5 ms·

I’m not sure what order things go in, but I’d have thought national security concerns trump the need of its’ citizens to freely watch cat videos Those people p

I’m not sure what order things go in, but I’d have thought national security concerns trump the need of its’ citizens to freely watch cat videos Those people publishing to TikTok were probably on Instagram and if they weren’t, they will be now if they want to reach the same American audience.

llamaimperative 2y ago
> I’d have thought national security concerns trump the need of its’ citizens to freely watch cat videos You'd be wrong. What value would a concept like the First Amendment have if it were voidable as easily as "we have national security concerns" or "the information on there isn't valuable." Given that those are pretty much the immediate go-to excuses for any autocrats clamp down on speech, such a right would be totally meaningless.
- ipython 2y ago
  However forcing TikTok to divest of foreign ownership is not restricting the rights of Americans to express their opinions. Americans are free to widely exercise their first amendment rights- the TikTok order to divest foreign ownership doesn’t affect those users ability to speak. The first amendment does not guarantee you access to a specific platform- it means that the bar for the government to imprison you for speech is very high (you can be held in contempt for lying under oath, for example) I would argue that in this case the platform itself is expressing speech by ranking, recommending and promoting certain content. A foreign entity has no such first amendment right- we have had restrictions on foreign ownership of news media for decades now. I think it’s an interesting issue especially now that you have TikTok users who think they’re being treated unfairly moving to a pure Chinese platform RedNote and encountering actual censorship. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2025/01/16/tech/tiktok-refugees-rednote-china-censorship-intl-hnk https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2025/01/16/tech/tiktok-refugees-redn.... And now unconfirmed reports that RedNote is considering segregating the new American users from the Chinese users, ironically so Americans couldn’t influence Chinese users - https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/01/rednote-may-wall-off-tiktok-refugees-to-prevent-us-influence-on-chinese-users/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/01/rednote-may-wall...
  - thehappypm 2y ago
    I would disagree, the first amendment in fact does protect platforms for speech. If the government tried to ban the New York Times through an act of Congress, the Supreme Court would strike that down. In this case, the fact that the platform is foreign and that the foreign owner is considered hostile to the US carves out an exception.
    - ipython 2y ago
      Banning foreign ownership of broadcast media companies is not new. It’s just that the laws have lagged the shift from broadcast linear mediums to the internet. Source: the FCC specifically prohibits certain ownership of broadcast stations by foreign entities: “Section 310(a) prohibits a foreign government or its representative from holding any radio license. Section 310(b)(3) prohibits foreign individuals, governments, and corporations from owning more than twenty percent of the capital stock of a broadcast, common carrier, or aeronautical radio station licensee.” 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...
      - thehappypm 2y ago
        I dont think you are disagreeing
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Forcing American companies not to put an app on their marketplace is impinging their speech. And yes, they do have First Amendment protections. No, the First Amendment doesn’t just prevent the government from imprisoning you for speech… that is a ridiculously narrow perspective and really discredits you on the matter. The First Amendment, as a trivial example, prevents the government from fining you for speech. It prevents the government from threatening to imprison you for speech. It prevents the government from seizing your assets for speech. FWIW, I’m not arguing that TikTok shouldn’t be banned. I think it’s a propaganda weapon. However it is far from clear that it can be banned under our Constitution. Especially since the mechanics of that ban require coercing American companies and individuals to limit their freedom of expression.
accrual 2y ago
TikTok is used for far more than cat videos which is why it's a considered a threat to those in power. There are freely flowing ideas and narratives which they cannot control - except now they are by restricting access to it. Instagram doesn't have the same culture at all and it's not a substitute. TikTok is a like a digital "third space" for communities, and just like the real life equivilents, is slowly disappearing. People without community are easier to control.
- thehappypm 2y ago
  Why shouldn’t TikTok just divest, then? Bytedance could make a huge amount of money by selling TikTok. And then that huge influx of money could keep TikTok operating forever. The fact that they’d rather shut down is pretty telling.
  - henrikschroder 2y ago
    TikTok is outcompeting its US rivals Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts because their algorithm for choosing which videos to put in front of users is simply superior. Divesting means that they would need to sell that algorithm as well, which is pretty obviously worth a lot more than their US market, which is why they're making this decision.
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      lol, no it’s not. They’re making this decision because they’re ultimately controlled by the CCP which is not as susceptible to market forces.
      - ipython 2y ago
        It could be a bit of both. The popularity of TikTok indicates that their algorithm for picking relevant videos is pretty damn good. So they may consider that the US market is worth sacrificing for their sovereignty.

llamaimperative 2y ago

> I’d have thought national security concerns trump the need of its’ citizens to freely watch cat videos You'd be wrong. What value would a concept like the First Amendment have if it were voidable as easily as "we have national security concerns" or "the information on there isn't valuable." Given that those are pretty much the immediate go-to excuses for any autocrats clamp down on speech, such a right would be totally meaningless.

ipython 2y ago
However forcing TikTok to divest of foreign ownership is not restricting the rights of Americans to express their opinions. Americans are free to widely exercise their first amendment rights- the TikTok order to divest foreign ownership doesn’t affect those users ability to speak. The first amendment does not guarantee you access to a specific platform- it means that the bar for the government to imprison you for speech is very high (you can be held in contempt for lying under oath, for example) I would argue that in this case the platform itself is expressing speech by ranking, recommending and promoting certain content. A foreign entity has no such first amendment right- we have had restrictions on foreign ownership of news media for decades now. I think it’s an interesting issue especially now that you have TikTok users who think they’re being treated unfairly moving to a pure Chinese platform RedNote and encountering actual censorship. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2025/01/16/tech/tiktok-refugees-rednote-china-censorship-intl-hnk https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2025/01/16/tech/tiktok-refugees-redn.... And now unconfirmed reports that RedNote is considering segregating the new American users from the Chinese users, ironically so Americans couldn’t influence Chinese users - https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/01/rednote-may-wall-off-tiktok-refugees-to-prevent-us-influence-on-chinese-users/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/01/rednote-may-wall...
- thehappypm 2y ago
  I would disagree, the first amendment in fact does protect platforms for speech. If the government tried to ban the New York Times through an act of Congress, the Supreme Court would strike that down. In this case, the fact that the platform is foreign and that the foreign owner is considered hostile to the US carves out an exception.
  - ipython 2y ago
    Banning foreign ownership of broadcast media companies is not new. It’s just that the laws have lagged the shift from broadcast linear mediums to the internet. Source: the FCC specifically prohibits certain ownership of broadcast stations by foreign entities: “Section 310(a) prohibits a foreign government or its representative from holding any radio license. Section 310(b)(3) prohibits foreign individuals, governments, and corporations from owning more than twenty percent of the capital stock of a broadcast, common carrier, or aeronautical radio station licensee.” 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...
    - thehappypm 2y ago
      I dont think you are disagreeing
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Forcing American companies not to put an app on their marketplace is impinging their speech. And yes, they do have First Amendment protections. No, the First Amendment doesn’t just prevent the government from imprisoning you for speech… that is a ridiculously narrow perspective and really discredits you on the matter. The First Amendment, as a trivial example, prevents the government from fining you for speech. It prevents the government from threatening to imprison you for speech. It prevents the government from seizing your assets for speech. FWIW, I’m not arguing that TikTok shouldn’t be banned. I think it’s a propaganda weapon. However it is far from clear that it can be banned under our Constitution. Especially since the mechanics of that ban require coercing American companies and individuals to limit their freedom of expression.

accrual 2y ago

TikTok is used for far more than cat videos which is why it's a considered a threat to those in power. There are freely flowing ideas and narratives which they cannot control - except now they are by restricting access to it. Instagram doesn't have the same culture at all and it's not a substitute. TikTok is a like a digital "third space" for communities, and just like the real life equivilents, is slowly disappearing. People without community are easier to control.

thehappypm 2y ago
Why shouldn’t TikTok just divest, then? Bytedance could make a huge amount of money by selling TikTok. And then that huge influx of money could keep TikTok operating forever. The fact that they’d rather shut down is pretty telling.
- henrikschroder 2y ago
  TikTok is outcompeting its US rivals Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts because their algorithm for choosing which videos to put in front of users is simply superior. Divesting means that they would need to sell that algorithm as well, which is pretty obviously worth a lot more than their US market, which is why they're making this decision.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    lol, no it’s not. They’re making this decision because they’re ultimately controlled by the CCP which is not as susceptible to market forces.
    - ipython 2y ago
      It could be a bit of both. The popularity of TikTok indicates that their algorithm for picking relevant videos is pretty damn good. So they may consider that the US market is worth sacrificing for their sovereignty.