6 ms·
Apple won't return TikTok to the App Store until it's sold to a U.S. buyer
- Terr_ 2y agoThat seems reasonable, because: 1. Trump's declared "delay" is executive overreach and arguably unconstitutional, especially considering how the law[0] is explicit and even contains its own provision for a time-extension that TikTok has refused to exercise. 2. If you break a black-letter law because Trump suggested he'd somehow prevent the government from ever prosecuting you... Well, you're handing a crook a weapon he can use to extort you for favors later. Bad idea. 3. The PR cost of removing the app has already happened, it makes no sense to bring it back and then get dinged a second time removing it 75-or-whatever days later. [0] Whether that particular law itself should have been ruled unconstitutional is a separate debate.
- lesuorac 2y agoSurely, Trump can just preemptive pardon any App Store that breaks or will-break the law?
- Aloisius 2y agoYou can't pardon future actions.
- snypher 2y agoSure you can, maybe? https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/joe-biden-has-issued-preemptive-pardons-what-are-they/article69120032.ece https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/joe-biden-has-is...
- Aloisius 2y agoThose are for past actions of the person being pardoned, not future actions.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ianburrell 2y agoOnly people can be pardoned. Only people can be charged with crimes. Companies can only be fined.
- speakfreely 2y agoSee "corporate criminal liability".
- tantalor 2y ago"Corporate personhood" is a real thing people believe
- asdffdasy 2y agoto add color, here's the text on the popup on android the day it was back: Welcome back! Thanks for your patience and support. As a result of President Trump's efforts, TikTok is back in the U.S.! You can continue to create, share, and discover all the things you love on TikTok.
- dangus 2y agoUnlike TikTok, Apple has no monetary incentive to break the law. There is no upside for them. Apple makes an insignificant amount of revenue from TikTok. It isn’t much of an in-app purchase machine, and they had no qualms about banning a huge one like Fortnite over a much less legally binding issue.
- chii 2y agoNot only that, the fact is, the tiktok ban has a penalty attached that is about $5000/user, so the risk is approx $85 billion dollars worth of fines. This video outlines why these app stores will not reinstate it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGXU46rMtRE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGXU46rMtRE , regardless of what trump promises verbally.
- quadragenarian 2y ago170M active users means 850 billion dollars or almost a trillion.That’s an enormous sum.
- csomar 2y agoThe question is: Can Tiktok sue for damages. But given your calculations, Tiktok damages will be far lower than getting fined by the state. Maybe the lawyers did their math.
- HelloMcFly 2y agoApple is complying with the intent and letter of the law of the land, passed by Congress, signed by the President, upheld in legality by the Supreme Court. I don't see how Apple has any liability to Tiktok here.
- oneeyedpigeon 2y agoAlso, doesn't this only prevent new users from downloading the app? And maybe existing ones from updating it. Everyone who would be up in arms can continue using it, those excluded already don't (yet) know what the fuss is about.
- vFunct 2y agoApple still allows Web Apps to be downloaded and installed on the Home Screen. Probably a good time for ByteDance to implement that.
- dangus 2y agoPerhaps. I’d hazard a guess that: 1. TikTok is far less profitable without the kind of data collection that installed apps allow. 2. The average user doesn’t like interacting with websites as much apps for this purpose and might prefer to use alternative social media networks instead.
- chii 2y agoIt's much harder to make videos using a web interface than native app.
- vFunct 2y agoWhat kind of data would a native app collect that the web wouldn’t? Seems like all the important advertiser-relevant demographic data is in the user account itself, not the platform. Whether you’re interested in snowmobiles or baby diapers would show up in both web and native apps via your user account? Also what technical limitations remain in web apps that limit use? WebGPU seems like it can handle most video pixel processing functions that native apps need and websites can be installed easily.
- TrackerFF 2y agoLet's see how long it takes before Trump publicly demands Tim Apple to make TikTok downloadable again...
- Terr_ 2y agoI expect he's only looking for plaudits and fans here, in the long term it's actually a partial competitor to his own pet-platform.
- juunpp 2y ago[flagged]
- Sateeshm 2y agoI don't think he cares anymore. I suspect he wanted it to exist just so people can see his inauguration event in the app. Infact he said as much in his statement.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- mrandish 2y agoI don't blame them. There's a deeply important question as to whether any US president ever has the authority to direct federal agencies to not enforce a law at all. They do have some latitude in directing how enforcement by federal agencies occurs. And they have a lot of latitude when it comes the enforcement of presidential directives or agency policies. But a law duly debated and passed by a large majority of congress, signed by the president and already evaluated and allowed to stand by a unanimous Supreme Court? Well, that's uncharted territory. It's a question I find fascinating for several reasons. First, recent presidents of both parties have all danced near, around and over this line to some extent (so we need to address it). Second, there's little constitutional guidance on the question and existing policy and precedent are sparse and inconsistent. Third, I'm not sure what the proper mechanism might be for resolving the question - or if there even is one. Fourth, I'm not entirely sure what I think the answer should be. And all that makes this super interesting. To be clear, I'm ONLY interested in this question from a long-term, system-design perspective. It doesn't matter who the current president is or what the specific law regards. Any useful answer needs to work just as well if it's Biden ordering non-enforcement of certain immigration laws or Trump ordering non-enforcement of a TikTok ban. So please set aside the current context and any partisan preferences and consider it purely as a constitutional issue about rule of law. In terms of what the rule should be when some president 20 years from now orders an agency to not enforce some law, I can see it both ways. I think presidents should have some discretion in how the agencies they manage enforce laws. It just seems pragmatic to have some latitude in how enforcement is implemented because situations can vary. But should that latitude extend to just ignoring the law? How about delaying enforcement for three days because there's a hurricane or something? Okay, sure. What about delaying it months? And then renewing the delay? It's pretty easy to imagine that going wrong someday. So, how do we codify a rule that balances these conflicting things? Finally, who's responsible for coming up with a clear set of rules? I think most people would assume it's the Supreme Court's job to figure it out. The problem is that SCOTUS has rules about what they can consider and when. Someone needs to have standing to sue POTUS and grounds to sue on. I'm not sure that POTUS NOT enforcing a law violates any existing law. But I'm not a constitutional scholar. I just don't know and that's why I think Apple or Google would be pretty crazy to put TikTok back in their app stores relying on this non-enforcement order as safe harbor.
- diebeforei485 2y agoThe article does not support the headline. In any case, I will take the opposite side of this bet. When the Attorney General nominee (Pan Bondi) is sworn in, she will send the non-enforcement letters to Apple and Google.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- RobinHirst11 2y agocompletely deserved. tiktok is the WORST and should be removed from the playstore too. reject mid apps