6 ms·

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/govern

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.
    - Defletter 2y ago
      Let's remind ourselves of what the First Amendment says: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The Constitution does not consider Freedom of Speech a positive right, one that can be granted to some but not others. It is a negative right against the government. It's about as broad and as absolute as you can get. This is why the right also applies to legal entities (eg: companies), even foreign legal entities. It is not limited to citizens, it is not limited to persons.
      - unclebucknasty 2y ago
        The First Amendment famously has limits, which have been tested and have held, repeatedly. These limits generally arise from conflict with other rights or societal good. On the latter point, obscenity is one of the most well-known exceptions. The government can and does make laws against it. The idea that a foreign, adversarial government would have a Constitutional right to propagandize our citizenry at-scale is obviously not consistent with the societal good (or the "common defense", for that matter), so is outside of the First Amendment's scope/intent. If you want to make an argument that it's not happening, that's one thing. But, your assertions about TikTok having some blanket "right" here are false.
        Defletter 2y ago
        > The idea that a foreign, adversarial government would have a Constitutional right to propagandize our citizenry at-scale is obviously not consistent with the societal good (or the "common defense", for that matter), so is outside of the First Amendment's scope/intent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamont_v._Postmaster_General https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamont_v._Postmaster_General
        unclebucknasty 2y ago
        In this case, a U.S. citizen sued, not the Chinese government. Again, foreign governments don't have a Constitutional right to propagandize our citizenry.
  - stouset 2y ago
    This has nothing to do with the speech. The speech is protected as always. You are free to say the same things on any platform you like: soapbox, print, a website, social media, anywhere. What is being prohibited is an adversarial government having complete control over an entity that can decide which speech is delivered to which specific audience.
    - sethammons 2y ago
      How I read your stance: You are not allowed to hear what they have to say. They have poison thoughts that will infect you and others around you. We must protect our children from poison thoughts. We can either strive for an educated populace that can identify propaganda or we use propaganda ourselves on ourselves. Propaganda is winning.
      - stouset 2y ago
        Bold of you to read something completely different than what I actually said. Self-propaganda?
        sethammons 2y ago
        I'm engaging in curiosity to understand. I'd love to understand your position better. You wrote: > What is being prohibited is an adversarial government having complete control over an entity that can decide which speech is delivered to which specific audience. That seems to imply that certain voices or ideas must be excluded to prevent this control. Isn't that, at its core, a decision that some poisonous thoughts should not be allowed to reach certain people? If not, how do you see this distinction? Does freedom of speech not include freedom to hear what others may find objectionable?
      - unclebucknasty 2y ago
        Not sure what's hard to grasp about a country deciding it's a bad idea to allow adversarial nations to run psyops on its populace at-scale. Your solution is to open the floodgates, allowing all manner of military/intel-grade psychological manipulation, bots, AI, etc. to be unleashed on our population, but try to educate the entire population to become professionals at identifying and resisting these tactics? Seems absurd on its face. It's strange to see someone trying to make that sound like the reasonable option.
- Spivak 2y ago
  And you weak-minded simpletons have to be protected from those dangerous ideas for your own safety. We have to fill your heads with only good thoughts, the ones we select for you. I know this is the stated issue, people won't shut up about it. It's a bunch of bollocks. How China handles their media isn't a blueprint for how we should do it. I wouldn't trust this power in the hands of my parents who love me unconditionally, I sure as hell don't trust this power in the hands of the worst people alive right now. If you're a Republican substitute Nanci Pelosi / AOC.
  - ants_everywhere 2y ago
    > And you weak-minded simpletons have to be protected from those dangerous ideas for your own safety. We have to fill your heads with only good thoughts, the ones we select for you. Yes that's the literally the idea of TikTok/Douyin https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17544750.2020.1761848 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17544750.2020.17...
- bjourne 2y ago
  The concerns are that US hegemony over the media narrative is crumbling. Young people, "highly-influenced" as you call them, sees that American bombs are dropped on refugees in Gaza and they don't think that is right. So just do what China itself does and remove everything that challenges the government-approved narrative. Banning TikTok is no different from banning publishers of books the government doesn't like.
  - Yeul 2y ago
    Israel is god's gift to Chinese propaganda.Every single Palestinian death further erodes Western moral superiority. It's like the Mai Lai massacre that never ends.
    - dunekid 2y ago
      I am quite sure God does not operate through US JDAM missiles and billions of dollars' of ammunition. God doesn't operate the American media which doesn't report the Genocide. If US was willing, this Gift could have ended long long ago. I am sure no other country was forcing US to vote against peace at UN.
  - stouset 2y ago
    I am opposed to the way Israel is handling the war and believe they are committing unspeakable atrocities against the Palestinian people. My Instagram reels are filled with content supporting those beliefs. To my knowledge, Instagram is still owned by Meta. Banning TikTok has literally nothing to do with silencing pro-Palestinian content. For fuck’s sake, Trump is trying his best to bring it back while threatening to deport students who engage in pro-Palestinian activism.
- brigade 2y ago
  It might have something to do with 90% of the justification as articulated by the bill's own authors and supporters, and especially in the arguments before the Supreme Court and their opinion upholding it, being about "content-neutral" goal of blocking the ability of China to spy on US data. Even when TikTok themselves tried to argue that the primary reason was to prevent foreign control over a recommendation algorithm, the Supreme Court said "nope, Congress's primary motive was the data collection."

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.
  - Defletter 2y ago
    Let's remind ourselves of what the First Amendment says: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The Constitution does not consider Freedom of Speech a positive right, one that can be granted to some but not others. It is a negative right against the government. It's about as broad and as absolute as you can get. This is why the right also applies to legal entities (eg: companies), even foreign legal entities. It is not limited to citizens, it is not limited to persons.
    - unclebucknasty 2y ago
      The First Amendment famously has limits, which have been tested and have held, repeatedly. These limits generally arise from conflict with other rights or societal good. On the latter point, obscenity is one of the most well-known exceptions. The government can and does make laws against it. The idea that a foreign, adversarial government would have a Constitutional right to propagandize our citizenry at-scale is obviously not consistent with the societal good (or the "common defense", for that matter), so is outside of the First Amendment's scope/intent. If you want to make an argument that it's not happening, that's one thing. But, your assertions about TikTok having some blanket "right" here are false.
      - Defletter 2y ago
        > The idea that a foreign, adversarial government would have a Constitutional right to propagandize our citizenry at-scale is obviously not consistent with the societal good (or the "common defense", for that matter), so is outside of the First Amendment's scope/intent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamont_v._Postmaster_General https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamont_v._Postmaster_General
        unclebucknasty 2y ago
        In this case, a U.S. citizen sued, not the Chinese government. Again, foreign governments don't have a Constitutional right to propagandize our citizenry.
- stouset 2y ago
  This has nothing to do with the speech. The speech is protected as always. You are free to say the same things on any platform you like: soapbox, print, a website, social media, anywhere. What is being prohibited is an adversarial government having complete control over an entity that can decide which speech is delivered to which specific audience.
  - sethammons 2y ago
    How I read your stance: You are not allowed to hear what they have to say. They have poison thoughts that will infect you and others around you. We must protect our children from poison thoughts. We can either strive for an educated populace that can identify propaganda or we use propaganda ourselves on ourselves. Propaganda is winning.
    - stouset 2y ago
      Bold of you to read something completely different than what I actually said. Self-propaganda?
      - sethammons 2y ago
        I'm engaging in curiosity to understand. I'd love to understand your position better. You wrote: > What is being prohibited is an adversarial government having complete control over an entity that can decide which speech is delivered to which specific audience. That seems to imply that certain voices or ideas must be excluded to prevent this control. Isn't that, at its core, a decision that some poisonous thoughts should not be allowed to reach certain people? If not, how do you see this distinction? Does freedom of speech not include freedom to hear what others may find objectionable?
    - unclebucknasty 2y ago
      Not sure what's hard to grasp about a country deciding it's a bad idea to allow adversarial nations to run psyops on its populace at-scale. Your solution is to open the floodgates, allowing all manner of military/intel-grade psychological manipulation, bots, AI, etc. to be unleashed on our population, but try to educate the entire population to become professionals at identifying and resisting these tactics? Seems absurd on its face. It's strange to see someone trying to make that sound like the reasonable option.
Spivak 2y ago
And you weak-minded simpletons have to be protected from those dangerous ideas for your own safety. We have to fill your heads with only good thoughts, the ones we select for you. I know this is the stated issue, people won't shut up about it. It's a bunch of bollocks. How China handles their media isn't a blueprint for how we should do it. I wouldn't trust this power in the hands of my parents who love me unconditionally, I sure as hell don't trust this power in the hands of the worst people alive right now. If you're a Republican substitute Nanci Pelosi / AOC.
- ants_everywhere 2y ago
  > And you weak-minded simpletons have to be protected from those dangerous ideas for your own safety. We have to fill your heads with only good thoughts, the ones we select for you. Yes that's the literally the idea of TikTok/Douyin https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17544750.2020.1761848 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17544750.2020.17...
bjourne 2y ago
The concerns are that US hegemony over the media narrative is crumbling. Young people, "highly-influenced" as you call them, sees that American bombs are dropped on refugees in Gaza and they don't think that is right. So just do what China itself does and remove everything that challenges the government-approved narrative. Banning TikTok is no different from banning publishers of books the government doesn't like.
- Yeul 2y ago
  Israel is god's gift to Chinese propaganda.Every single Palestinian death further erodes Western moral superiority. It's like the Mai Lai massacre that never ends.
  - dunekid 2y ago
    I am quite sure God does not operate through US JDAM missiles and billions of dollars' of ammunition. God doesn't operate the American media which doesn't report the Genocide. If US was willing, this Gift could have ended long long ago. I am sure no other country was forcing US to vote against peace at UN.
- stouset 2y ago
  I am opposed to the way Israel is handling the war and believe they are committing unspeakable atrocities against the Palestinian people. My Instagram reels are filled with content supporting those beliefs. To my knowledge, Instagram is still owned by Meta. Banning TikTok has literally nothing to do with silencing pro-Palestinian content. For fuck’s sake, Trump is trying his best to bring it back while threatening to deport students who engage in pro-Palestinian activism.
brigade 2y ago
It might have something to do with 90% of the justification as articulated by the bill's own authors and supporters, and especially in the arguments before the Supreme Court and their opinion upholding it, being about "content-neutral" goal of blocking the ability of China to spy on US data. Even when TikTok themselves tried to argue that the primary reason was to prevent foreign control over a recommendation algorithm, the Supreme Court said "nope, Congress's primary motive was the data collection."