5 ms·

While the Court based this decision solely on the non-classified portion of the record, I found this quote to be very interesting: >Notably, TikTok never squa

While the Court based this decision solely on the non-classified portion of the record, I found this quote to be very interesting: >Notably, TikTok never squarely denies that it has ever manipulated content on the TikTok platform at the direction of the PRC. The Court held that the law could satisfy strict scrutiny (regardless of whether or not it applies), which requires that the Government prove that the restriction furthers a compelling interest and less restrictive alternatives would not accomplish the Government's goals. That's a high, high bar, and most laws subject to it are found wanting. I doubt that the Supreme Court is going to want to hear this case. The most interesting legal question for them to decide was whether the law is subject to strict or intermediate scrutiny, but that is off the table now that the D.C. Circuit says it doesn't matter because the law could satisfy either standard. Direct link to the opinion: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2024/12/24-1113-2088317.pdf https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2024/12/24-111...

rfw300 2y ago
I don’t agree with that analysis. The modern Supreme Court loves to wade into high-profile First Amendment issues, all the more when it’s actually a relatively novel application. They’ll take this case either to be argued at the end of this term or next term, and it will be subject to their analysis and whatever Trump decides to do with his discretion.
- brookst 2y ago
  Agreed. This would be the perfect vehicle for a very broad ruling that the government can ban media in the name of national security, the precedent of which could be used in an ad hoc manner.
  - EasyMark 2y ago
    Oooof I don’t think it will, but that bogey man is always in the back of the mind after SCOTUS essentially made the office of the President a 4 year kingship where you are immune to all but the most heinous crimes as president as long as you can cross the I’s and dot the T’s of “official business”
- fny 2y ago
  This is a bipartisan issue. One of the three judges is an Obama appointee. If this case goes to the SC (big if), expect it to swing the exact same way. Trump also has no ability to upend this: he lacks the authority by law.
  - EasyMark 2y ago
    He can make sure that they aren’t prosecuted for the next 4 years since he is essentially the “sheriff and DA” that brings this stuff to court. He has made it clear that the DOJ, FBI, DEA, etc will be his personal police force and not independent. This is a yuge part of his Project 2025 plan
Leary 2y ago
The court must not have looked very hard. "Let us be very clear: TikTok does not remove content based on sensitivities related to China. We have never been asked by the Chinese government to remove any content and we would not do so if asked. Period. Our US moderation team, which is led out of California, reviews content for adherence to our US policies – just like other US companies in our space. We are not influenced by any foreign government, including the Chinese government; TikTok does not operate in China, nor do we have any intention of doing so in the future." https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/statement-on-tiktoks-content-moderation-and-data-security-practices/ https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/statement-on-tiktoks-conte... "58. Have members of the Chinese Communist Party, or other members of the Chinese government, asked ByteDance or TikTok employees to heat content? TikTok does not heat content in the U.S. at the request of any government, including the Chinese Communist Party. TikTok may promote or "heat" specific content (including, e.g., promoting the video of an artist who will be hosting a concert on TikTok Live) in line with company content policies to support the inclusion of diverse and high-quality content on the platform. A content operations team will review heating requests submitted by a limited number of cross-functional partners with access to the heating request, and the Content Operations team will either approve or reject the request based on their assessment of whether it follows the platform's best practices in support of content diversity and quality (including, e.g., being engaging and meaningful and focusing on timely/relevant content) and business objectives. An audit function, that is in the process of being refined, will regularly review the heating request process to ensure internal compliance with company policies. Even if the request is approved, increasing visibility or video views ("VV") is not guaranteed as the recommendation system will not heat low quality content (e.g, reposted or irrelevant content). Heating impacts less than 1% of VV in the US." https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF00/20230323/115519/HHRG-118-IF00-Wstate-ChewS-20230323-SD030.pdf https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF00/20230323/115519/HHRG...
- WillPostForFood 2y ago
  The court must not have looked very hard. The court isn't an investigative body, they take the evidence submitted. Perhaps TikTok was more careful to be truthful in court submissions than press releases.
EasyMark 2y ago
It also speaks books worth of implications that the TikTok CEO would never straight up state to Congress that they would not promote CCP material or disinformation strategies if they were told to do so (not like they have a choice either, its literally a CCP law)

rfw300 2y ago

I don’t agree with that analysis. The modern Supreme Court loves to wade into high-profile First Amendment issues, all the more when it’s actually a relatively novel application. They’ll take this case either to be argued at the end of this term or next term, and it will be subject to their analysis and whatever Trump decides to do with his discretion.

brookst 2y ago
Agreed. This would be the perfect vehicle for a very broad ruling that the government can ban media in the name of national security, the precedent of which could be used in an ad hoc manner.
- EasyMark 2y ago
  Oooof I don’t think it will, but that bogey man is always in the back of the mind after SCOTUS essentially made the office of the President a 4 year kingship where you are immune to all but the most heinous crimes as president as long as you can cross the I’s and dot the T’s of “official business”
fny 2y ago
This is a bipartisan issue. One of the three judges is an Obama appointee. If this case goes to the SC (big if), expect it to swing the exact same way. Trump also has no ability to upend this: he lacks the authority by law.
- EasyMark 2y ago
  He can make sure that they aren’t prosecuted for the next 4 years since he is essentially the “sheriff and DA” that brings this stuff to court. He has made it clear that the DOJ, FBI, DEA, etc will be his personal police force and not independent. This is a yuge part of his Project 2025 plan

Leary 2y ago

The court must not have looked very hard. "Let us be very clear: TikTok does not remove content based on sensitivities related to China. We have never been asked by the Chinese government to remove any content and we would not do so if asked. Period. Our US moderation team, which is led out of California, reviews content for adherence to our US policies – just like other US companies in our space. We are not influenced by any foreign government, including the Chinese government; TikTok does not operate in China, nor do we have any intention of doing so in the future." https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/statement-on-tiktoks-content-moderation-and-data-security-practices/ https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/statement-on-tiktoks-conte... "58. Have members of the Chinese Communist Party, or other members of the Chinese government, asked ByteDance or TikTok employees to heat content? TikTok does not heat content in the U.S. at the request of any government, including the Chinese Communist Party. TikTok may promote or "heat" specific content (including, e.g., promoting the video of an artist who will be hosting a concert on TikTok Live) in line with company content policies to support the inclusion of diverse and high-quality content on the platform. A content operations team will review heating requests submitted by a limited number of cross-functional partners with access to the heating request, and the Content Operations team will either approve or reject the request based on their assessment of whether it follows the platform's best practices in support of content diversity and quality (including, e.g., being engaging and meaningful and focusing on timely/relevant content) and business objectives. An audit function, that is in the process of being refined, will regularly review the heating request process to ensure internal compliance with company policies. Even if the request is approved, increasing visibility or video views ("VV") is not guaranteed as the recommendation system will not heat low quality content (e.g, reposted or irrelevant content). Heating impacts less than 1% of VV in the US." https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF00/20230323/115519/HHRG-118-IF00-Wstate-ChewS-20230323-SD030.pdf https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF00/20230323/115519/HHRG...

WillPostForFood 2y ago
The court must not have looked very hard. The court isn't an investigative body, they take the evidence submitted. Perhaps TikTok was more careful to be truthful in court submissions than press releases.

EasyMark 2y ago

It also speaks books worth of implications that the TikTok CEO would never straight up state to Congress that they would not promote CCP material or disinformation strategies if they were told to do so (not like they have a choice either, its literally a CCP law)