36 ms·
TikTok should lose its big Supreme Court case
- _dke7 2y agoImportant to note the pretext for the TikTok ban: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/lawmakers-tiktok-ban-pro-palestinian-content-1235016101/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/lawmaker... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/07/israel-al-jazeera-us-tiktok-ban https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/0...
- tiahura 2y agoAs Israel-captured as the US government may be, Israel-Palestine is way way way down the rationale list.
- logicchains 2y agoThen why did the recent move to ban it come just weeks after AIPAC publicly complained that footage of the Gaza genocide broadcast there was turning young people against Israel?
- saturn8601 2y agoWhat evidence are you basing this on?
- jmyeet 2y agoIn my estimation, Israel-Palestine (and, in particular, the college protests) was the straw that broke the camel's back. Remember the bill to ban Tiktok was introduced 5-6 months after October 7 at the height of college protests. The real problem with Tiktok, from the perspective of the US establishment and government, is that it doesn't move in lockstep the US State Department, as opposed to Meta [1], for example. An earlier prominent example was the East Palestine, Ohio train derailment [2] that was all over Tiktok for over a week before it got any mainstream media coverage. Mainstream media has to straddle a line between paroting the State Department and maintaining the veneer of legitimacy. Just compare the reaction to Brad Spafford, caught with the largest explosives cache ever seized, out on $25k bond [3] to a woman having set a $100k bail for saying "deny, defend, depose" over the phone to a health insurance company and, should she make that bond, she'll be kept on home confinement [4]. Or the resources dedicated to arresting Luigi Mangioni. Or even a man just recently killed by the police in under a minute in a raid for... a judge-exeuctive's weed eater in Kentucky [5]. Police in fact killed over 3 people a day in 2024 [6], including many egregious examples such as Sonya Massey [7]. My point here is that I agree this isn't solely a Israel-Palestine issue with Tiktok. But the media are complicit in not holding those in power accountable when they are quite clearly acting as thugs at the behest of the wealthy and powerful. Tiktok doesn't seem to play along with that narrative and that's why it got a ban. If we really cared about user privacy, we would've passed an expansive data protection bill. If we cared about foreign influence, why do we single out China and not, say, Israel? [1]: https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/systemic-censorship-palestine-content-instagram-and https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/... [2]: https://www.wired.com/story/east-palestine-ohio-train-derailment-tiktok/ https://www.wired.com/story/east-palestine-ohio-train-derail... [3]: https://www.vpm.org/news/2024-12-31/norfolk-homemade-explosives-brad-kenneth-spafford-bond https://www.vpm.org/news/2024-12-31/norfolk-homemade-explosi... [4]: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czenlg5d5rjo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czenlg5d5rjo [5]: https://www.lex18.com/news/covering-kentucky/stolen-weed-eater-investigation-tied-to-officer-involved-deadly-shooting-in-laurel-county-warrant-reveals https://www.lex18.com/news/covering-kentucky/stolen-weed-eat... [6]: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/01/03/xymt-j03.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/01/03/xymt-j03.html [7]: https://apnews.com/article/illinois-sonya-massey-deputy-shooting-grayson-01b91fa1731da8007cff693206cad2bc https://apnews.com/article/illinois-sonya-massey-deputy-shoo...
- wheaties 2y agoNational security has always beaten First Amendment (and many other rights.) I love watching TikTok but even i know how this will shake out. Now the question will be, who will rush to fill in this void? Will Bliesky release short form videos, too?
- drpossum 2y agoWhat's the first amendment right being violated in this case?
- Miner49er 2y agoIt's mentioned in the article, Lamont v. Postmaster General found that Americans have the right to receive speech/information even foreign propaganda.
- EMIRELADERO 2y agoNot only that, but the US subsidiary (TikTok, Inc) also has a 1A right to receive the feeds that power the app and relay them out to the rest of the country. The algorithmic choices of what content to show, to who, and when, are by themselves speech. Because the government cannot ban the "receiving" part, it obviously also cannot ban the "relaying". I don't know how the Court will rule, but if TikTok is poised to lose I'm very curious about how the Justices will deal with the conundrum I explained above.
- chasil 2y agoAs I understand it, TikTok is only being removed from the Apple & Google app stores, and existing installations will not be touched. For Google, sideloading TikTok remains an option, both for new installs and updates. This is not an option for Apple. Is there a point where the installed app itself becomes illegal?
- monocasa 2y agoIf they have a ban, they can force ISPs to block it. The app does nothing without server access.
- cdme 2y agoI'm not sure we should ban TikTok. I am sure we should pass proper privacy legislation, but lack the will to do so.
- onlyhumans 2y agoI don’t think anyone is really concerned with privacy, tho it is piled on as a reason to ban. The real issue is our adversary controlling the content the masses in the US see can sway opinions via propaganda
- marcosdumay 2y agoSomehow media concentration isn't concerning enough to act...
- cdme 2y agoHas the government made that case? I'm indifferent to TikTok's fate, but I've only heard vague allusions, not a concrete case.
- mullingitover 2y agoIf the Chinese want to control our media they're going to have to get one of their citizens to get US citizenship first. Only then can that token citizen build a media empire and engage in a massive, decades-long propaganda campaign against us.
- hunglee2 2y agovery important to control the information environment - social stability and mobilisation of the masses is dependent on it.
- Miner49er 2y agoI'm no lawyer, but the connection to the Radio Act seems somewhat tenuous. In that situation, foreign governments would have to argue they have a free speech right to broadcast their message. In the TikTok ban case, it's not about TikTok's right to speech, it's about American's right to both receive speech and to speak. Americans can use TikTok as a platform of speech, which is different then the Radio Act. There also already exists speech on TikTok that Americans have the right to hear, so the ban is more akin to the Lamont case mentioned in the article, IMO.
- breadwinner 2y ago> Americans have the right to hear This is the argument that gave us Citizens United.
- segasaturn 2y agoFrom what I've read of it, the Citizens United case was decided correctly. If you believe that how you spend money should be exempted from the First Amendment then it should be revised with that specific carve-out, but its definition of free speech was kept extremely broad for a reason.
- voakbasda 2y agoExactly. The problem is not that corporations have free speech. Rather, it’s that we have effectively no bounds on their growth, allowing their voices to drown out the citizenry.
- BeefWellington 2y agoA thought experiment: Would US independence have been achieved if the internet existed and the British crown had the ability to use that money to influence Americans? IMO it's at least contrary to the spirit of the constitution, which was about giving the People the power.
- logicchains 2y ago
- layer8 2y agoByteDance already has Lemon8 as its fallback plan. I wonder how that will pan out.
- throwkaa 2y agoI hope all nations ban Chinese and American propoganda apps.
- jimmytucson 2y agoDo feed and ranking algorithms have "sub-rational" influence over people's thoughts and opinions? If feeds are mind control, shouldn't courts and lawmakers just ban mind control? I'm glad we're taking it out of the hands of a foreign government, but why put it in the hands of domestic tech companies?
- iugtmkbdfil834 2y agoAhh, but you see... when we do it, it is changing the hearts and minds. It is pure. It is good.
- digging 2y agoOf course that's the reasonable approach, but in reality the US gov't finds mind control useful, and wants to be able to exert influence over it, rather than allow a foreign gov't exert influence over it.
- oldpersonintx 2y ago[dead]
- sneak 2y agoImportant to remember that the actual implementation falls to Apple and Google to remove the app from stores. It will be interesting to see if they turn the USA into a country that starts censoring arbitrary websites at the ISP level. tiktok.com is a thing.
- mullingitover 2y agoPurely from a realpolitik perspective I can't see a Tiktok ban happening. It has been a wildly successful propaganda machine for the ruling class, and ByteDance's extreme right-wing major shareholder Jeff Yaas[1] has enough money to buy the supreme court many times over with change from his couch cushions. The fact that the SC is already putting a pause on the shutdown should've made it clear that Tiktok won't be harmed. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Yass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Yass
- Miner49er 2y agoProblem is you have companies like Meta pushing for the ban, to remove competition. It's big money vs big money.
- martythemaniak 2y agoThis is the correct way to think about it. The new America operates in a much simpler manner - you debase yourself and praise the ruler by repeating one of his favourite lies, you give him a lot of money and if he likes you he'll give you what you want. Trump has ordered the court to rule a certain way and they'll do exactly as he told them to. Arguing the merits of a case, equal branches, judicial independence, etc is just silly.
- scythe 2y ago>It’s another thing altogether for a foreign adversary to potentially be able to control a massive communications platform with 170 million American users, nearly all of whom will be completely oblivious to whether the Chinese government is collecting their data or manipulating which content they see. This seems very weak. Can anyone believe that "nearly all" TikTok users are "completely oblivious" to the well-publicized data collection and feed algorithm issues associated with social media use? I believe that a simple warning label should be more than enough.
- incomingpain 2y agoTiktok's ban has bipartisan support(352 for, 65 against). Any judges looking to end their career will side with tiktok. In this age of political polarization, the issues that which are agreed upon by both sides are the story. There's nothing tiktok does that facebook does not. But chicken or the egg? Is chinese social media causing the polarization? What if the 'community guidelines' must be fully compliant with all cultures? Which essentially means free speech?
- fred_is_fred 2y agoIt's nearly impossible to remove a sitting Supreme Court justice.
- incomingpain 2y agoTrue, but when you have overwhelming bipartisan support of a sovereign government. Not impossible, not even difficult.
- myroon5 2y agoOnly one Supreme Court Justice has ever even been impeached (in 1804), and they did not receive a single conviction, let alone any sentencing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Samuel_Chase https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Samuel_Chase
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- jmclnx 2y agoMy take is reciprocally. Since China bans many US Owned Social Media Companies, the US should do the same. Once the US Companies get the same access in China the US allows TikTok to have, TikTok should be banned.
- andrewla 2y agoThis is not a meaningful argument. China does not have any freedom of speech encoded in its foundational documents. The US does. This is like saying that we're going to get rid of trial by jury until China adds it in.
- Duwensatzaj 2y agoAmusingly enough from the Constitution of the People's Republic of China: Article 35: Citizens of the People’s Republic of China shall enjoy freedom of speech, the press, assembly, association, procession and demonstration.
- andrewla 2y agoThat's remarkable! So much of the PRC Constitution [1] seems very consistent with what liberal democracies expect in terms of rights. I guess there's a whole area of discussion as to whether the way that rights are expressed are a function of law vs. a function of culture. That said, many of the articles contain exceptions for "order" and "public security". Two examples I found striking because they sound good until you get to the end where it basically says "you have this right, unless, you know, we don't want you to have it": > Article 40: The freedom and privacy of correspondence of citizens of the People's Republic of China are protected by law. No organization or individual may, on any ground, infringe upon the freedom and privacy of citizens' correspondence except in cases where, to meet the needs of state security or of investigation into criminal offenses, public security or procuratorial organs are permitted to censor correspondence in accordance with procedures prescribed by law. > Article 51: The exercise by citizens of the People's Republic of China of their freedoms and rights may not infringe upon the interests of the state, of society and of the collective, or upon the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens. [1] https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/China_2018 https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/China_2018
- andrewla 2y agoThe bill mentions ByteDance and TikTok specifically -- doesn't that make this a bill of attainder, and thus de facto unconstitutional? The terms of the ban are incredibly broad too -- if you can post reviews on AliExpress that other users can see it seems like that too would be a covered application.
- valbaca 2y ago> doesn't that make this a bill of attainder, and thus de facto unconstitutional? That was already covered by a lower court IIRC
- LittleTimothy 2y agoI think it's pretty pointless to discuss the pretextual judicial justification for something that is just raw politics. Trump will decide if Tiktok is banned, it's as simple as that. You don't need to analyze the supreme court case, it doesn't matter. If Trump is motivated to get rid of it, he'll find a way. If he doesn't want it sold, he'll find a way. What exactly is the supreme court planning to do if Trump just ignores the ruling? What exactly is Tiktok planning to do if Trump chooses to attack it? Trump has all 3 branches of government and is constrained by no norms. He can simply do as he likes and focusing on the legal arguments just looks a bit silly.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- jrflowers 2y agoI like this article’s reasoning that websites and radio stations are the same thing and therefore the government rightfully has the existing power to ban any website that it deems sufficiently Chinese. Following this reasoning it would make sense to create a sort of digital “jumbo country-scale safety net” that makes sure Americans can only see and interact with American stuff. Doing that effectively would take a lot of technical expertise though, I wonder where we would find a talent pool for such an undertaking.
- segasaturn 2y agoThat would effectively be an American version of China's Great Firewall right? Maybe call the Cyber Border Wall so there's no confusion :-)
- LorenzoGood 2y agoSo the great firewall?
- lemoncookiechip 2y agoA reminder that in a recent interview with [1] NBC News, Trump spoke very positively of Tiktok, saying it played a role in his campaign reaching a younger demographic and saying he would fight to keep it around. He takes office on the day after the ban supposedly goes into action. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b607aDHUu2I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b607aDHUu2I (The China/Taiwan timestamp iirc)
- tonetheman 2y ago[dead]