10 ms·

The TikTok debate has always been about the balance between national security and free speech. We found a compromise. TikTok will remain, all of its national s

• vasco 2y ago
  Soldiers were already sharing videos of aircraft carriers on Rednote which hasn't gone through the whole shenanigans of paying Larry Ellison to host it on Oracle Cloud and so on. The national security risk is the US military apparently not being able to convince its own soldiers to be thoughtful about cybersecurity.
  • whatshisface 2y ago
    How does it matter where those videos were shared? Material is either classified or unclassified, it doesn't matter if the WarThunder forums (for example) are moderated by US nationals or not.
    • vasco 2y ago
      It's not about where the videos are posted, it's about having apps that collect exact GPS position of smartphones that soldiers carry while the position of the ships they are on is classified. The fact that there's videos is just the "proof" that they have installed such apps that exfiltrate things like their location, for example. Famously, soldiers wanted to use strava in secret military bases: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/28/fitness-tracking-app-gives-away-location-of-secret-us-army-bases https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/28/fitness-tracki...
      • whatshisface 2y ago
        If you want to secure sailors' phones you are going to have to do a lot more, and at the same time much less, than ban or transfer the ownership of one single app that happens to be used by over a hundred million civilians.
        • redwall_hp 2y ago
          GasBuddy (and Life360) just sold that same location data to brokers, which Allstate bought and used to adjust premiums. Practically every app that is given access to location info is selling it, and it's widely available to anyone with the money to buy. Maybe we should have some sort of General Data Protection Regulation law instead of hand-wringing about social media.
          • ssl-3 2y ago
            GasBuddy, at least, said that they could (read: would) sell the location data that they collected after opt-in. It was part of the agreement. I can't imagine a world where it would be illegal for two parties to agree to sell the location data that one of them generates.
            • woodson 2y ago
              That’s the world we live in today. Under many countries’ privacy laws, it’s not legal to sell PII to a third party that you collected for a specific other purpose (e.g., fulfilling the primary purpose of the app). The problem is that they do it anyways.
              • ssl-3 2y ago
                What problem? If I agree to let FantasyCorp sell my location data, and then they follow through with our agreement and actually sell it, then there's no problem here that I can see.
      • Kye 2y ago
        Are ship locations classified? I doubt China has difficulty keeping track. They have satellites too.
        • pjc50 2y ago
          They almost certainly are while on deployment, despite it being really obvious where a ship is.
          • Atotalnoob 2y ago
            Oceans are vast, sometimes there are clouds and storms.
            • echoangle 2y ago
              Clouds and storms don’t really help you with a SAR satellite.
        • wcunning 2y ago
          The Onion Router was invented by the Navy to make ship location tracking hard with visibility of some of the network, so it's classified at times. More importantly, just because you have satellites doesn't mean that it's easy to pick all of that out all the time or to be entirely certain of which ship/which mission, etc. Making it harder is better even if it can't be made impossible outside of subs.
        • catlifeonmars 2y ago
          App usage not only leaks location, but number of troops; something which is not readily detectable by satellite.
          • echoangle 2y ago
            Wouldn’t the crew of a ship be pretty constant though, for this example?
            • 2y ago
      • Gormo 2y ago
        Why are soldiers allowed to bring GPS-enable consumer smartphones along with them on top-secret deployments in the first place?
        • catlifeonmars 2y ago
          It’s not top secret deployments, it’s any deployments. All deployments need to maintain a level of operational security. Also if you expect a bunch of people in the 18-29 age range to go without internet for 9 months to 2 years, you’re kidding yourself. The tradeoff is between operational security and morale and if you’re in military leadership, you really don’t want unhappy troops on your hands.
          • Gormo 2y ago
            I mean, I do completely expect deployed military personnel to adhere to rules and limitations that are much more rigorous than those they'd experience in civilian life. I'd be astonished if I learned that soldiers on duty were totally free to do as they please the expense of operational security simply because that's what people in their broad demographic category are accustomed to. I'd be equally astonished if I found that military recruitment was based on enlisting cross-sectional samples of demographic categories, without regard for the capacities and attitudes of the specific individuals seeking to join. I know for a fact that people are rejected for enlistment for all sorts of reasons. And I'm sure that the military can find ways of enabling deployed personnel to use the internet without sacrificing security or oversight -- for example by requiring them to use secured military-issue computers and smartphones, or by having an inspection or vetting process for hardware and software when soldiers want to use their own devices. I hope you also acknowledge the absurdity of suggesting that the government should apply essentially the same restrictions to the whole of society that the military couldn't apply within its own sphere of control.
            • ethbr1 2y ago
              You're constructing a straw man without being curious about the things you yourself are missing. Or in HNism, you're "Why don't they just..." without considering the reasons those solutions might be more challenging than they first appear. I suggest you read parent comment about balance and tradeoffs inherent in forward deployment again.
  • RobotToaster 2y ago
    By that measure they should ban the war thunder forum before tiktok
  • gscott 2y ago
    Plus these apps track you everywhere so the Chinese have your GPS and you're on the aircraft carrier. No need for fancy satellites they can just have that data and track the military and other government employees 24/7. I guarantee you no American company can track Chinese military or Chinese employees 24/7 wherever they're at this is a one-way deal it's not good for the US.
  • gazchop 2y ago
    This isn’t the only risk. There is also the problem of radicalising people. This has been a big problem in Europe.
  • david_allison 2y ago
    It's hopeless to expect every member of the military to be thoughtful about cybersecurity. If they'll openly share nuclear secrets & base protocols publicly, anything is fair game. https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2021/05/28/us-soldiers-expose-nuclear-weapons-secrets-via-flashcard-apps/ https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2021/05/28/us-soldiers-expos...
  • rchaud 2y ago
    This is why Blackberry used to sell phones without cameras and microphone switches, and enterprise-centric OS images. Crazy that regular iOS/Android phones leaking data 24/7 to a million 'partners' are freely allowed at military locations. Pictures and video uploaded to social media include EXIF data with geolocation!
  • oooyay 2y ago
    > The national security risk is the US military apparently not being able to convince its own soldiers to be thoughtful about cybersecurity. That's not really a new problem. The problem is as old as time, even before the internet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_lips_sink_ships https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_lips_sink_ships When I was deployed in 2011 we didn't carry cell phones because: 1. Jammers will render your antenna unusable or potentially damage your device. 2. The country that controls the infrastructure now has the inside scoop on who you are, what you're doing, and where you are. Even if they country is an ally, it only takes a few individuals to start mass exfiltration. TikTok was turning into infrastructure for social dialogue except that it had a new capability compared to the cell phones of 2011: it could be manipulated at scale, and quickly with the combination of algorithms and outrage culture.
• whoevercares 2y ago
  Everybody loses? The fact that TikTok remains available to millions of users is a significant benefit, especially for those who rely on it for creative expression, community building, and small-business promotion.
  • ninetyninenine 2y ago
    He means net loss to the status quo in reference to the entire fiasco. I had TikTok before… I still have TikTok… what rights were trampled in the process of bringing about zero change to me using tiktok?
    • snovv_crash 2y ago
      Tiktok now exists at the whim of the sitting president, whoever that may be. This means that the USA is one small step closer to a dictatorship.
      • LPisGood 2y ago
        That’s only true if Tik Tok remains operating in violation of the law.
        • deleted 2y ago
          [deleted]
        • snovv_crash 2y ago
          This has nothing to do with tiktok and everything to do with shifting power in the US political system towards the executive.
  • scotty79 2y ago
    It's interesting how most commenters seem to forget about TikTok users. Every interest is taken into account, China, USA, intelligence services, TikTok "competition". Users somehow never enter the picture for most people in any other way than as gullible idiots getting exploited by the aforementioned parties.
• perihelions 2y ago
  - "Everybody loses. This outcome is worse than anyone could have conceived." The outcome is *exactly* as anyone with a modicum of sense expected. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"—often paraphrased (sensibly!) as "deserve neither and *will lose both*." As you say: we've lost both—who could have predicted that? Yeah; well. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin There's nothing really novel about the instant situation. It's a classic, on repeat.
  • selimthegrim 2y ago
    That quote has to do with taxation.
    • FFFXXX 2y ago
      https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famou...
    • Xelbair 2y ago
      and is relevant for more than original intent. censorship, and similar constraints on free speech, just hide the problems of society so you are unable to act on possible threats as a policymaker.
  • bcrosby95 2y ago
    The liberty in that example being raising enough taxes to properly fund our government so people can just go about their lives.
    • llm_trw 2y ago
      You can no more riase taxes to properly fund government than you can fill a bucket with no bottom. One only need to look at the Harris campaign to see that the political class in the us is fundamentally innumerate as well as incapable of making a cost benefit analysis.
• draw_down 2y ago
  [dead]
• gregw134 2y ago
  "The law banning TikTok, which was scheduled to go into effect Sunday, allows the president to grant a 90-day extension before the ban is enforced, provided certain criteria are met" Sounds like they're operating within the law
  • codingdave 2y ago
    From the ruling: "The Act permits the President to grant a one-time extension of no more than 90 days with respect to the prohibitions’ 270-day effective date if the President makes certain certifications to Congress regarding progress toward a qualified divestiture." Sounds like he needs to work with Congress on at least a basic level for this to be within the law, not just make his own decision and declare all is good. And there is the small detail that he is not President, at least not today.
    • bigtunacan 2y ago
      TikTok has already received multiple "interest to acquire" letters, including the one from Perplexity that would keep all existing investors fully intact. Having that along with a republican majority in both the congress and the senate this isn't going to be difficult for Trump to fulfill the requirements of the law.
      • nickthegreek 2y ago
        That is not enough to satisfy all 3 certification requirements as required by this law.
        • lazide 2y ago
          Do you get the impression that the incoming administration cares about the law? As long as there is a fig leaf/smokescreen, and TikTok makes the right noises and contributions, they’ll be fine. If anything, Keeping them technically in violation of the law is the leverage the administration will want to keep so they can squeeze TikTok whenever they want.
  • 2y ago
• ninetyninenine 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • creato 2y ago
    If you think money is what is on the table here you lack imagination. It's the "Trump knob" in TikTok's ranking algorithm that is the real thing of value here. No actual deal is necessary here. It's obvious to everyone involved what the deal is: TikTok ensures that its content is friendly to Trump, TikTok stays unbanned.
    • ninetyninenine 2y ago
      Read my second paragraph. Money is obviously just an example. You said TikTok content stays friendly to trump. Isn’t that exactly what I said?: Some deal was cut.
    • daveguy 2y ago
      Exactly this. Trump is consolidating all of the propaganda distribution systems. Play ball and your distribution system is safe.
      • ThinkBeat 2y ago
        The ACLU is thus helping Trump consolidating all of the propaganda distribution systems? https://action.aclu.org/send-message/tell-congress-no-tiktok-ban https://action.aclu.org/send-message/tell-congress-no-tiktok... https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/banning-tiktok-is-unconstitutional-the-supreme-court-must-step-in https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/banning-tiktok-i...
        • daveguy 2y ago
          Technically, and unfortunately, yes. They are a single-issue organization, and that single issue takes precedence over any other consideration. I doubt many of them who are involved are happy about him being able to use this to consolidate, but there are always external effects when you have a single major priority (especially if it's a good one).
• pjc50 2y ago
  > This outcome is worse than anyone could have conceived. This is the maximally stupid outcome, so I suppose we should have seen it coming. I guess the conclusion is going to involve Trump taking an ownership stake in TikTok, possibly by swapping it for $TRUMP cryptocurrency or Truth Social shares something.
  • roughly 2y ago
    I think people are not quite ready for the level of klept we’re about to see.
    • pjc50 2y ago
      The klept will probably escalate until a fellow billionaire gets hit. It's going to get really weird. We can blame the state of New York for this, who convicted Trump of falsifying business records and then handed him a sentence of .. nothing.
      • xnx 2y ago
        > then handed him a sentence of .. nothing. Nothing yet: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czr72m57e1jo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czr72m57e1jo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czr72m57e1jo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czr72m57e1jo
        • lazide 2y ago
          Which is why he is never going to voluntarily step down, and has made it clear he is never going to voluntarily step down.
          • foobazgt 2y ago
            There would literally be an instant revolution by 50% of the US upon such an act. Let's please avoid the inflammatory rhetoric.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• chvid 2y ago
  Plus Trump got all major social media in his pocket.
• __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
  What outcome are you talking about comrade? Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
• steveBK123 2y ago
  No there's going to be some obvious winners. Trump is going to force a 50% sale to a US based JV. That JV will be run by / benefit some of his biggest goons. So Trump & his circle win !
• herval 2y ago
  > The TikTok debate has always been about the balance between national security and free speech And now about how the sitting president can profit from brokering it
• ck2 2y ago
  Free speech? Can you talk about the Tiananmen Square massacre on TikTok and show the few videos of people who were disappeared? Are they accessible in the country that owns TikTok?
  • extheat 2y ago
    If I want to run what someone else has determined as "malware" on my computer, as far as I'm concerned, I should have the absolute right to do it. Same for spyware. Why? Because I don't want the government to make the determination for what is right or wrong for me on my own property. If the US government wants to block apps on their property, then they can go ahead and do that. But the moment it extends to my own property, it's quite ridiculous to think people are going to bend over backwards and comply with what's good for you. Especially in the context of some vague national security threat, why am I supposed to be subversive to the CIA? How can you complain about the CCP banning foreign social media and censoring when you have your own government willing to do the same thing -- in the name of Protecting the Democracy? It's not about privacy or data or whatever the facade is. The crime that we are committing is none other than allowing ourselves to be fed information that could threaten the United States. So, therefore, even according to the SCOTUS, if Congress plasters the magical words "national security" in their laws, then the Constitution takes a backseat and we too can be like China/Russia/Iran. Will we start banning VPNs next--which circumvent our new found love for censorship? I'd not be surprised.
  • zugi 2y ago
    > Can you talk about the Tiananmen Square massacre on TikTok and show the few videos of people who were disappeared? Yes, see www.tiktok.com/channel/tiananmen-square . Or read https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/tiktok-us-ban-congress-tiananmen-square-b2306857.html https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/tiktok-us-ban-congress... . Or just go search for it.
    • psychlops 2y ago
      That is hilarious! Did you even look at the Tiananmen Square channel before posting it? Or do you think that's what happened?
• purple_ferret 2y ago
  >Everybody loses. Huh? Trump singlehandedly bringing TikTok back for tens of millions of malleable voters. Sounds like a pretty huge victory for him!
• logicchains 2y ago
  It's an absolute win for the content creators who relied on TikTok for their livelihoods and the small businesses who relied on it for marketing. And for Gen Z, for whom content creation is one of the few viable ways to earn a good income now that tech grad hiring has completely collapsed.
  • YurgenJurgensen 2y ago
    It’s kind-of not. A ban would have given them all the opportunity to go wherever their audience went. The demand for their content wouldn’t simply disappear, it’d just be displaced to some other platform. And said other platform would almost certainly be less capricious and better for creators than TikTok.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• epolanski 2y ago
  This 4 years gonna be good. Trump #1 was amateur time, this time they come prepared to bring havoc.
• andrethegiant 2y ago
  The answer is to not use TikTok.
• agilob 2y ago
  This is exactly what all Europeans watching US politics expected. No more, no less.
• TheRealPomax 2y ago
  It was never about that balance. It was always about populism.
• pluc 2y ago
  Trump wins, everyone loses. Get used to it.
• xyst 2y ago
  “National security” is such a bs term for US govt to avoid transparency. It comes from the post 9/11 era of FISA courts, PATRIOT act to justify wide net domestic surveillance and wiretapping. To me, the whole banning of TT is political theater aimed to divide the US while existing tech oligarchs consolidate power and money. Just look at the message TT broadcasted. Blatant pandering of incoming administration.
  • aceazzameen 2y ago
    I agree. This is a forced consolidation that will only strengthen American tech oligarchs and the new administration. It's also coup on the culture of the younger generations similar to what happened to Twitter.
• noqc 2y ago
  This isn't about free speech. Tiktok's statement actually provides all of the necessary context. China pays influencers. The tiktok ban is not about what you are allowed to say, but who is allowed to pay you to say it. This is a very different question.
• dp-hackernews 2y ago
  Chase Hughes: "Manipulation Playbook: The 20 Indicators of Reality Control" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3AN2wY4qAM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3AN2wY4qAM
• vkou 2y ago
  It's worse than that. The platform is now beholden to the president for its survival. If you're wondering how Russia slipped from a flawed democracy into an aurocracy, it was because Yeltsin fixed the 1996 election, by holding an axe over the head of the press. He made it very clear that anybody who wants to keep their broadcast licenses will need to shill for him. It's how a drunken autocrat with an 8% approval rating, credited for both hyperinflation and mass unemployment, who launched a coup (that killed a few hundred people and caused a constitutional crisis) ended up getting re-elected. And then at the eleventh hour, after firing his cabinet, again, he declares Putin his successor and resigns over a $10,000 bribery scandal.
• nickburns 2y ago
  This is not an outcome. The legal process is but still well underway. In the United States, we abide by the rule of law.[1] That's really what separates us from China. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
• belter 2y ago
  "TikTok CEO attending Trump inauguration" - https://thehill.com/policy/technology/5089151-tiktok-ceo-donald-trump-inauguration/ https://thehill.com/policy/technology/5089151-tiktok-ceo-don...
• leptons 2y ago
  >Also, the law that tramples free speech I'm not sure how so many people misunderstand the difference between "free speech" and "app controlled by hostile foreign government". The people speaking on TikTok have not lost their right to free speech, they still are free to use a multitude of other channels that amplify their speech. No speech was blocked, only the app controlled by a hostile foreign government was blocked, and there are no provisions in a any legal framework that says we can't stop a hostile foreign government from controlling what people in this country see.
• rib3ye 2y ago
  I just don’t get how free speech translates as accessibility to post on a commercial platform.
• konschubert 2y ago
  Everyone lives and dies by the KING now.
• fny 2y ago
  Can someone please explain how the law tramples free speech? Isn’t it completely legal to shut down a stadium or arena? Additionally, why have we all forgotten that China does not allow any of our social media companies within their borders? If we’re in the business of free trade, there’s no reason to let them operate a social media company in the US until they’ve opened their market to us.
• gedpeck 2y ago
  … the law that tramples free speech is upheld by the court This law does not trample free speech. Your view of what free speech means as it pertains to U.S. law is wrong.
• timewizard 2y ago
  > balance between national security and free speech. This is an absurd framing. Free speech cannot implicate national security. If a social media platform controlled by a foreign government can manipulate the people so easily then you have a much larger and ignored problem. > all of its national security risks Which are zero. What you actually experience a risk from is the shabby way Google, Microsoft and Apple have put their platforms together. Designed to earn them money while utterly destroying your privacy. > This outcome is worse You're already in trouble. This outcome is a symptom of a much larger problem. The conversation around this is completely detached from reality.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• uludag 2y ago
  There's something in this argument about national security, that if taken to its logical conclusion, would result in a world most people would consider upside-down: If social media owned by foreign companies is a national security threat, then wouldn't that essentially make FB, X, YouTube a threat to like every other nation? Why not throw wikipedia in too? So now any nation can legitimately see any other source or collector of information as a national security threat and ban it at will? Taken to the logical conclusion, every nation should be enveloped by its own digital borders. To me, it's the popular sentiment alone, for example people feeling sad and upset TikTok's gone and feeling happy that it's back, that's preventing this dismal future, otherwise governments would block apps on a whim. And this I'd say is a win.
• theobreuerweil 2y ago
  This seems not to be an opinion that other people hold, but I never saw social media as “free speech” given that some third party can decides which parts of what you say get promoted. If you sent letters to people via a middleman who decided which of those to forward onwards, you’d see that as censorship. I appreciate that that’s an over-simplified example - it’s meant to be a reductio ad absurdum. But control of the algorithm effectively regulates free speech, IMO. Also (for clarity) the fact that China happens to be involved is not relevant to my point!
• weare138 2y ago
  What also bothers me is there's a simple solution to all this. Just pass comprehensive consumer data protection laws and regulations all companies operating in the US are required to follow. But you don't see anyone proposing that for some reason...