10 ms·

> a company "shut themselves down" to make a big political statement They were following the law. Anything else is just promises by people who are not exactly

by nico 2y ago

> a company "shut themselves down" to make a big political statement They were following the law. Anything else is just promises by people who are not exactly known for following through with them Shutting down because the law says it, and to prevent really big penalties, is not making “a big political statement

acomms 2y ago
Nothing in the law changed since yesterday. This is only theatre.
aaronharnly 2y ago
The law did not require them to suspend the service.
- space_fountain 2y ago
  The law requires Oracle who hosts their data companies that provide cdn services to stop working with them. The law did require them to suspend service, but not quite as soon as they did and nothing had changed legally
- margalabargala 2y ago
  The law required them to choose from among several options, one of which was suspending the service. The law did not permit maintaining the status quo as an option.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    No, it does not at all require ByteDance to suspend service. It requires Apple and Google to stop distributing the app on their app stores, and it requires any US-based hosting providers that host TikTok services to stop providing those services. ByteDance could shut down any US-hosted services and serve from outside the US, and be entirely compliant with the law. The TikTok mobile app might become out of date and stop working (for people who already had it installed on their phones), but www.tiktok.com would continue to work just fine.
    - modo_mario 2y ago
      >and it requires any US-based hosting providers that host TikTok services to stop providing those services. And they were forced to use those hosting providers (oracle) by the US. It's not like investing loads to bring all the data over to singapore or so would serve them well either. They'd still lose the US business relatively quickly and with lower chances of turning things around like they might've. Why bother?
    - margalabargala 2y ago
      What do you mean, "no"? You agreed with me. The option you describe is another among the several options available. Unless you're saying that the service shutdown would not have brought Bytedance into legal compliance, which would be a novel assertion.
space_fountain 2y ago
They shut down before the law required them to (by a few hours), and now they’re back despite no changes in law or action by the president. Biden had already issued an executive order, nothing changed
- glenstein 2y ago
  That would be my question also. You can't explain the shutdown as following the law if the law didn't change between the time of the shutdown and coming back on. It seems to me like the more accurate assessment here is an anticipation of policy changes, which however fruitful do not reflect any change in law, but perhaps some change in the degree of reassurance that the law won't be enforced. If it's not that, it may well be as the original commenter in this thread suggested a stunt to make a point.
ceejayoz 2y ago
They shut down and reopened without any changes to the law. They are open now, despite the law being in effect.
- extheat 2y ago
  They reopened with formal understanding that there will be an executive order tomorrow to suspend the enforcement of the ban. That is a big deal and it's something that they can point to to defend themselves in court should that happen. When President Biden signed the bill, it gave him the ability to extend the deadline by an amount which he declined to do (beyond saying "I'll let Trump admin deal with it"); and soon-to-be President Trump is saying he will do it tomorrow.
  - kllrnohj 2y ago
    I'm pretty certain an executive order cannot overrule a law. So they're just hoping to either get an actual reversal of the law while Trump is in term or just hoping nobody after him will care. It's like betting on jury nullification but without the benefit of double jeopardy protection. It's unclear if any of the US companies the law is aimed at will risk it.
    - kelnos 2y ago
      An executive order can't overrule a law, but it can direct the DoJ not to enforce a particular law.
      - kllrnohj 2y ago
        Which would be an EO counter the constitution and obviously not durable itself. In 4 years the next DOJ can just enforce the law on the books with 4 years of evidence of companies openly breaking it. It'd be a slam dunk case
    - anon7000 2y ago
      The law allows the president to grant a one time 90 day extension. (In this specific case)
TeaBrain 2y ago
The law didn't require them to shut the service off for those who already had the app installed. It just prevented new updates or downloads. Shutting off the app immediately was just theater and reinstating the app with no changes to the law is just the second act.
- honorious 2y ago
  The law says that US cloud providers are fined if they continued to provide services to Bytedance. As far as we know, Tiktok is operated on US servers by Oracle. While it might have been possible to find another cloud provider and move all US data there, I can see them not wanting to do that given that there was no point if the app isn't distributed in the US anymore.
  - TeaBrain 2y ago
    There's currently no evidence pointing towards Oracle shutting down cloud service to them though. TikTok appears to have just preemptively shut down the app before they were obligated to, complete with dramatic messages telling users what to blame and who to thank.
    - dmix 2y ago
      Even without following the letter of the law it's entirely rational behaviour for a popular market leader to foment outrage by fully blacking out services. 150 million users (in the US alone) is a very powerful political influence. Politicians frequently fold for a few thousand vocal people complaining on the internet. It was a gambit used for net neutrality in 2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Slowdown_Day https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Slowdown_Day
      - nightpool 2y ago
        Of course it's rational behavior. Nico was the one claiming that they were just "following the law", that's what this subthread was about. If you agree that TikTok was making a political point by shutting down, then you agree with the person you're replying to.
Brystephor 2y ago
Did they shut down at the last moment necessary or did they shut down during what is likely a peak browsing time in the U.S.? Did they need to include messaging about political figures to notify the user of the reason of the ban? I understand that there was this law. It's a political statement because of the political message being sent out to the user base. The act of shutting down on its own is not a political statement.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Osiris 2y ago
But now they are breaking the law by turning it back on.
LastTrain 2y ago
But bringing the service back again today is not following the law, is it? Trump hasn't taken office yet. Curious if you've now changed your mind.
- immibis 2y ago
  Someone else pointed out that "the law" is shorthand for "how the police behave" and that has certainly changed because of VP Trump's statements.
  - modriano 2y ago
    A) Behavior and statements are different things. B) Biden also said he wouldn't enforce the ban (and also, it was the last day of his administration, so enforcement by Biden wasn't even possible) This was a political gift to Trump, as the messaging in TikTok's app makes perfectly clear.
    - immibis 2y ago
      Police behave how government leaders want them to. Government leaders changing their statements changes the actual behaviour of police.
hbn 2y ago
It seems like striking fear into the hearts of users to make them realize a ban is really on the table is in their best interest. They want to not be banned, and giving everyone a 48 hour show of users on the platform counting down to the end, then being really upset when they think it's gone is a great demonstration that people want their Tiktok. * Trump gets a free layup to look like the hero for unbanning it * Trump will think hard and heavy in the future about banning it again, knowing there's a lot of passionate young people that will reconsider voting for him next election if he does Seems like a smart move to me.
- isk517 2y ago
  I like how it is just a given that he is just going to ignore term limits.
  - hbn 2y ago
    I'm Canadian, I forget about term limits Plus has there ever been a US president that came back after a term away? Usually when a "new" president comes in you figure they'll be running again next time.
    - isk517 2y ago
      Grover Cleveland also had two non-consecutive terms, and the twenty second amendment is pretty clear in it's language that you can only be elected to the office of President twice.

by nico 2y ago

acomms 2y ago

Nothing in the law changed since yesterday. This is only theatre.

aaronharnly 2y ago

The law did not require them to suspend the service.

space_fountain 2y ago
The law requires Oracle who hosts their data companies that provide cdn services to stop working with them. The law did require them to suspend service, but not quite as soon as they did and nothing had changed legally
margalabargala 2y ago
The law required them to choose from among several options, one of which was suspending the service. The law did not permit maintaining the status quo as an option.
- kelnos 2y ago
  No, it does not at all require ByteDance to suspend service. It requires Apple and Google to stop distributing the app on their app stores, and it requires any US-based hosting providers that host TikTok services to stop providing those services. ByteDance could shut down any US-hosted services and serve from outside the US, and be entirely compliant with the law. The TikTok mobile app might become out of date and stop working (for people who already had it installed on their phones), but www.tiktok.com would continue to work just fine.
  - modo_mario 2y ago
    >and it requires any US-based hosting providers that host TikTok services to stop providing those services. And they were forced to use those hosting providers (oracle) by the US. It's not like investing loads to bring all the data over to singapore or so would serve them well either. They'd still lose the US business relatively quickly and with lower chances of turning things around like they might've. Why bother?
  - margalabargala 2y ago
    What do you mean, "no"? You agreed with me. The option you describe is another among the several options available. Unless you're saying that the service shutdown would not have brought Bytedance into legal compliance, which would be a novel assertion.

space_fountain 2y ago

They shut down before the law required them to (by a few hours), and now they’re back despite no changes in law or action by the president. Biden had already issued an executive order, nothing changed

glenstein 2y ago
That would be my question also. You can't explain the shutdown as following the law if the law didn't change between the time of the shutdown and coming back on. It seems to me like the more accurate assessment here is an anticipation of policy changes, which however fruitful do not reflect any change in law, but perhaps some change in the degree of reassurance that the law won't be enforced. If it's not that, it may well be as the original commenter in this thread suggested a stunt to make a point.

ceejayoz 2y ago

They shut down and reopened without any changes to the law. They are open now, despite the law being in effect.

extheat 2y ago
They reopened with formal understanding that there will be an executive order tomorrow to suspend the enforcement of the ban. That is a big deal and it's something that they can point to to defend themselves in court should that happen. When President Biden signed the bill, it gave him the ability to extend the deadline by an amount which he declined to do (beyond saying "I'll let Trump admin deal with it"); and soon-to-be President Trump is saying he will do it tomorrow.
- kllrnohj 2y ago
  I'm pretty certain an executive order cannot overrule a law. So they're just hoping to either get an actual reversal of the law while Trump is in term or just hoping nobody after him will care. It's like betting on jury nullification but without the benefit of double jeopardy protection. It's unclear if any of the US companies the law is aimed at will risk it.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    An executive order can't overrule a law, but it can direct the DoJ not to enforce a particular law.
    - kllrnohj 2y ago
      Which would be an EO counter the constitution and obviously not durable itself. In 4 years the next DOJ can just enforce the law on the books with 4 years of evidence of companies openly breaking it. It'd be a slam dunk case
  - anon7000 2y ago
    The law allows the president to grant a one time 90 day extension. (In this specific case)

TeaBrain 2y ago

The law didn't require them to shut the service off for those who already had the app installed. It just prevented new updates or downloads. Shutting off the app immediately was just theater and reinstating the app with no changes to the law is just the second act.

honorious 2y ago
The law says that US cloud providers are fined if they continued to provide services to Bytedance. As far as we know, Tiktok is operated on US servers by Oracle. While it might have been possible to find another cloud provider and move all US data there, I can see them not wanting to do that given that there was no point if the app isn't distributed in the US anymore.
- TeaBrain 2y ago
  There's currently no evidence pointing towards Oracle shutting down cloud service to them though. TikTok appears to have just preemptively shut down the app before they were obligated to, complete with dramatic messages telling users what to blame and who to thank.
  - dmix 2y ago
    Even without following the letter of the law it's entirely rational behaviour for a popular market leader to foment outrage by fully blacking out services. 150 million users (in the US alone) is a very powerful political influence. Politicians frequently fold for a few thousand vocal people complaining on the internet. It was a gambit used for net neutrality in 2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Slowdown_Day https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Slowdown_Day
    - nightpool 2y ago
      Of course it's rational behavior. Nico was the one claiming that they were just "following the law", that's what this subthread was about. If you agree that TikTok was making a political point by shutting down, then you agree with the person you're replying to.

Brystephor 2y ago

Did they shut down at the last moment necessary or did they shut down during what is likely a peak browsing time in the U.S.? Did they need to include messaging about political figures to notify the user of the reason of the ban? I understand that there was this law. It's a political statement because of the political message being sent out to the user base. The act of shutting down on its own is not a political statement.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Osiris 2y ago

But now they are breaking the law by turning it back on.

LastTrain 2y ago

But bringing the service back again today is not following the law, is it? Trump hasn't taken office yet. Curious if you've now changed your mind.

immibis 2y ago
Someone else pointed out that "the law" is shorthand for "how the police behave" and that has certainly changed because of VP Trump's statements.
- modriano 2y ago
  A) Behavior and statements are different things. B) Biden also said he wouldn't enforce the ban (and also, it was the last day of his administration, so enforcement by Biden wasn't even possible) This was a political gift to Trump, as the messaging in TikTok's app makes perfectly clear.
  - immibis 2y ago
    Police behave how government leaders want them to. Government leaders changing their statements changes the actual behaviour of police.

hbn 2y ago

It seems like striking fear into the hearts of users to make them realize a ban is really on the table is in their best interest. They want to not be banned, and giving everyone a 48 hour show of users on the platform counting down to the end, then being really upset when they think it's gone is a great demonstration that people want their Tiktok. * Trump gets a free layup to look like the hero for unbanning it * Trump will think hard and heavy in the future about banning it again, knowing there's a lot of passionate young people that will reconsider voting for him next election if he does Seems like a smart move to me.

isk517 2y ago
I like how it is just a given that he is just going to ignore term limits.
- hbn 2y ago
  I'm Canadian, I forget about term limits Plus has there ever been a US president that came back after a term away? Usually when a "new" president comes in you figure they'll be running again next time.
  - isk517 2y ago
    Grover Cleveland also had two non-consecutive terms, and the twenty second amendment is pretty clear in it's language that you can only be elected to the office of President twice.