6 ms·
TikTok is back in the App Store
- graeme 2y agoJohn Gruber from Daring Fireball has an interesting comment: >I’m surprised but not shocked by this. But I’d sure like to see what exactly that letter says. The PAFACA Act — the law that bans TikTok in the US now that the deadline has passed for ByteDance to sell it to a US company — hasn’t changed or been rescinded, and the current delay in enforcement has no basis in law. From this post: https://daringfireball.net/linked/2025/02/13/apple-google-tiktok-app-stores https://daringfireball.net/linked/2025/02/13/apple-google-ti... No basis in law hyperlinks to this post: https://daringfireball.net/2025/01/npr_trump_tiktok https://daringfireball.net/2025/01/npr_trump_tiktok
- fastball 2y agoI guess the basis in law is "I fired the entire DOJ so there is nobody to enforce it, we'll just have to wait until those positions are filled again".
- imbnwa 2y agoYeah, they do seem to be quite busy illegally destroying New Deal Federalism and any judge loyal to the constitution is gonna be occupied well into the future with that
- philwelch 2y agoThe New Deal was unconstitutional to begin with. We've been operating outside the constitution for a very long time.
- brookst 2y agoThe great thing is, if a president can unilaterally decide a law doesn’t matter, they can also decide that an imaginary law applies.
- TehCorwiz 2y agoIt requires the same violation of personal privacy by the state to prevent someone from having an abortion as it does to compel one.
- Sontho 2y agoMost people don't realize this.
- t-writescode 2y agoMost people realize this. Most people don't: * think it will impact them. * have any idea what to do about it when the most powerful person in the country can do literally whatever they want with little to no pushback.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- bvrmn 2y ago> the most powerful person in the country can do literally whatever they want with little to no pushback "President is the main person end has exceptional power". That's the mental model for most people. There is no any internal conflict with law violation and any space for reflection what's wrong with it.
- gizzlon 2y ago> have any idea what to do about it They could start with: 1) Peaceful protest, and 2) Boycotting anything related to Musk, Trump and anyone that bends a knee. (When that's literally impossible, as in "I have to buy food somewhere", pick the least bad) Simple, but inconvenient. Better to make excuses and hope someone else fixes the problem at no cost to me.
- brookst 2y agoThere's a lot of middle ground between the righteous protesters putting their lives on the line and the lazy, complacent bourgeoise with their contemptible heads in the sand. I don't have the energy or time to join protests. I donate substantially enough that it's noticeable in my finances to Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, Fair Fight, and a handful of others. Tell me I'm not doing enough, that's fair. Tell me I'm doing nothing, and that's a little insulting.
- boc 2y agoI hope all the people working in tech today realize that once you let the executive ignore laws that you dislike, it's a very clear path to them ignoring laws that protect you and your companies. You WILL be a target eventually and nobody is going to protect you. This is a slow-motion disaster but too many people are complacent because they think it's not going to affect them. No matter your political leanings we cannot allow a constitutional crisis to go unchecked. Things that we take for granted dissolve rapidly if institutions start grabbing power without consequences. It's insane that Congress isn't stepping-up here.
- macinjosh 2y agoObama, Trump and Biden have ignored federal cannabis laws for years. Laws and even the Constitution are ignored routinely Snowden showed us that.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y agoWhile this is true (to some degree anyway), it seems qualitatively different from Congress (and then backed up by SCOTUS) explicitly banning a specific company (and explicitly banning other companies from doing specific things related to that company) and then being completely ignored by an incoming president who just says "wut? no worries, carry on tiktok". this is not a debate about just what the intelligence community can and cannot do, or what level of enforcement and in what communities is appropriate for a given law. it is a point blank statement "i am the president, and you (tiktok) and you (google, apple) can ignore the law", made in public, without any possible national security justification (whatever level of BS that might normally come with).
- macinjosh 2y agoBiden refused to enforce the law as well. Edit: you all are out here downvoting provable facts.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
- anon373839 2y agoI’m a little surprised by this action because the White House can’t protect platforms from state charges. There are plenty of state laws on the books that make violation of federal law a state law violation as well. I suppose the calculation is that no state AGs will want to wade in?
- taurknaut 2y agoI think there are many people fine with simply removing federal enforcement over states. One possible outcome of this is the federal government us just a joke and laws are relative to where you live. I mean. This weird-ass country is already like that, despite the states themselves making zero sense. It'll just get worse.
- bloomingkales 2y agoHe can’t fire state AGs, but can at the federal level. He just fired a dozen of them at the federal level. State AGs may not want to deal with trump appointed feds. That’s why people are just straight resigning. So in a way he’s firing them. No feedback loop here guys, seriously.
- cyberax 2y agoAs far as I remember, the law allowed the president to postpone the law once for up to 90 days. So this particular act is not illegal.
- shkkmo 2y agoThe president can extend the deadline by up to 90 if certain conditions are met. You can argue if those conditions were met, but to argue that Trump had no legal authority to do with without even mentioning the 90 extension provided for by the law is pretty clearly just more useless partisan bullshit.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- pr337h4m 2y agoAny step towards a Great Firewall of America is infinitely worse than supposedly improper non-enforcement of an internet censorship law.
- redserk 2y agoI'd argue this is worse than a "Great Firewall of America". The law is poorly thought out and poorly written, but it's something that any company's legal team can point to and understand why they may fall out of compliance. An arbitrarily enforced law throws that out the window. You're incentivized to cozy up to each administration and hope they don't turn on you, be it Republicans or Democrats.
- etchalon 2y agoIt's neat that we've decided laws don't matter and Congress can just be ignored.
- whyenot 2y agoWith the president's immunity and expansive pardon powers, unfortunately, that is where we are. Laws don't matter when you can be pre-emtively pardoned for breaking them.
- wongarsu 2y agoCongress has spent many decades expanding the power of the president. This is what people have been warning about for a long time. The best part is we already tried impeaching him in his first term. As long as at least 1/3rd of Senators support him there is no way to remove him from office. Well, except a coup maybe. While normal soldiers swear allegiance to the president, officers only swear to protect the constitution. But that seems unlikely.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- kohbo 2y agoNormal soldiers also swear to defend the constitution. The enlisted oath also says says they'll obey orders from the President though.
- grg0 2y agoAll the more convenient, isn't it? Jokes aside, I always thought the ban/force-sale was ridiculous short of an actual privacy law that regulates all social media. But, regardless of your stance on that front, one should indeed be worried of the ever-growing power of the executive.
- ops 2y agoWait until you find out that in many states, you can walk into a business and buy a schedule I controlled substance, and the federal government has been ignoring it for over a decade!
- duxup 2y agoTrump was totally going to ban TikTok but then didn’t. Congress banned TikTok. Now Trump assures companies they can violate the law without consequences. Rules for thee, not for Trumps friends / Chinese companies.
- grg0 2y agoCan somebody educate me on why Trump would be interested in not enforcing the ban at this point, given that he was the first to propose it? That 1.5M followers really worth it?
- brookst 2y agoHe’s working to force a sale to a crony who will kick back cash. Anything that devalues TikTok reduces his cut.
- duxup 2y agoI honestly think Trump always saw this (and most things) as an opportunity to personally profit in some form. I don’t think there’s any real ideology or principle at play. He’s happy to sell out the US if he gets to do it. His first term time and again on some topics he talks big, like repealing Obamacare, china tariffs… and walks away after some small action.
- lubujackson 2y agoBecause TikTok bent the knee. It's really that simple. It's a timeworn "carrot or stick" proposition that up-and-coming dictators always use to buy consent: create a crisis (tariff, banning, etc.) then remove the crisis when they say how great you are. Rinse and repeat and you can get away with anything because everyone, on paper, is backing you.
- knubie 2y agoHow did they bend the knee? I must be out of the loop on this. Aren't they still owned by a Chinese company?
- maeil 2y agoThe coup is complete. Laws passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court now mean nothing. The sooner people stop talking about it as if the US is still only "sliding down the path", and start publicly admitting the reality that they now live in a single-party dictatorship á la Russia and China where the rules are whatever the leader says they are, the better. I know this isn't easy as it takes time to change decades of reinforcement of the tribal ingroup/outgroup neural pathways where "Russia and China" were seen as contrasts to the US. But y'all can do it. Start by uttering the words out loud to yourself. Break through that first "denial" stage of grief.
- FAAST 2y ago[dead]
- WheatMillington 2y agoThe law specifically allowed for this extension, so I think you may be getting ahead of yourself.
- threeseed 2y agoIt only allowed for the extension if TikTok had plans underway to diverse from ByteDance. Not seen any reporting this is the case so we are relying on Trump's Executive Order to the DOJ to not enforce the ruling. And it's in the context of JD Vance's recent statements that the Supreme Court should have no power to curtail the President's actions.
- ivewonyoung 2y agoThe TikTok law was meant to force divesture to a US company. The Supreme Court ruled on the legality of it at the very last minute, so there is broad bipartisan support for more time to find an acquirer, including Biden saying he won't enforce it on the last day in office. They know a lot of Americans depend on it for both livelihood and entertainment/information. How many people in the general public even want it immediately banned apart from those doing it to score political points?
- rzz3 2y agoThough most of the comments are about Trump, I’m happy to see TikTok back (for now). I don’t think Trump ignoring the law is the answer or the right way to go about this, but I’ll take it for now if it keeps TikTok around. What’s most shocking to me, whether you think TikTok should be banned or not, is that Congress was so willing to act directly against the interests of more than half of Americans.
- mandeepj 2y ago> Congress was so willing to act directly against the interests of more than half of Americans National security is in the interest of all the Americans
- lmm 2y ago> National security is in the interest of all the Americans No it isn't (there are plenty of people who'd be better off in a less secure America), and certainly not at any cost.
- rzz3 2y agoI don’t think the national security concerns have been well asserted. What’s the specific national security issue, and the evidence of TikTok doing it?
- talldayo 2y ago> What’s the specific national security issue The app is owned and controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. Basically the equivalent of a Chinese citizen using a CIA-controlled app to get their news. It's a very bald-faced security threat. Furthermore, China has explicitly banned any American social media from the Chinese market for years. They know it's dangerous letting foreign nationals control your narrative, probably because they've been exploiting social media for years. Oh, and there's also the electoral controversy: https://kyivinsider.com/russia-and-china-just-rigged-romanian-elections-using-10-million-fake-tiktok-accounts/ https://kyivinsider.com/russia-and-china-just-rigged-romania...
- ChrisArchitect 2y agoSource: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-02-14/apple-to-restore-tiktok-to-us-app-store-following-justice-department-letter https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-02-14/apple-to-... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43043250 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43043250)
- throwccp 2y ago[dead]
- Andaith 2y agoApple is breaking the law. Clearly defined by Congress, and upheld by the Supreme Court. Just because the president said "Yeah no worries". I feel like this is a huge risk for Apple. The president can change his mind, you can have a new president, Congress or the supreme court could decide they actually wanted that law enforced. Also, If it comes out that sensitive data was exfiltrated from the US via tiktok, or whatever natsec concern saw it banned realizes, then Apple's position is suddenly even worse because the president can say "Apples clearly breaking the law! Lets throw the book at them". I don't understand the risk/reward calculations Apple did that came up with this decision.
- foogazi 2y agoThe US government has kompromat on them now
- mtmickush 2y agoCongress and the Supreme Court already decided they wanted the law enforced. It's up to the executive branch to enforce it and if they decide not to there isn't much the others can do.
- kelnos 2y agoThere are certainly things that can be done, but the executive can of course escalate their disobedience. If this ends up in court (though I'm not sure who has standing to sue), the courts could order the executive branch to enforce the law. If they don't comply, the courts can find specific people responsible for enforcing the law in contempt of court, and jail them. Of course, they need some appropriate law enforcement agency to arrest them, and there may not be one with jurisdiction that is willing to go against Trump. Ultimately Congress can impeach and convict Trump and Vance if their shenanigans go too far for even their tastes, but I doubt that will ever happen. (And even then, we'll get Mike Johnson as president, which is not really an improvement.)
- youniverse 2y agoOne thing I'll add is that lots of kids deleted tiktok when the servers went offline for a bit right when the ban happened. Now they regret it and maybe Apple got wind of this perhaps. I personally was asked to help a young girl who would cry all day because she lost the app and it was her salvation due to her unique circumstance. Was interesting for me to learn after asking some middle/high schoolers how important the app is for them emotionally/personally/culturally/etc.
- mempko 2y agoWent to RedNote. Never looked back. I hear TikTok now censors a lot more than it used to.
- agnishom 2y agoSo, you are saying that RedNote censors _less_ than Tiktok?
- the_clarence 2y agoTry kuaishou!
- jamesredd 2y agoGood. The law banning TikTok is unconstitutional.
- dataflow 2y agoDidn't SCOTUS already rule on it 9-0?
- TheRealNGenius 2y ago[dead]
- jamesredd 2y agoThey also ruled that blacks could not claim any of the rights and privileges granted to citizens.
- pests 2y agoTimes change. We live in the now.
- leeoniya 2y agoJohn Adams: "We are a nation of laws, not of men," Trump: Hold my beer!
- chvid 2y agoI feel sorry for Zuckerberg.
- throwccp 2y ago[dead]
- ftimapple 2y ago[flagged]
- insane_dreamer 2y agoIt’s clear by now that the Executive Branch is taking a very selective approach to what laws they will enforce or not. That’s dangerous. Today you might agree with them, tomorrow you might not, but it’ll be too late. The 3 branches balancing each other is the reason why the US has worked relatively well as a democracy for 250 years.
- cepc912 2y agoSo it was all utterly useless? Unless they did something to the app. Anyone in the US redownloaded and saw any differences?