-and-policies-common-carrier-aeronautical-en-route-and-aeronautical https://www.fcc.gov/general/foreign-ownership-rules-and-poli...
        caustic-view 2y ago
        [flagged]
        mandmandam 2y ago
        Sure, there's plenty of precedent for "isolationist, supremacist, deeply unconstitutional and categorically stupid" laws. How do you think our media got so fucked up in the first place? That doesn't make it right.
        zer00eyz 2y ago
        Just so we are clear: your fine with china owning a media company in the US, because it would be "isolationist and supremacist" to do other wise? And you make this statement with full knowledge that China does not let us do the same (all media there is state controlled). > deeply unconstitutional It is not this, where does the constitution enshrine anything for a foreign power operating on American soil? > categorically stupid By what measure and for what reason? We did not ban TikTok, we did not remove byte dances ability to profit from it. We just required that the company that is controlled by a foreign nation sell its controlling interest in a massive media company.... Unlike china where FB/Google... etc are banned outright.
        mandmandam 2y ago
        It's funny watching you argue that we need to be more like China, while at the same time acting terrified that people might have a Chinese-owned app on their phone.
    - noxs 2y ago
      Pretending China/Russia/Iran companies are evil while US companies are not because of some preconceived notion is a great way to let that world order crumble.
      - zer00eyz 2y ago
        This isn't about morality. Would any of those countries let us run a service with the same scale or influence in their borders? (Is there any non state media in those countries). You're comparing the banality of "corporate evil" to actual evil. I have no words.
        noxs 2y ago
        I am sure if TikTok is owned by a western countries wouldn't yield into a result of lawmakers creating laws that is doing something very similar as CCP does, that is, operating Internet based service requires the company to be owned by a Chinese entity at majority, that is exactly the reason why Google quits China, and we used to dispise what CCP does, now we are like "CCP is doing the good stuff and we should follow"
    - Arnt 2y ago
      Why... you guys have your constitution and are proud of it, so you ought to live by it even if the Chinese don't.
      - zer00eyz 2y ago
        You should look up the laws around television. This concept is not without precedent. https://www.fcc.gov/general/foreign-ownership-rules-and-poli https://www.fcc.gov/general/foreign-ownership-rules-and-poli... Were not limiting any ones right to speak, were restricting who can own a platform, and excluding a foreign government. Nothing about that in the constitution.
        caustic-view 2y ago
        [dead]
    - afiori 2y ago
      So you would have been fine with most of the world banning facebook, google, whatsapp, twitter, reddit and maybe others in the last 12 years?
      - zer00eyz 2y ago
        You mean what china did to Twitter, Facebook, Google.... This move is not without president. Look up the law on foreign ownership of traditional media... extending it to the web in this case, is a no brainer.
        caustic-view 2y ago
        [dead]
        afiori 2y ago
        Precisely what China did yes. To be precise I believe that China's requirements were mostly around using local datacenters and respecting censors, the US is actually going a step further even if only because it is ashamed of how much it needs to censors its warcrimes. > Look up the law on foreign ownership of traditional media The traditional media was an oligopoly and a very important gatekeeper of information. The internet is both of those things but in a less exclusive fashion.
- noxs 2y ago
  > TikTok IS the primary news source for the American youth TikTok never forced their users to use TikTok I mean, people have choices and made the decision to use TikTok.
  - azinman2 2y ago
    That doesn’t change the implications of it.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
uyzstvqs 2y ago
I don't like regulating tech, the internet should be free. No blocking, no censorship. I don't like banning TikTok, I don't like a lot of what the EU is doing with big tech, even though I like neither TikTok nor big tech. It's principle and precedent. What should be regulated is foreign business activity, when Chinese companies try to register a regional subsidiary in the US for example. That should be possible, but with a company originating in China there should be precautions not to let the CCP have influence on the American company. Problem solved, and you don't turn the internet into a censored splinternet.
- benfortuna 2y ago
  A lot of what the EU is doing is to protect against predatory behaviour of big tech and others. People don't deserve to be exploited if they are not capable of protecting themselves in a "wild west" Internet.
  - uyzstvqs 2y ago
    Of course. But what if I don't care? The problem is that there's no "I accept the risks, give me the unregulated version" button on the newer regulations. For example, there's Windows N edition, which complies with older EU regulation by not including media players and some other pre-installed apps. I can choose this edition, but if I don't care then I can also just choose regular Windows in the installer. That's great. I want this choice for all features "not available (yet) in the EU". Some foreign local news sites block all EU users because they don't want to deal with GDPR, and they can't really give me the option to continue anyway as far as I'm aware. That's a block, and I don't support that.
- noxs 2y ago
  because lawmakers never intended to ban TikTok and its content, that is just a cover for Preventing CCP from making money from it, it's not a good-will law for its people but rather for capitalist, which is why selling TikTok was also provided as an option.
underseacables 2y ago
It's a murky issue, but I think it really comes down to how much we trust the Chinese government. I don't, not at all, and so long as the Chinese government controls TikTok I will support the forced sale.

20 points by skilled 2y ago

Maybe, but we have all kinds of laws on foreign ownership of media. And for good reason: you don’t want the primary source of input to come from a hostile government. TikTok IS the primary news source for the American youth and is used by half the country. To not intervene is to give away future minds and the country to outside influence. And for those who say FB is also ruining minds, I don’t disagree, but at least it’s “our problem” which means it’s up to us to solve it as well.

aeurielesn 2y ago
Somehow this sounds so wrong. I really hope TikTok won't sell because what this is trying to achieve is concerning.
- zer00eyz 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - deely3 2y ago
    > There is no world where TikTok should have been allowed to even go this far.... Sorry, what are you talking avout? How "far" is far? How TikTok is different from Twitter, Facebook, Instagram? Probably because Twitter, Facebook, Instagram is US based, so they by definition is good?
    - mandmandam 2y ago
      > Probably because Twitter, Facebook, Instagram is US based, so they by definition is good? That's for real one of the two main reasons being given to force the sale of TikTok. It sounds insane because it is. It's also isolationist, supremacist, deeply unconstitutional and categorically stupid. 'You will eat only the info we allow you' has never lead anywhere smart. The other reason begin floated is because TikTok has been showing young people what Israel are doing with the unflinching rock-hard support of damn near our entire Congress. Also categorically insane. Also deeply supremacist and unconstitutional. 67% of Americans support an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, compared to just 11% of Congress.That's a hell of a disparity. TikTok pierced corporate and social media's veil, so they are being explicitly treated as a threat to 'US interests' (read: the interests of the international ultra-wealthy).
      - zer00eyz 2y ago
        > It's also isolationist, supremacist, deeply unconstitutional and categorically stupid. 'You will eat only the info we allow you' has never lead anywhere smart. You should look up the laws around television. This concept is not without precedent. https://www.fcc.gov/general/foreign-ownership-rules-and-policies-common-carrier-aeronautical-en-route-and-aeronautical https://www.fcc.gov/general/foreign-ownership-rules-and-poli...
        caustic-view 2y ago
        [flagged]
        mandmandam 2y ago
        Sure, there's plenty of precedent for "isolationist, supremacist, deeply unconstitutional and categorically stupid" laws. How do you think our media got so fucked up in the first place? That doesn't make it right.
        zer00eyz 2y ago
        Just so we are clear: your fine with china owning a media company in the US, because it would be "isolationist and supremacist" to do other wise? And you make this statement with full knowledge that China does not let us do the same (all media there is state controlled). > deeply unconstitutional It is not this, where does the constitution enshrine anything for a foreign power operating on American soil? > categorically stupid By what measure and for what reason? We did not ban TikTok, we did not remove byte dances ability to profit from it. We just required that the company that is controlled by a foreign nation sell its controlling interest in a massive media company.... Unlike china where FB/Google... etc are banned outright.
        mandmandam 2y ago
        It's funny watching you argue that we need to be more like China, while at the same time acting terrified that people might have a Chinese-owned app on their phone.
  - noxs 2y ago
    Pretending China/Russia/Iran companies are evil while US companies are not because of some preconceived notion is a great way to let that world order crumble.
    - zer00eyz 2y ago
      This isn't about morality. Would any of those countries let us run a service with the same scale or influence in their borders? (Is there any non state media in those countries). You're comparing the banality of "corporate evil" to actual evil. I have no words.
      - noxs 2y ago
        I am sure if TikTok is owned by a western countries wouldn't yield into a result of lawmakers creating laws that is doing something very similar as CCP does, that is, operating Internet based service requires the company to be owned by a Chinese entity at majority, that is exactly the reason why Google quits China, and we used to dispise what CCP does, now we are like "CCP is doing the good stuff and we should follow"
  - Arnt 2y ago
    Why... you guys have your constitution and are proud of it, so you ought to live by it even if the Chinese don't.
    - zer00eyz 2y ago
      You should look up the laws around television. This concept is not without precedent. https://www.fcc.gov/general/foreign-ownership-rules-and-poli https://www.fcc.gov/general/foreign-ownership-rules-and-poli... Were not limiting any ones right to speak, were restricting who can own a platform, and excluding a foreign government. Nothing about that in the constitution.
      - caustic-view 2y ago
        [dead]
  - afiori 2y ago
    So you would have been fine with most of the world banning facebook, google, whatsapp, twitter, reddit and maybe others in the last 12 years?
    - zer00eyz 2y ago
      You mean what china did to Twitter, Facebook, Google.... This move is not without president. Look up the law on foreign ownership of traditional media... extending it to the web in this case, is a no brainer.
      - caustic-view 2y ago
        [dead]
      - afiori 2y ago
        Precisely what China did yes. To be precise I believe that China's requirements were mostly around using local datacenters and respecting censors, the US is actually going a step further even if only because it is ashamed of how much it needs to censors its warcrimes. > Look up the law on foreign ownership of traditional media The traditional media was an oligopoly and a very important gatekeeper of information. The internet is both of those things but in a less exclusive fashion.
noxs 2y ago
> TikTok IS the primary news source for the American youth TikTok never forced their users to use TikTok I mean, people have choices and made the decision to use TikTok.
- azinman2 2y ago
  That doesn’t change the implications of it.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

uyzstvqs 2y ago

I don't like regulating tech, the internet should be free. No blocking, no censorship. I don't like banning TikTok, I don't like a lot of what the EU is doing with big tech, even though I like neither TikTok nor big tech. It's principle and precedent. What should be regulated is foreign business activity, when Chinese companies try to register a regional subsidiary in the US for example. That should be possible, but with a company originating in China there should be precautions not to let the CCP have influence on the American company. Problem solved, and you don't turn the internet into a censored splinternet.

benfortuna 2y ago
A lot of what the EU is doing is to protect against predatory behaviour of big tech and others. People don't deserve to be exploited if they are not capable of protecting themselves in a "wild west" Internet.
- uyzstvqs 2y ago
  Of course. But what if I don't care? The problem is that there's no "I accept the risks, give me the unregulated version" button on the newer regulations. For example, there's Windows N edition, which complies with older EU regulation by not including media players and some other pre-installed apps. I can choose this edition, but if I don't care then I can also just choose regular Windows in the installer. That's great. I want this choice for all features "not available (yet) in the EU". Some foreign local news sites block all EU users because they don't want to deal with GDPR, and they can't really give me the option to continue anyway as far as I'm aware. That's a block, and I don't support that.
noxs 2y ago
because lawmakers never intended to ban TikTok and its content, that is just a cover for Preventing CCP from making money from it, it's not a good-will law for its people but rather for capitalist, which is why selling TikTok was also provided as an option.

underseacables 2y ago

It's a murky issue, but I think it really comes down to how much we trust the Chinese government. I don't, not at all, and so long as the Chinese government controls TikTok I will support the forced sale.