12 ms·

On the one hand Hawley proposes a lot of things that don't ever get close to becoming law. On the other hand, we did ban TikTok (which is currently unavailable

by ijk 2y ago

On the one hand Hawley proposes a lot of things that don't ever get close to becoming law. On the other hand, we did ban TikTok (which is currently unavailable on the app stores because of the ban). I can think of few ways to more effectively destroy any US advantage in AI compared with the sheer efficiency of making it illegal to learn from what competing countries have achieved. From the article, it sounds like the proposed legislation is deeply confused about what "downloading DeepSeek" means--they're _talking_ about banning the app, while _writing_ laws to ban "the importation into the United States of artificial intelligence or generative artificial intelligence technology or intellectual proprietary developed or produced in the People’s Republic of China" which is a lot broader. Is it proposing to ban US citizens from reading research papers written by Chinese citizens? Or from publishing research in places that might be read by them? Apparently the EFF is concerned that the language of the bill is, indeed, that broad.

dmix 2y ago
Not sure it’s even worth speculating on a bill that’s merely been proposed. This one sounds DOA. But yeah TikTok ban was a very bad precedent, mostly because it was based on speculative risks, not hard proof of existing behaviour (TikTok not engaging didn't help at all either). Regardless of the merits I too hope it doesn’t have a ripple effect. National security is such a huge brush you could paint anything you want.
- mattmaroon 2y ago
  The risk from TikTok is possibly not speculative at all. I think it’s quite likely the national security apparatus knows something and informed congressmen because they went from being opposed to it to being in favor of it in a short time.
  - mr_toad 2y ago
    > I think it’s quite likely the national security apparatus knows something I couldn’t help but lol when I read that.
    - metalman 2y ago
      The security apparatus should understan that anything they do in this case will be performative only. 5000000 downloads already, all legal many many instances up and running publicly if it was me, the first task I would give a deepseek model, would be to obfusicate itself and pattent the results, and start selling copys realy cheap......deepcheap https://spectrum.ieee.org/deepseek https://spectrum.ieee.org/deepseek
  - yardie 2y ago
    Well there’s that and then there is the 2 billionaires with competing social media platforms. Where one is considered a dumpster fire and the other is a retirement home. So why not use that considerable wealth and legislate your competition out of existence.
    - dmix 2y ago
      Zuckerberg came out strongly against the TikTok ban. Unless you mean someone else?
      - eru 2y ago
        Trump has a social media company, doesn't he?
        dmix 2y ago
        It has 6 million users. It’s like a midsized subreddit, not a TikTok competitor.
      - skissane 2y ago
        Musk has said he’s opposed to TikTok ban as well: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1880975630646612254 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1880975630646612254 Speculation, but it wouldn’t surprise me if Trump’s change of heart on the TikTok ban is due to Musk’s influence. Musk needs to stay in Beijing’s favour due to the size of Tesla’s investments in China, which Beijing could destroy in a moment if Musk overly offended them. Opposing TikTok ban helps Musk stay in Beijing’s good books, supporting it would have had the opposite effect.
      - yardie 2y ago
        Yeah, 5 years ago. It’s a much larger threat to Meta now. Specifically its gain in GenZ.
  - gruez 2y ago
    In other words, "just trust us bro"? How do we know the evidence is justified? How do we avoid a "Trust us, Saddam Hussein has WMDs" situation?
    - SauciestGNU 2y ago
      Trust, but verify ideally. I have little doubt tiktok was being used for hostile influence campaigns. But so are American social media. Maybe the difference is in what countermeasures the American government is able to coerce local companies into deploying.
  - user982 2y ago
    > they went from being opposed to it to being in favor of it in a short time. "Some wonder why there was such overwhelming support for us to shut down TikTok..." (https://x.com/wideofthepost/status/1787104142982283587 https://x.com/wideofthepost/status/1787104142982283587)
  - SuperNinKenDo 2y ago
    Many speculate that the prevalence of anti-prop on Israel-Palestine was a big motivator. I thought this was rather reductionist until TikTok was allowed back temporarily, only for pro-Plaestine slogans to be suddenly banned when it returned. Is it the only motivation? No. Given the above and the fact that dozens of highly popular Chinese apps continue to be allowed, does it appear likely this is a leading reason? Plausible.
    - wahnfrieden 2y ago
      That + domestic social media protectionism
    - t-3 2y ago
      Considering that the majority of the Congresscritter rhetoric I heard about the issue concerned TikTok as a vector for the spread of antisemitism, I'd guess you're correct.
  - Defletter 2y ago
    While there may very well be security concerns, other countries have handled this by simply banning the app on government devices (eg: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/tiktok-banned-on-uk-government-devices-as-part-of-wider-app-review https://www.gov.uk/government/news/tiktok-banned-on-uk-gover...). You needn't ban the app nationwide to address those concerns. What I believe is more likely is that, this isn't about national security or data privacy, which could be addressed far more effectively with subject-appropriate legislation (such as data privacy laws akin to GDPR), but rather that TikTok was banned over unfavourable speech. It is no secret that TikTok has been used as a platform of citizen journalism, particularly in regards to the Gaza War. Congressmen have admitted as much.
    - stouset 2y ago
      The concerns are about adversarial foreign governments being able to silently target messages to highly-influenced demographics en masse. I swear I have heard zero people opposed to the ban who seem to even be vaguely aware of that aspect which is the entire actual issue, and instead are completely confused and think it’s about spyware or hacking. Whether or not you agree with the ban, we need to actually be discussing the same underlying issue.
      - Defletter 2y ago
        That is speech. I'm sorry but I have yet to see a single person who makes this point admit that it's a form of speech suppression. This is classic First Amendment precedent. Just because the speaker is someone you don't like, or its content is anti-American (or what have you), doesn't mean it's not protected speech.
        majormajor 2y ago
        What? Many people just don't think the First Amendment applies to foreign nations. (Why would it??) And that restrictions on corporate control/structure for the US-based parts are not speech issues (e.g. imagine if free speech was a defense against an anti-trust prosecution). The simplest case for banning TikTok is simple reciprocity. China is no longer a market that needs the level of protectionism they currently have to develop. The second best is data privacy. Just a shame they won't apply the same to US companies yet. And then an additional reason is the one that's being used currently - risk of foreign influence. You'd hate to not ban it "because it hasn't happened yet" just for it to happen in the future. China keeping out US apps seems to have worked out great for their local industry, I'm hardly convinced it wouldn't also be a good thing for US citizens. And with the foreign-country thing tossing Constitutional issues out the window, go nuts.
  - Natsu 2y ago
    I have no way of verifying it, but I heard from someone I believe to be connected enough to know things that TikTok is taking marching orders from the Chinese military.
    - nomdep 2y ago
      That is kind of obvious. It’s a well known fact that all Chinese companies after certain size/reach are controlled by the Chinese government
      - Natsu 2y ago
        True, but it doesn't seem widely appreciated.
    - aprilthird2021 2y ago
      But that's, imo, not a reason to ban it. When it comes to media, yes curated media like magazines, journals, newspapers, and social media, Americans have the right to consume whatever media they want (minus exceptions like CSAM). If Americans want to watch hours of CCP-edited brainrot scrolly videos, that's 100% our right. We were never supposed to be a country like China or India who bans websites just because they don't like them and because they think people are too stupid to surf the web on their own.
      - Natsu 2y ago
        It's not banned, they're forcing the Chinese to divest ownership & control of it, same as China does to US companies, really. The fact is that they'd rather shut it down than be unable to gather location data or build social graphs of their user base. Frankly the propaganda aspect is the least troubling part of it because you're right, people can make their own choices about information sources. But figuring out who various military members are connected to, where and how they're moving around, and especially any leaks where people take cell phones in places they shouldn't (remember that ship that installed a Starlink illegally?), they can get quite a bit of intelligence.
  - aragonite 2y ago
    The ranking member (senior Democrat) on the intelligence committee voted against the ban (https://www.ctinsider.com/columnist/article/tiktok-ban-jim-himes-congress-18973914.php https://www.ctinsider.com/columnist/article/tiktok-ban-jim-h...): > One key for him is that it’s only a possible threat. Our best intelligence, including in a briefing for Congress from the Biden administration Tuesday, is that the Chinese government has not actually done the things the ban fears. Also, from a recent All-In interview (https://www.happyscribe.com/public/all-in-with-chamath-jason-sacks-friedberg/inauguration-interviews-trump-s-talent-democratic-rebrand-more-with-house-whip-emmer-reps-swalwell-khanna https://www.happyscribe.com/public/all-in-with-chamath-jason...): > I look to Jim Himes, who is the senior Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, the ranking member. He's in what's called the Gang of Eight. He has the most exquisite access to intelligence. Jim voted against the ban. And I thought, you know what? If this guy is not seeing anything on the national security level. > [00:44:36] There was an off the record or confidential briefing to the House Intelligence Committee. You think in that meeting, there was nothing that was very meaningful that was disclosed about TikTok? > [00:44:45] Nothing that I had seen. Is it owned by the Chinese government? Absolutely. But is there a national security risk? I have not seen that.
    - gruez 2y ago
      >The ranking member (senior Democrat) on the intelligence committee voted against the ban (https://www.ctinsider.com/columnist/article/tiktok-ban-jim-h https://www.ctinsider.com/columnist/article/tiktok-ban-jim-h...): But he voted yes on the subsequent vote? https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2024145 https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2024145 Moreover your factoid is misleading because it omits the fact that the chair voted for the ban, along with most of the members. Of the 25 members on the committee, only 4 voted against.
      - aragonite 2y ago
        He voted against the March bill that narrowly focuses on the TikTok issue, but voted for the April bill which also includes foreign aid for Ukraine and Israel. They are not the same bill. > The decision by House Republicans to include TikTok as part of a larger foreign aid package, a priority for President Joe Biden with broad congressional support for Ukraine and Israel, fast-tracked the ban after an earlier version had stalled in the Senate. A standalone bill with a shorter, six-month selling deadline passed the House in March by an overwhelming bipartisan vote as both Democrats and Republicans voiced national security concerns about the app’s owner, the Chinese technology firm ByteDance Ltd. (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/possible-u-s-tiktok-ban-clears-house-vote-but-dont-expect-the-app-to-go-away-anytime-soon https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/possible-u-s-tiktok-ba...)
  - Capricorn2481 2y ago
    > possibly not speculative at all There's a sentence
  - spamizbad 2y ago
    Is it? Because as soon as the ban went into effect and phones started to ring Congress very quickly changed its tune. If it was genuinely a national security threat you absolutely would NOT bend after a few hundred angry constituency calls.
    - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
      Congress didn’t change its tune. PAFACA is supported by 80% of legislators. It has more support than virtually any other legislation.
      - groggo 2y ago
        I know it's stupid to get upset over an app like TikTok, but the ban really did shock me a little, even more so because of how widely supported it was. What party or politicians support individual freedom in this context? How could libertarians support banning an app?
        mr_toad 2y ago
        The left doesn’t support individual freedoms because they believe that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The right no longer supports individual freedoms because they believe that the privileges of the few outweigh the needs of the many.
        jchw 2y ago
        I hate to get involved with this one because it's not my fight and I don't personally care. That said, I have no issue reconciling the concept of someone who supports individual freedom and banning TikTok. Banning TikTok, at least theoretically, is more to do with TikTok's right to do business here, not your right to use TikTok. I don't think it is illegal to use TikTok if you were to bypass the block. It's illegal for them to let you in.
        mattmaroon 2y ago
        Not even that, it's unlawful for another business (Apple or Google) to carry TikTok. TikTok can let you in just fine (what are we going to do, sue China?) and you can use it, the app store just can't carry it. It would also be illegal for Oracle to host it. "it is unlawful for companies in the United States to provide services to distribute, maintain, or update the social media platform TikTok, unless U. S. operation of the platform is severed from Chinese control."
  - groggo 2y ago
    > national security apparatus knows something For some stuff like this it's hard to imagine why they wouldn't be able to make it public. You need public support if you're going to ban an app that a lot of the public likes. Almost certainly IMO, no substantive evidence existed.
    - karaterobot 2y ago
      You clearly don't need public support to force TikTok to be sold. They did it.
  - xbmcuser 2y ago
    the only reason the ban came down was AIPAC was not able to get them to ban or silent ban pro Palestine sentiment and voices like facebook etc do.They were wary of it before but suddenly a bill banning gets passed in days something that normally takes months
    - brookst 2y ago
      Are you saying the closed door intelligence meeting had no bearing, or that it was… Israel? Or I’m not sure what you’re implying.
      - aprilthird2021 2y ago
        It is true that the reasoning mentioned by the commenter was also given as an example of why TikTok needs to be banned by a few legislators. I don't think the closed door intelligence was about that though. I think they probably said that the persuasive power of TikTok was dangerous to the US, but imo, that's very against the First Amendment and the idea of democracy. Americans are allowed to be influenced however which way we want. We run the government, not the other way around
        mattmaroon 2y ago
        The First Amendment doesn't give any foreign entity any rights. There's no censorship of Americans here, whatever you posted on TikTok you're free to post on Instagram. In fact you can even still post it on TikTok, it just can't be in the Apple or Google app store and it can't be hosted on Oracle servers. I think a closed door intelligence meeting is unlikely to just be them telling Congressmen scenarios they've already heard. I think they much more likely had some receipts. Some of the Senators in that meeting (from both parties) have sponsored a bill to declassify it and share it with the public, so we may find out.
        brookst 2y ago
        > The First Amendment doesn't give any foreign entity any rights. Wait, what? Are you suggesting the bill of rights only applies to US citizens? Like, does the 5th amendment not protect foreign entities from illegal search and seizure? Does the 2nd amendment not apply to foreign security companies like Securitas?
  - janalsncm 2y ago
    > I think it’s quite likely This is speculating. In other instances, the national security apparatus has provided specific evidence when it existed which makes me believe there isn’t anything more than “XYZ could happen”. In any case, I think we can do better than make laws based on secret evidence. This is supposed to be a democracy after all. Or something.
  - danielspace23 2y ago
    > possibly > not speculative So it is speculative, right? Even your comment is just speculation.
  - SZJX 2y ago
    lol that’s such wishful thinking and seeing those congressmen in a way too competent light. If they had any hard evidence they’d have published it. It isn’t hard to understand is it.
  - momo_hn2025 2y ago
    one thing bothers me is that: americans, even americans in tech industry, seems place a ton of trust in the CIA. you know the government often lies, and the media does too. but you seem to really buy into everything the CIA puts out. I'm curious to know why.
- JKCalhoun 2y ago
  > bill that’s merely been proposed… No harm in pulling down R1 right now anyway (which is what I might have done…).
- cjonas 2y ago
  The risk is obvious and it has nothing to do with privacy... It's the fact that CCP could deliberately alter the algorithm to influence a significant portion of the US in any way they please.
  - realreal89 2y ago
    Oh yeah, we wouldn't want the United States to be influenced into making a stupid, irrational mistake.
  - sethammons 2y ago
    Uh oh, scary ideas. I am more scared of christo-fascism within the US than any pro Chinese messaging. To counter these ideas, I want more discussion, more education. I have learned a lot on tiktok
    - cjonas 2y ago
      Maybe christo-fascism is pro Chinese messaging (not really but they definitely could push messaging that encouraged division and instability if they wanted).
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  TikTok executives lied under oath about what they do with user data. That alone should have resulted in its ban. But the bigger issue is that we allow a foreign adversary market access who doesn’t allow it in reverse. And yes that has the capacity to skew our political process.
  - sethammons 2y ago
    What did they lie about and how do you know it is a lie? What I saw was purposeful ignorant questioning. "Sir, I'm Singaporean."
- ants_everywhere 2y ago
  This bill is a terrible idea, but it's worth mentioning > yeah TikTok ban was a very bad precedent The TikTok ban didn't set a precedent, it's following a general precedent. The most obvious precedent is Grindr [0]. What makes TikTok unusual is they refused to sell. The precedent is also very old. There are usually laws regarding doing business with enemies during wartime, for example. That's the same basic idea: restriction on business/trade due to national security issues. The ones everyone knows about are US car companies and IBMs doing business with the Nazis. Typically, AFAIK, companies are required to divest to a subsidiary, which is what the US wanted ByteDance to do. At least that's the right conceptual framing IMO, whether or not you think the ban was a bad idea. CISA considers China the "most active and persistent cyber threat to the U.S. Government, private sector, and critical infrastructure networks" [1]. So while the US isn't technically in a cyber war with China, they basically are. [0] https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/6/21168079/grindr-sold-chinese-owner-us-cfius-security-concerns-kunlun-lgbtq https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/6/21168079/grindr-sold-chine... [1] https://www.cisa.gov/topics/cyber-threats-and-advisories/nation-state-cyber-actors/china https://www.cisa.gov/topics/cyber-threats-and-advisories/nat...
- Brian_K_White 2y ago
  The problem with tiktok is not speculative at all. It doesn't matter what you can prove they did, it only matters that you can prove they can. It is not speculation at all to say that tiktok can both collect data and manipulate populations. Whether they actually do doesn't even matter. The problem is you can't prove that they have not, are not, or will not. The only problem is 50 other apps all pose essentially the same risks, and tiktok is hardly special. The contrast is any of the various open source activity pub apps. Any given server could be doing anything, but there is no single black box server that everyone has to live on. There are 1000 different servers and a bunch of open source code that all serve as verification checks on each other. No aberrant server can hide its skewed behavior for long when there are other servers that didn't F with the code and so their behavior matches the public code, and so the aberrant ones can be exposed by their behavior and stats deviating from the norm, even if you can't trust that a given server is really running clean code.
- atkailash 2y ago
  [dead]
- tptacek 2y ago
  For what it's worth: in the jurisprudence of HN moderation, stories about proposed bills are off-topic. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=bill%20proposed%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
- chii 2y ago
  > National security is such a huge brush you could paint anything you want. This exactly! i think the tiktok ban ought to be considered unconstitutional. Unless proof can be found that tiktok is being used by foreign actors to manipulate votes or some other shady shit (and only via tiktok itself, rather than a broad scheme that uses all social media), tiktok should not be banned. It is against the free speech that the US stands for. If algorithmic manipulation of voters is considered a threat, then pass a law to social media companies that they must explain the algorithm etc, and audit it. It's exactly what GDPR mandates, in their automated decision making and profiling clauses (https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/). Therefore, this is not without precedent, and is also more effective at regulating social media, not just tiktok. Therefore, the tiktok ban is performative. Like how the claims for DEI and such are performative.
willmadden 2y ago
It's not about a US advantage in AI. It's about politicians restricting our freedom and violating their oath to uphold the Constitution.
dmead 2y ago
Josh Hawley needs to be in jail.
jpcom 2y ago
How is this confusing? China spies on you. If you use an app that's tied directly to headquarters, headquarters can read what you think.
- michalhosna 2y ago
  Were you able to read the parent comment at all? Are you confused by the questions/arguments in it?
  - jpcom 2y ago
    Yes I read the parent comment, do you mean the two questions > Is it proposing to ban US citizens from reading research papers written by Chinese citizens? > Or from publishing research in places that might be read by them? Clearly, both are impossible to implement, wouldn't you agree? The bill talks about "AI products," as per the article, and that would be what a consumer uses, not what a researcher uses. Can legislators ban the reading of papers in America? There are 1st amendment issues there. But for protection against external states messing with our population, there's a different set of rules.
rsynnott 2y ago
> the importation into the United States of artificial intelligence or generative artificial intelligence technology or intellectual proprietary developed or produced in the People’s Republic of China ... That seems _absurdly_ broad; would arguably hit open source software, academic papers, patents... Like, taken at face value, this would mean "no longer do AI stuff in the US _at all_"; it would be impossible to do anything much without risking violating this.
- ijk 2y ago
  That pretty much sums up the objection from EFF: as written, it would ban both publishing research and reading research for pretty much all of AI. It's unlikely that this will ever get out of committee, of course.
TiredOfLife 2y ago
US didn't ban tiktok. They banned adversary owned tiktok

by ijk 2y ago

dmix 2y ago

Not sure it’s even worth speculating on a bill that’s merely been proposed. This one sounds DOA. But yeah TikTok ban was a very bad precedent, mostly because it was based on speculative risks, not hard proof of existing behaviour (TikTok not engaging didn't help at all either). Regardless of the merits I too hope it doesn’t have a ripple effect. National security is such a huge brush you could paint anything you want.

mattmaroon 2y ago
The risk from TikTok is possibly not speculative at all. I think it’s quite likely the national security apparatus knows something and informed congressmen because they went from being opposed to it to being in favor of it in a short time.
- mr_toad 2y ago
  > I think it’s quite likely the national security apparatus knows something I couldn’t help but lol when I read that.
  - metalman 2y ago
    The security apparatus should understan that anything they do in this case will be performative only. 5000000 downloads already, all legal many many instances up and running publicly if it was me, the first task I would give a deepseek model, would be to obfusicate itself and pattent the results, and start selling copys realy cheap......deepcheap https://spectrum.ieee.org/deepseek https://spectrum.ieee.org/deepseek
- yardie 2y ago
  Well there’s that and then there is the 2 billionaires with competing social media platforms. Where one is considered a dumpster fire and the other is a retirement home. So why not use that considerable wealth and legislate your competition out of existence.
  - dmix 2y ago
    Zuckerberg came out strongly against the TikTok ban. Unless you mean someone else?
    - eru 2y ago
      Trump has a social media company, doesn't he?
      - dmix 2y ago
        It has 6 million users. It’s like a midsized subreddit, not a TikTok competitor.
    - skissane 2y ago
      Musk has said he’s opposed to TikTok ban as well: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1880975630646612254 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1880975630646612254 Speculation, but it wouldn’t surprise me if Trump’s change of heart on the TikTok ban is due to Musk’s influence. Musk needs to stay in Beijing’s favour due to the size of Tesla’s investments in China, which Beijing could destroy in a moment if Musk overly offended them. Opposing TikTok ban helps Musk stay in Beijing’s good books, supporting it would have had the opposite effect.
    - yardie 2y ago
      Yeah, 5 years ago. It’s a much larger threat to Meta now. Specifically its gain in GenZ.
- gruez 2y ago
  In other words, "just trust us bro"? How do we know the evidence is justified? How do we avoid a "Trust us, Saddam Hussein has WMDs" situation?
  - SauciestGNU 2y ago
    Trust, but verify ideally. I have little doubt tiktok was being used for hostile influence campaigns. But so are American social media. Maybe the difference is in what countermeasures the American government is able to coerce local companies into deploying.
- user982 2y ago
  > they went from being opposed to it to being in favor of it in a short time. "Some wonder why there was such overwhelming support for us to shut down TikTok..." (https://x.com/wideofthepost/status/1787104142982283587 https://x.com/wideofthepost/status/1787104142982283587)
- SuperNinKenDo 2y ago
  Many speculate that the prevalence of anti-prop on Israel-Palestine was a big motivator. I thought this was rather reductionist until TikTok was allowed back temporarily, only for pro-Plaestine slogans to be suddenly banned when it returned. Is it the only motivation? No. Given the above and the fact that dozens of highly popular Chinese apps continue to be allowed, does it appear likely this is a leading reason? Plausible.
  - wahnfrieden 2y ago
    That + domestic social media protectionism
  - t-3 2y ago
    Considering that the majority of the Congresscritter rhetoric I heard about the issue concerned TikTok as a vector for the spread of antisemitism, I'd guess you're correct.
- Defletter 2y ago
  While there may very well be security concerns, other countries have handled this by simply banning the app on government devices (eg: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/tiktok-banned-on-uk-government-devices-as-part-of-wider-app-review https://www.gov.uk/government/news/tiktok-banned-on-uk-gover...). You needn't ban the app nationwide to address those concerns. What I believe is more likely is that, this isn't about national security or data privacy, which could be addressed far more effectively with subject-appropriate legislation (such as data privacy laws akin to GDPR), but rather that TikTok was banned over unfavourable speech. It is no secret that TikTok has been used as a platform of citizen journalism, particularly in regards to the Gaza War. Congressmen have admitted as much.
  - stouset 2y ago
    The concerns are about adversarial foreign governments being able to silently target messages to highly-influenced demographics en masse. I swear I have heard zero people opposed to the ban who seem to even be vaguely aware of that aspect which is the entire actual issue, and instead are completely confused and think it’s about spyware or hacking. Whether or not you agree with the ban, we need to actually be discussing the same underlying issue.
    - Defletter 2y ago
      That is speech. I'm sorry but I have yet to see a single person who makes this point admit that it's a form of speech suppression. This is classic First Amendment precedent. Just because the speaker is someone you don't like, or its content is anti-American (or what have you), doesn't mean it's not protected speech.
      - majormajor 2y ago
        What? Many people just don't think the First Amendment applies to foreign nations. (Why would it??) And that restrictions on corporate control/structure for the US-based parts are not speech issues (e.g. imagine if free speech was a defense against an anti-trust prosecution). The simplest case for banning TikTok is simple reciprocity. China is no longer a market that needs the level of protectionism they currently have to develop. The second best is data privacy. Just a shame they won't apply the same to US companies yet. And then an additional reason is the one that's being used currently - risk of foreign influence. You'd hate to not ban it "because it hasn't happened yet" just for it to happen in the future. China keeping out US apps seems to have worked out great for their local industry, I'm hardly convinced it wouldn't also be a good thing for US citizens. And with the foreign-country thing tossing Constitutional issues out the window, go nuts.
- Natsu 2y ago
  I have no way of verifying it, but I heard from someone I believe to be connected enough to know things that TikTok is taking marching orders from the Chinese military.
  - nomdep 2y ago
    That is kind of obvious. It’s a well known fact that all Chinese companies after certain size/reach are controlled by the Chinese government
    - Natsu 2y ago
      True, but it doesn't seem widely appreciated.
  - aprilthird2021 2y ago
    But that's, imo, not a reason to ban it. When it comes to media, yes curated media like magazines, journals, newspapers, and social media, Americans have the right to consume whatever media they want (minus exceptions like CSAM). If Americans want to watch hours of CCP-edited brainrot scrolly videos, that's 100% our right. We were never supposed to be a country like China or India who bans websites just because they don't like them and because they think people are too stupid to surf the web on their own.
    - Natsu 2y ago
      It's not banned, they're forcing the Chinese to divest ownership & control of it, same as China does to US companies, really. The fact is that they'd rather shut it down than be unable to gather location data or build social graphs of their user base. Frankly the propaganda aspect is the least troubling part of it because you're right, people can make their own choices about information sources. But figuring out who various military members are connected to, where and how they're moving around, and especially any leaks where people take cell phones in places they shouldn't (remember that ship that installed a Starlink illegally?), they can get quite a bit of intelligence.
- aragonite 2y ago
  The ranking member (senior Democrat) on the intelligence committee voted against the ban (https://www.ctinsider.com/columnist/article/tiktok-ban-jim-himes-congress-18973914.php https://www.ctinsider.com/columnist/article/tiktok-ban-jim-h...): > One key for him is that it’s only a possible threat. Our best intelligence, including in a briefing for Congress from the Biden administration Tuesday, is that the Chinese government has not actually done the things the ban fears. Also, from a recent All-In interview (https://www.happyscribe.com/public/all-in-with-chamath-jason-sacks-friedberg/inauguration-interviews-trump-s-talent-democratic-rebrand-more-with-house-whip-emmer-reps-swalwell-khanna https://www.happyscribe.com/public/all-in-with-chamath-jason...): > I look to Jim Himes, who is the senior Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, the ranking member. He's in what's called the Gang of Eight. He has the most exquisite access to intelligence. Jim voted against the ban. And I thought, you know what? If this guy is not seeing anything on the national security level. > [00:44:36] There was an off the record or confidential briefing to the House Intelligence Committee. You think in that meeting, there was nothing that was very meaningful that was disclosed about TikTok? > [00:44:45] Nothing that I had seen. Is it owned by the Chinese government? Absolutely. But is there a national security risk? I have not seen that.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >The ranking member (senior Democrat) on the intelligence committee voted against the ban (https://www.ctinsider.com/columnist/article/tiktok-ban-jim-h https://www.ctinsider.com/columnist/article/tiktok-ban-jim-h...): But he voted yes on the subsequent vote? https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2024145 https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2024145 Moreover your factoid is misleading because it omits the fact that the chair voted for the ban, along with most of the members. Of the 25 members on the committee, only 4 voted against.
    - aragonite 2y ago
      He voted against the March bill that narrowly focuses on the TikTok issue, but voted for the April bill which also includes foreign aid for Ukraine and Israel. They are not the same bill. > The decision by House Republicans to include TikTok as part of a larger foreign aid package, a priority for President Joe Biden with broad congressional support for Ukraine and Israel, fast-tracked the ban after an earlier version had stalled in the Senate. A standalone bill with a shorter, six-month selling deadline passed the House in March by an overwhelming bipartisan vote as both Democrats and Republicans voiced national security concerns about the app’s owner, the Chinese technology firm ByteDance Ltd. (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/possible-u-s-tiktok-ban-clears-house-vote-but-dont-expect-the-app-to-go-away-anytime-soon https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/possible-u-s-tiktok-ba...)
- Capricorn2481 2y ago
  > possibly not speculative at all There's a sentence
- spamizbad 2y ago
  Is it? Because as soon as the ban went into effect and phones started to ring Congress very quickly changed its tune. If it was genuinely a national security threat you absolutely would NOT bend after a few hundred angry constituency calls.
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    Congress didn’t change its tune. PAFACA is supported by 80% of legislators. It has more support than virtually any other legislation.
    - groggo 2y ago
      I know it's stupid to get upset over an app like TikTok, but the ban really did shock me a little, even more so because of how widely supported it was. What party or politicians support individual freedom in this context? How could libertarians support banning an app?
      - mr_toad 2y ago
        The left doesn’t support individual freedoms because they believe that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The right no longer supports individual freedoms because they believe that the privileges of the few outweigh the needs of the many.
      - jchw 2y ago
        I hate to get involved with this one because it's not my fight and I don't personally care. That said, I have no issue reconciling the concept of someone who supports individual freedom and banning TikTok. Banning TikTok, at least theoretically, is more to do with TikTok's right to do business here, not your right to use TikTok. I don't think it is illegal to use TikTok if you were to bypass the block. It's illegal for them to let you in.
        mattmaroon 2y ago
        Not even that, it's unlawful for another business (Apple or Google) to carry TikTok. TikTok can let you in just fine (what are we going to do, sue China?) and you can use it, the app store just can't carry it. It would also be illegal for Oracle to host it. "it is unlawful for companies in the United States to provide services to distribute, maintain, or update the social media platform TikTok, unless U. S. operation of the platform is severed from Chinese control."
- groggo 2y ago
  > national security apparatus knows something For some stuff like this it's hard to imagine why they wouldn't be able to make it public. You need public support if you're going to ban an app that a lot of the public likes. Almost certainly IMO, no substantive evidence existed.
  - karaterobot 2y ago
    You clearly don't need public support to force TikTok to be sold. They did it.
- xbmcuser 2y ago
  the only reason the ban came down was AIPAC was not able to get them to ban or silent ban pro Palestine sentiment and voices like facebook etc do.They were wary of it before but suddenly a bill banning gets passed in days something that normally takes months
  - brookst 2y ago
    Are you saying the closed door intelligence meeting had no bearing, or that it was… Israel? Or I’m not sure what you’re implying.
    - aprilthird2021 2y ago
      It is true that the reasoning mentioned by the commenter was also given as an example of why TikTok needs to be banned by a few legislators. I don't think the closed door intelligence was about that though. I think they probably said that the persuasive power of TikTok was dangerous to the US, but imo, that's very against the First Amendment and the idea of democracy. Americans are allowed to be influenced however which way we want. We run the government, not the other way around
      - mattmaroon 2y ago
        The First Amendment doesn't give any foreign entity any rights. There's no censorship of Americans here, whatever you posted on TikTok you're free to post on Instagram. In fact you can even still post it on TikTok, it just can't be in the Apple or Google app store and it can't be hosted on Oracle servers. I think a closed door intelligence meeting is unlikely to just be them telling Congressmen scenarios they've already heard. I think they much more likely had some receipts. Some of the Senators in that meeting (from both parties) have sponsored a bill to declassify it and share it with the public, so we may find out.
        brookst 2y ago
        > The First Amendment doesn't give any foreign entity any rights. Wait, what? Are you suggesting the bill of rights only applies to US citizens? Like, does the 5th amendment not protect foreign entities from illegal search and seizure? Does the 2nd amendment not apply to foreign security companies like Securitas?
- janalsncm 2y ago
  > I think it’s quite likely This is speculating. In other instances, the national security apparatus has provided specific evidence when it existed which makes me believe there isn’t anything more than “XYZ could happen”. In any case, I think we can do better than make laws based on secret evidence. This is supposed to be a democracy after all. Or something.
- danielspace23 2y ago
  > possibly > not speculative So it is speculative, right? Even your comment is just speculation.
- SZJX 2y ago
  lol that’s such wishful thinking and seeing those congressmen in a way too competent light. If they had any hard evidence they’d have published it. It isn’t hard to understand is it.
- momo_hn2025 2y ago
  one thing bothers me is that: americans, even americans in tech industry, seems place a ton of trust in the CIA. you know the government often lies, and the media does too. but you seem to really buy into everything the CIA puts out. I'm curious to know why.
JKCalhoun 2y ago
> bill that’s merely been proposed… No harm in pulling down R1 right now anyway (which is what I might have done…).
cjonas 2y ago
The risk is obvious and it has nothing to do with privacy... It's the fact that CCP could deliberately alter the algorithm to influence a significant portion of the US in any way they please.
- realreal89 2y ago
  Oh yeah, we wouldn't want the United States to be influenced into making a stupid, irrational mistake.
- sethammons 2y ago
  Uh oh, scary ideas. I am more scared of christo-fascism within the US than any pro Chinese messaging. To counter these ideas, I want more discussion, more education. I have learned a lot on tiktok
  - cjonas 2y ago
    Maybe christo-fascism is pro Chinese messaging (not really but they definitely could push messaging that encouraged division and instability if they wanted).
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
TikTok executives lied under oath about what they do with user data. That alone should have resulted in its ban. But the bigger issue is that we allow a foreign adversary market access who doesn’t allow it in reverse. And yes that has the capacity to skew our political process.
- sethammons 2y ago
  What did they lie about and how do you know it is a lie? What I saw was purposeful ignorant questioning. "Sir, I'm Singaporean."
ants_everywhere 2y ago
This bill is a terrible idea, but it's worth mentioning > yeah TikTok ban was a very bad precedent The TikTok ban didn't set a precedent, it's following a general precedent. The most obvious precedent is Grindr [0]. What makes TikTok unusual is they refused to sell. The precedent is also very old. There are usually laws regarding doing business with enemies during wartime, for example. That's the same basic idea: restriction on business/trade due to national security issues. The ones everyone knows about are US car companies and IBMs doing business with the Nazis. Typically, AFAIK, companies are required to divest to a subsidiary, which is what the US wanted ByteDance to do. At least that's the right conceptual framing IMO, whether or not you think the ban was a bad idea. CISA considers China the "most active and persistent cyber threat to the U.S. Government, private sector, and critical infrastructure networks" [1]. So while the US isn't technically in a cyber war with China, they basically are. [0] https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/6/21168079/grindr-sold-chinese-owner-us-cfius-security-concerns-kunlun-lgbtq https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/6/21168079/grindr-sold-chine... [1] https://www.cisa.gov/topics/cyber-threats-and-advisories/nation-state-cyber-actors/china https://www.cisa.gov/topics/cyber-threats-and-advisories/nat...
Brian_K_White 2y ago
The problem with tiktok is not speculative at all. It doesn't matter what you can prove they did, it only matters that you can prove they can. It is not speculation at all to say that tiktok can both collect data and manipulate populations. Whether they actually do doesn't even matter. The problem is you can't prove that they have not, are not, or will not. The only problem is 50 other apps all pose essentially the same risks, and tiktok is hardly special. The contrast is any of the various open source activity pub apps. Any given server could be doing anything, but there is no single black box server that everyone has to live on. There are 1000 different servers and a bunch of open source code that all serve as verification checks on each other. No aberrant server can hide its skewed behavior for long when there are other servers that didn't F with the code and so their behavior matches the public code, and so the aberrant ones can be exposed by their behavior and stats deviating from the norm, even if you can't trust that a given server is really running clean code.
atkailash 2y ago
[dead]
tptacek 2y ago
For what it's worth: in the jurisprudence of HN moderation, stories about proposed bills are off-topic. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=bill%20proposed%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
chii 2y ago
> National security is such a huge brush you could paint anything you want. This exactly! i think the tiktok ban ought to be considered unconstitutional. Unless proof can be found that tiktok is being used by foreign actors to manipulate votes or some other shady shit (and only via tiktok itself, rather than a broad scheme that uses all social media), tiktok should not be banned. It is against the free speech that the US stands for. If algorithmic manipulation of voters is considered a threat, then pass a law to social media companies that they must explain the algorithm etc, and audit it. It's exactly what GDPR mandates, in their automated decision making and profiling clauses (https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/). Therefore, this is not without precedent, and is also more effective at regulating social media, not just tiktok. Therefore, the tiktok ban is performative. Like how the claims for DEI and such are performative.

willmadden 2y ago

It's not about a US advantage in AI. It's about politicians restricting our freedom and violating their oath to uphold the Constitution.

dmead 2y ago

Josh Hawley needs to be in jail.

jpcom 2y ago

How is this confusing? China spies on you. If you use an app that's tied directly to headquarters, headquarters can read what you think.

michalhosna 2y ago
Were you able to read the parent comment at all? Are you confused by the questions/arguments in it?
- jpcom 2y ago
  Yes I read the parent comment, do you mean the two questions > Is it proposing to ban US citizens from reading research papers written by Chinese citizens? > Or from publishing research in places that might be read by them? Clearly, both are impossible to implement, wouldn't you agree? The bill talks about "AI products," as per the article, and that would be what a consumer uses, not what a researcher uses. Can legislators ban the reading of papers in America? There are 1st amendment issues there. But for protection against external states messing with our population, there's a different set of rules.

rsynnott 2y ago

> the importation into the United States of artificial intelligence or generative artificial intelligence technology or intellectual proprietary developed or produced in the People’s Republic of China ... That seems _absurdly_ broad; would arguably hit open source software, academic papers, patents... Like, taken at face value, this would mean "no longer do AI stuff in the US _at all_"; it would be impossible to do anything much without risking violating this.

ijk 2y ago
That pretty much sums up the objection from EFF: as written, it would ban both publishing research and reading research for pretty much all of AI. It's unlikely that this will ever get out of committee, of course.

TiredOfLife 2y ago

US didn't ban tiktok. They banned adversary owned tiktok