What's that saying? The best way to get a promotion is to cause a problem and then fix it?
Political things aside, it's crazy to see so much of a flip-flop so quickly. Has there been any other behavior like this in the past where a company "shut themselves down" to make a big political statement and then almost immediately undid the shut down?
> Has there been any other behavior like this in the past where a company "shut themselves down" to make a big political statement and then almost immediately undid the shut down?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdowns_in_the_Un...
Fiduciary responsibilities make it unlikely that many companies would risk it.
There’s always a chance you don’t come back, and there’s likely to be a loss of marketshare for simply being unavailable for a period and forcing users to trial alternatives.
But, TikTok is not purely commercially focused. A majority of the voting stock of ByteDance is held by the Chinese government, who clearly see non-financial strategic value in controlling it.
Otherwise, they likely could have negotiated a spin out the US operation, whereby they retain most of the equity upside but give majority voting control to a US buyer.
> hereby they retain most of the equity upside but give majority voting control to a US buyer.
Keen to see this opinion when the Chinese government demands the same from Apple.
'cos we're all equal, no?
The Chinese government carefully controls foreign access to its market already (unlike the US), and already bans quite a few foreign companies from operating on the Chinese Internet (again, unlike the US).
I imagine Apple already complies with whatever they need to comply with in order to make the Chinese government happy.
> 'cos we're all equal, no?
No, we absolutely aren't. The Chinese government has ensured for decades now that foreign businesses have only tightly controlled access to the Chinese people while Chinese-owned (i.e., easily controllable by the Chinese government) businesses have advantages not given to outsiders. (And those outsiders need to open up a Chinese subsidiary that is majority-owned by Chinese investors/companies.)
On the other hand, most Western countries have given Chinese companies near-unfettered access to their markets.
If anything, this TikTok ban is actually making things more equal, if only by a tiny bit.
> If anything, this TikTok ban is actually making things more equal, if only by a tiny bit.
I do t use tiktok and have no skin in the game as an EU resident, but setting a precedent for this kind of behaviour to permit clthe government to simply block anything it wants is basically following in CCPs footsteps, that's certainly not a good thing in my eyes.
This is not a new precedent. The US government has placed foreign-ownership restrictions on media companies since before the public internet was a thing. The only difference here is that it's targeted at a specific company, but I'm not really up in arms about that, even though I think they definitely could have written the law without naming ByteDance or TikTok specifically.
Not just media companies, the government block a Japanese company from buying US Steel. Not out of antitrust concerns but due to the foreign ownership aspect.
Yup, and that was done against one of our most loyal allies.
Yep, but people don't pay attention to history anymore and their ignorance keeps us repeating it.
Did they ever?
I think more people in government did because they actually were educated and not just all grifters.
I feel like takes like these are coming from a place of extreme naivete, or worse, nihilism. Either people don't understand why it's problematic that our most influential social media platform among basically everyone age 0-30 is fully controlled by the CCP, or people really think the CCP wouldn't use its ability to control any Chinese company to aggressively mold US public opinion in concert with their inevitable invasion of the democratic country Taiwan,
or... the nihilistic option:
People know China would engage in information warfare using TikTok in a situation like that, but they foolishly think the CCP is on even moral ground with free democracies so none of this matters, and we've gotta keep the funny musical memes flowing.
For all one's misgivings about the US -- and there are many valid ones! -- before deciding these governments are equal, talk to a Chinese political dissident, if you can find one, since they sometimes disappear.
After the invasion of Ukraine, the EU blocked a number of outlets for spreading pro-Russian disinformation (RT, Sputnik for example) so this would be nothing new.
As an EU resident your govt likely exerts far more control over media (both domestic and foreign owned) than the US
> As an EU resident your govt likely exerts far more control over media (both domestic and foreign owned) than the US
Wild statement, so lets look at some data.
https://fr.statista.com/statistiques/1337388/classement-pays...
These are a list of the freedom of press in the EU with their corresponding indexes.
Lets compare that to the US : https://rsf.org/en/country/united-states
Index 2024 Score : 66.59
Not looking good for your opinion but lets look at some more that are consumer privacy focused, which was my main point.
https://iapp.org/resources/article/countries-at-a-glance-pri...
IAPP isn't a bad source IMO but hard to evaluate their methods, but lets see.
> Level of understanding about data collection and use
Netherlands : Weak - 14% USA : Weak - 24%
Not great, I could spend time finding more, but the summary is that the EU has regulations that require companies to limit the useage of consumers information and privacy. The EU is consumer privacy focused, wheras the US seems to be Enterprise & Organisation focused, also it's state level enforcements fracture enforcement even further.
Lets look at the US CCPA vs GDPR :
A crucial difference is that GDPR requires individuals to opt-in before businesses can collect data while there is no opt-in condition in CCPA.
That should say it all.
Edit : I forgot to add, outside of Sanctions the EU has no control to simply decide to ban a company when it feels like it.
You start off sounding like you're arguing against the idea that the EU exerts more control over media than the US, but then most of what you said seems to support the fact that they do so.
Am I misreading what your intent?
I am saying the EU does not exert 'control' they protect citizens interests via regulations. Its a different model.
Regulations are for the companies.. But they're not banned. It's a different model to the US.
To clarify. Companies are not banned.. they're fined (often not enough) until they align..
Protecting people is always the justification. “We aren’t restricting your freedom, we are protecting you.” That governments seek to “protect” people from words on a page is wild to me.
> regulations are for the companies. But they’re not banned.
So if they don’t follow the regulations they simply keep paying fines indefinitely? Until they run out of money? Until the company goes out of business? We aren’t banning those companies, instead we’ll attempt to bankrupt them if they stay in our markets; unless they do what we say. In other words, extortion?
I see your point, but those regulations are also given with full justifications, backed up by research etc.
This tiktok issue was brought under 'national security' with what feels like a "Trust me bro".
Ah, but you see, pigs are in fact more equal than other animals
Numerous examples of China-says-jump-everyone-says-how-high.
NBA, any company that makes anything within China using slavery, the guy/actor/wrestler (the name escapes me right now) who had to learn Chinese to apologize. Take your pick of "precedent".
1bn customers = a lot of money. A company that will kiss the ring will do the right thing by its shareholders and a nasty thing against humanity. I am 200% sure that Apple has given the keys for all users/phones/servers in China to the gov/CCP and nobody complained.
If North Korea had 1bn potential customers, we would be seeing Kim very differently.
We are cattle. It's all a 1984-ish sham.
Historically China has been so large and 'diverse' (not to be confused with DEI) (like India and Russia). It's not "one chinese person is just like anyone else". There are multiple Republics/States/etc. It takes an emperor to keep together an empire. And that usually requires (plenty of) violence.
Communism is built to make people suffer, remove individuality and requires total obedience and personal reformation to be the 'good citizen'. You and me both are EU citizens. We are all different and we respect/accept each other. In China if you disagree, you disappear. They would very much like to do the same to the rest of the world. And one day they will, just not yet. I hope they implode before they do (like all empires).
(apologies for the grim tone)(I suggest "Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order by Ray Dalio": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xguam0TKMw8)
> NBA, any company that makes anything within China using slavery, the guy/actor/wrestler (the name escapes me right now) who had to learn Chinese to apologize. Take your pick of "precedent".
Houston Rockets GM and James Harden:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Harden#Politics
* https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/nbas-apo...
* https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/27787634/james-harden-ap...
John Cena was probably the wrestler HenryBemis was referring to. Although he started learning Chinese a long time ago, not for the purpose of apologizing. A couple years ago he called Taiwan a country, then issued an apology.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/26/john-cena-very...
Actually what’s scary for Apple, and really for all companies with assets or factories still in China is that recently China prevented Apple from shipping its own equipments out of China to India. China is so fearful of even more unemployments that it is now willing to upset one of its largest employer.
Foxconn stops sending Chinese workers to India iPhone factories In addition, equipment shipments are delayed, potentially disrupting next-generation iPhone production in India.
https://restofworld.org/2025/china-foxconn-factoriesfoxconn-...
You really have to be braindead as a COO if you do not have contingency plan to move stuff out of China this year.
> unlike the US
The US is not a master piece of freedom. Want to market or own foreign shares? Want to travel to Cuba? Have you gone through the crazy US border control process as a foreigner?
Yes, China is absolutely worse. But the US is not a good example.
I never claimed the US was perfect, just better. I think using it as an example is fine. No country is perfect by any metric; everything is a matter of comparison over who is better or worse on a particular thing.
> Want to market or own foreign shares?
ADRs work for that, no?
> Want to travel to Cuba? Have you gone through the crazy US border control process as a foreigner?
I agree those things are bad, but they have nothing to do with market access, which is the topic at hand.
I have a London stock exchange trading account with Schwab. I think I opened it online. The only catch is that I can only deposit or withdraw funds via my US Schwab account.
Well if we aren't going to get the actual fruits of capitalism I'm for damn sure going to fight it tooth and nail at home. Shit sucks and I can't think of anyone I trust less than an American capitalist.
> The Chinese government carefully controls foreign access to its market already (unlike the US)
Is there any reason you’re skipping the past 40+ years of turmoil in the Middle East purely from the US trying to control oil fields? Because Iran would like a word with, and there’s a hell lot of other countries behind them waiting their turn
Perhaps I misunderstand your point, but the US obviously doesn't have any issue meddling in other country's economies or political systems. The US also obviously allows foreigners to business in the US without many restrictions. Is this the "free market" I keep hearing about? I don't know.
The OP was contrasting this with China, that does not allow foreigners access to their markets. As a regular American, quite honestly, I would like a bit of protectionism from the US, as I recently bought a house and had to compete with cash offers from Chinese banks. It's insane to me that we allow foreigners to buy property here, while our own citizens are being increasingly priced out of our own country.
Isn’t that how laissez faire capitalism works - the person with the higher bid gets the sale, not based on central planned rules of which country the current administration is beefing with that day?
I'm pretty sure Meta apps, at least Facebook, are banned in China still. Apple complies with the Chinese government and removes banned apps otherwise it can not operate there. I think even Tiktok itself is banned in China, there is a special version just for the Chinese market so their consumers can not see global content.
There is no such ban. Microsoft operates tons of services in China. Internet companies just need to host all Chinese in China using an approved provider. This is the exact same requirement extended to Tiktok, for ages US tiktok data is stored in Oracle cloud with full audit access by appointed American firms.
Parent talks about Meta, you mention Microsoft. They are not in the same business. Meta is in the social networking domain, which the communist party in China has treated for years as a matter of national security. The "color revolutions" and the "Arab Spring" gave them good reason to believe that online social networks were a driver of societal change too powerful not to control. And they control it very very tightly.
> Parent talks about Meta, you mention Microsoft. Meta is in the social networking domain
Microsoft operated its own popular social network in China, called MSN Messenger. Tens of millions Chinese users were on that platform for like a decade until the release of mobile based WeChat.
> which the communist party in China has treated for years as a matter of national security
It is a matter of national security, we all saw what happened on twitter shortly before the 6th Jan 2021 attack.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/tweets-january-5-2...
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/tweets-january-6-2...
That is the exact reason why everyone agreed that TikTok must host all US data and its deployed recommendation algorithm code in the US with 3rd party audit access by an appointed US entity.
The only question here is why should Meta and Google be exempted from the exact same rules if they want to operate their services in China.
MSN Messenger in China was run by MSN China, a separate company run by Chinese residents (as required by Chinese law). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSN_China
They were defeated by the QQ app and shut down in 2014.
https://technode.com/2014/08/29/microsoft-messenger-shut-dow...
> MSN Messenger in China was run by MSN China, a separate company run by Chinese residents (as required by Chinese law)
Microsoft retained a 50% ownership of MSN China, just check the link you cited. Microsoft also retained the full ownership of the MSN messenger software while MSN China was just in charge of its day to day operation in China.
Also interesting to see that millions of Tesla EVs are being sold in China, hundreds of millions other American cars were sold in the past, but when Chinese EVs try to crack the US market it sudden becomes a national security issue.
> Also interesting to see that millions of Tesla EVs are being sold in China, hundreds of millions other American cars were sold in the past, but when Chinese EVs try to crack the US market it sudden becomes a national security issue.
Why are you making it sound like China doesn't restrict Tesla for "national security"?
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/business/tesla-barred-china-s... https://fortune.com/2023/07/26/tesla-cars-barred-china-world... https://www.carscoops.com/2024/01/more-venues-across-china-a... https://www.autoevolution.com/news/tesla-cars-are-banned-in-... https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/china-bans-tesla-drivin...
Tesla was asked to complete a comprehensive review to ensure its data compliance. Tesla did it and has been cleared for such data security issue, that is how Tesla sold 670k units in China in 2024.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-29/as-musk-v...
DJI drones have been operated & tested by numerous US agencies for ages, yet it is still a national security threat. how convenient!
Im pretty sure there is no ban per se. They just say: "either put your servers in our jurisdiction or gtfo of here", to which Meta and co. voluntarily decide to not enter the market. CCP still advertises as open to foreign companies though
So does Europe btw and they comply with that.
Chinese government demands a lot from US companies. Google left for a reason.
Apple is quite a special case since iPhone ecosystem creates many jobs in China. If Apple managed to move jobs to India (or wherever cheap labor is), Chinese government will stop being nice to them.
And even then, right now in China, iCloud service is run by Guizhou cloud, not Apple.
> Chinese government demands a lot from US companies. Google left for a reason.
Yeah, and that reason was incompetence, it's not for lack of trying.
1) China already exerts massive control over all of their social medias via social credit censoring.
2) China absolutely did ban most external social media and forces those that remain to hold data locally.
3) China still has the Great Firewall that everybody forgets about.
4) "He does it too" is the argument a two year old uses and should be accorded the same level of respect.
They already do and it has been that way since "opening" up their markets.
If I recall correctly, Apple isn’t allowed to run iCloud services in China, they are run and controlled by a local company
> Fiduciary responsibilities make it unlikely that many companies would risk it.
When you are owned/controlled by an authoritative government you have the responsibility to not get disappeared. Just ask Jack Ma.
Which specific owner is the Chinese government?
[flagged]
Is HN just…okay with slurs now?
Can you imagine any other country making this demand and it being taken seriously? It is negotiation by means of extortion. Why are American tech companies entitled to the profits of an internationally used app?
You can’t claim this is unfair to China, when China requires foreign companies enter into joint ventures which give the Chinese partner majority voting share.
The US is simply reciprocating.
I don't think it's unfair to China, I think it's unfair to European countries, Canada, Australia, and the rest of the world that uses TikTok who are watching the U.S. demand it is entitled to run and control TikTok.
This would be like the U.S. forcing Spotify's Swedish headquarters to accept U.S. ownership.
Then Europe should grows some balls and ban TikTok. China is literally a foreign invader not just a foreign adversary, aiding in Russia’s conquest of Europe. And trying to destroy Europe’s car industry via state subsidized EVs
India literally banned TikTok overnight when China killed Indian soldiers in 2020
Every state to a different degree subsidizes its automobile industry.
Living in Australia now with access to Chinese EV's is eyeopening. It's great for the consumer. To the extent you accept EV's as a solution for reducing GHG's, the cheaper prices are making it easier to end our reliance on oil. Americans don't realize what they are missing out on.
Better than Tesla-quality vehicles for half the price.
Why exactly are they half the price? What are the externalities of Chinese EV manufacturing. They may be half the price, but I doubt they are half the cost.
> China is literally a foreign invader not just a foreign adversary
TikTok ban is not about vengeance on China, it's about violations of own citizens' freedoms.
> aiding in Russia’s conquest of Europe
Russia right now is weaker and has the least potential to conquer anything than literally ever before.
India still depends on Chinese imports and technology, regardless of how it feels about the country. The TikTok thing was an easy political stunt.
If banning Tik Tok is an easy political stunt then why has this spawned a couple several thousand comment posts in the last 48 hours alone?
Because if there are two subjects HN cannot resist pontificating on at length, it's social media/the modern web and Sinopolitics. Add a dash of red team/blue team sniping and it's the perfect storm.
Easy in India. I’m sure they also debated it at length there. But they went through with it and it largely did nothing.
You're really not going to enjoy history class when it comes to American empire
I think most Westerners would prefer the US remaining dominant than ceding that position of power to China, regardless of the US's foreign policy monstrosities over time.
And for those Westerners who do not, I think it would be useful to ask them why they think a country like China (or Russia, or North Korea) would be better for their interests than the US, even with someone like Trump in power.
> I think most Westerners would prefer the US remaining dominant than ceding that position of power to China, regardless of the US's foreign policy monstrosities over time.
I can't speak for most Westerners, but I fully believe the United States to be an empire in decline already. Who will take up that mantle once we're fully gone is an interesting question, I think China and India both could make a solid case for themselves.
> And for those Westerners who do not, I think it would be useful to ask them why they think a country like China (or Russia, or North Korea) would be better for their interests than the US
I don't really think about it in terms of "my interests." My ideal incoming superpower would be any superpower that's ready to deal with existential threats to our species like climate change, along with our global social ills like over-reliance on social media and the year over year alienation of everyone from everyone else. If that country comes with me needing to learn Mandarin then that's what has to happen.
I'm highly disillusioned with both the "West" as an idea (which can include any number of countries depending how racist the speaker is feeling at the moment). I still believe in Democracy, representative or otherwise, but I don't see any of those in your "West" anymore. I see a collection of ailing, aged empires full of greedy old men stealing as much money as they can so they and their families can coast out the collapse they have engineered. I contrast this with China, which certainly has problems too, and the CCP gets up to some nonsense, but their ability to exude top-down control also makes them more able to actually solve problems instead of endlessly bickering about them. And with respect to the notions of individual liberty and freedom that I do want to see in the world, it's clear that the West is too focused on maintaining the rights of the individual to do what they so please, and not enough on maintaining the planet upon which they would do it. How free is anyone if we can't leave our homes due to smog or unlivable temperatures/weathers?
Not saying it's an overall improvement. I am saying that the U.S. is on it's way out, and China is the likely incoming global superpower. We can do precious little to change this if we even want to, and I'm not rushing for a fire extinguisher here.
> Who will take up that mantle once we're fully gone is an interesting question, I think China and India both could make a solid case for themselves
With the exception of the USSR, every superpower’s decline in history has involved a burst of violence. China or India won’t take over if America collapses because America collapsing (versus slow fading over lifetimes) almost guarantees nuclear war resetting the table.
I’d prefer if there wasn’t any dominant powers. But that goes against human nature it seems.
Sure, that would be great. But we live in a world where that kind of thing is probably inevitable.
Why do we assume that would be great? The last time we had no dominant power it lead to ww1…
If anything, WW1 happened because there were too many empires rather than a lack of any dominant powers.
Unless you’re suggesting that what the world needs is a single dominant empire? Which would be an odd position to take because history has proven that monopolies are much much worse for abusing power.
Maybe if/when we colonise other planets we can think of the Earth as a single government with countries acting like states (kind of like the EU but with less sovereignty for each state). However that’s only going to happen if we work together and generally cooperation is viewed as counterproductive to empire building. So we come full circle back to my original point.
It's not very clear, but the US version is more freedom plus killing more people, and the Chinese version is more servitude plus killing fewer people.
I think people who have seen one up close claim to prefer the other (but thets meaningless) while people who have seen both start to lean toward servitude, unless they are highly religious.
Sounds like what a rapist would say about their victims
Since we all live in democratic regimes, maybe, just maybe, the will of the people should matter here at least a little bit? Banning TikTok is a deeply unpopular idea, across all party lines. It's only popular among the anti-democratic elites, from Trump (who first got this ball rolling), to Biden, to European leaders playing their "high-level" games.
This is simply false, at least in the US. A small majority favor banning it. It's not huge, but it's not a "deeply unpopular idea".
Here is a poll showing only 42% of Republicans and 24% of Democrats supporting the ban:
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2025/01/15/tiktok-ba...
I was a bit wrong in calling it deeply unpopular across party lines, but it's certainly quite unpopular overall, and deeply unpopular among Democrats.
You're lumping "not sure" in with "oppose the ban". You could just as easily lump "not sure" with "support the ban" and conclude that not banning it is deeply unpopular.
Here's the actual poll: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/09/05/support-f...
If you're trying to argue that a majority favors banning it, then, obviously, all opinions other than "favor banning it" have to be lumped together as "don't favor banning it"
It does not say they have to sell to the US. Only divest as to no longer be considered controlled by a `foreign adversary` of the United States.[0] The bill also gives this power to future administrations.
It was literally called Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.
Not, All your app are belong to us.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protecting_Americans_from_Fore...
Does the law said it has to be sold to a US entity? I think it just can't be run by "adversary"
More fair would have been a restriction based on some framework like...
+ Public forum or utility
+ Userbase greater than 1% of the adult population
= Majority Ownership of corporate division and management, plus regulatory oversight, must be held within country OR a security partnered country (the easiest criteria for that might be they have an obligation to fight along side 'our' troops in some way).
That way it isn't specific about any given platform or company, and it allows anyone trusted as an ally to comprise the ownership or legal jurisdiction.
That's almost exactly how the law was written. Only the userbase was specified in absolute numbers (1 million MAU).
But if the EU or Canada or Australia bought it, that would fulfill the terms of the law.
EU countries are asleep at the wheel on matters of national security and sovereignty. Spotify is not a matter of national security. TikTok, and social networking in general, has been one for some time now. Misinformation, conspiracy theories, actual conspiracies to overthrow govt, etc have all found renewed vigor thanks to social networks.
US on the other hand now has its social media controlled by oligarchs, not much better maybe.
If that’s your position, then you would be fine if EU countries were to pull out all US telco infrastructure because of their previous abuses towards European citizens?
> would be fine if EU countries were to pull out all US telco infrastructure because of their previous abuses towards European citizens?
If I were the EU, I would. We hacked Merkel.
Well yeah, but she was totally asking for it.
I'd be mindful that having a NATO partner be able to spy is maybe better than having Huawei spy if you have to choose, but yes, I think it's a risk that EU countries should be aware of and probably are more aware of than with social networks.
What is your opinion on India's ban of TikTok a few years ago?
You do realize many US companies are not practically allowed to operate in some European jurisdictions? Uber and Amazon come to mind.
That has nothing to with them being US companies. Or are there any jurisdictions where Bolt/(other local company) is allowed to freely operate but Uber is banned?
Aren’t they for a different reason, like workers law protection?
Those are just examples. Whatever the reason for each, sovereign jurisdictions don't allow free access to their resources/markets just out of spite. That includes Europe.
That’s only partially true though. I don’t think Uber itself is not allowed to operate anywhere. Rather it’s business model is illegal in some cities/areas. Usually you can still use Uber to hire actual taxis there.
However exact same rules apply to its European competitors like Bolt. Make it entirely unrelated to this situation.
They’re not. Why are you making that assumption? The US is saying that in order to access the US market they have to divest. They’re free to sell at a fair market price - including to European buyers. They can also choose not to and leave the US market and keep operating elsewhere. They can also just sell the US business and keep everything else the way it is.
To be fair being legally mandated to sell significantly reduces that “free market price”. Technically it’s certainly not “free” anymore..
Well, that's pretty much how China behaves with respect to foreign companies operating in China. They all need to be joint partnerships with owners in China.
The world is more than just China and the United States. That was the point of my original comment. The United States here feels entitled to own and run an app used on every continent of the world. No other country could get away with demanding this.
> The United States here feels entitled to own and run an app used on every continent of the world.
This isn’t correct. The US law only applies to the services provided within the US.
ByteDance could spin out the US userbase while retaining the rest of the userbase. Many US companies already have to do exactly this for their Chinese userbase. Spin it off to a JV with a Chinese partner.
I’m not aware of anyone doing this, but you could even have a content syndication model whereby the global TikTok and the US TikTok share a common pool of content and username reservations so that both services appear global to their users, but with separate companies controlling distribution of their own apps and the recommendation model used to serve content.
That's false. The US law requires TikTok to be sold to a non-adversary. A US company could buy it, or some German or Spanish company, and either would fulfill the requirements to avoid a ban in the US.
> No other country could get away with demanding this.
TikTok is already banned in India. Brasil banned Twitter for a while until they caved to Brasil's demands.
India banned TikTok a few years ago. Brazil banned X until it agreed to take down posts in violation of Brazilian law. The European Union fines US-based tech companies frequently.
"Entitlement" in the context of nations is irrelevant. Nations exercise power in accordance with their interests.
The latter two, in theory, apply to local companies too. The TikTok bans specifically apply to “foreign adversaries”.
Domestic adversaries don't own any companies, for obvious reasons.
I would disagree…?
> The United States here feels entitled to own and run
It doesn't have to be the United States. It just has to be anyone other than Iran, North Korea, China, and Russia.
Well.. SAP could buy it. Or some other European tech company that could afford it..
> The world is more than just China and the United States.
But this particular situation is not. A Chinese controlled company that operates in the US. If you want access to $CC market you are subject to $CC's rules. Other countries do exactly the same thing (aside from China, GDPR comes to mind) so it's unclear what the basis for your complaint is here.
Surely this is sarcasm?
Yes absolutely. China.
You have to give away 50% of your local subsidiary just to operate there.
And why do you think Google and Facebook don’t even offer their services there?
> You have to give away 50% of your local subsidiary just to operate there.
I'm not sure how generally you meant to speak, but this is no longer true as a general claim.
"As of November 1, 2024, China has removed all restrictions on foreign investment in the manufacturing sector, allowing foreign investors, including Americans, to own up to 100% equity in Chinese manufacturing enterprises."
True. I missed that. Operating an online social network has nothing to do with manufacturing though.
And investments into various telecommunications related areas are still restricted or outright banned. So foreign founded/owned TV stations like Fox News could never exist in China (for better or for worse).
What's your source on that? Apple, Microsoft, Tesla and Amazon all operate in China and I don't believe they had to give up 50% of their local subsidiary. Google withdrew from China because it didn't want to comply with local laws (e.g. censorship).
They changed it last year. Prior to that you generally could only have a 50% stake manufacturing companies (obviously doesn’t apply to Apple cause they never did any).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_list_of_foreign_inv...
Passenger cars were removed in 2021.
However:
> .. (ii) news agencies, (iii) editing, publishing and production of books, newspapers, periodicals, audio-visual products and electronic publications, (iv) all levels of broadcasting stations, television stations, radio and television channel and frequency, radio and television transmission networks and the engagement in the video on demand business of radio and TV, (v) radio and television program production and operation as well as (vi) film production companies, distribution companies, cinema companies and the introduction of films are still prohibited.
So good-luck to any Australians and Brits who want to operate Fox news style networks in China.
There are other telecommunications related areas which are restricted and not prohibited.
Not sure where would TikTok fall into exactly but it’s probably bot manufacturing.
They aren't demanding a sale. They are just saying they can't operate in the country if they don't sell.
They have a choice to leave the country or follow the rules.
Let us cannibalize your app because it's so successful at doing X that we can't compete with you. It's a bizarre ultimatum for the owners of the app.
Seems like the policies used by the Chinese government for decade are becoming more internationally popular (for better or for worse..).
I can’t really feel bad about when it’s the same deal they offer Western companies. Well.. to be fair Google or FB couldn’t even get anywhere close to where TikTok is.
Where you launch in a place where the government actually controls your company, well, that's a decision you made.
Because it deals with an actual enemy pumping propaganda into your country's citizen's ears. It's a legitimate threat to national security. And no, not just the US does this. (I assume you mean free countries, not dictatorship like China, Russia or North Korea that ban everything they don't like).
Europe banned Russian propaganda outlet RT a couple of years ago, on security grounds. It's just that US prefers the soft-soft approach. Don't ban them, let them "divest". No. It doesn't work. It should be banned end of story. I guarantee a genuine competitor from the US or an allied country would make an alternative quite soon. Would be so addictive and equally brain rotting? Probably not, so people who enjoyed it before would complain. Fine, let them go join Douyin or other Chinese platform and see for themselves how "freedom of speech"looks like in China.
As for anyone who might come and say "they're not doing anything wrong". They are and you're naive for not seeing it. Every company in China is an arm of the state. As an example see how Bytedance released an ebook reader in the US with an AI assistant that tells you things like "nothing happened in 1989 on Tiananmen square", there is no genocide in Xinjiang, it is inappropriate to question and critique the Chinese communist party, China never attacked anyone,ever but it's perfectly fine to criticise every other single country on earth and it is ready to give you a litany of misdeeds any other country on earth ever did. Except China. Do you think a company like that owning what's essentially a monopoly on news for the young people is good? No it is not, and any sane politician would ban it long time ago. The fact Trump did this move worries me for his other decisions in future .
Fox News, Twitter and Meta are far worse influences on American society than TikTok.
And every big US platform is just a big siphon for the NSA when it comes to non U.S. persons.
The stupidity and hypocrisy of this ban and unban is hilarious.
It's the tech policy analog of the Iraq War (on the level of stupidity, loss of standing, inevitable consequences etc).
Not saying this ban is equivalent to a decision that killed 1M+ people, lead to ISIS, and created the migrant crisis and more
> The stupidity and hypocrisy of this ban and unban is hilarious.
Your adversary does not care about morals, but will leverage yours in his favour.
[flagged]
All media has propaganda. But if you objectively look at what Russia is doing in Ukraine, and then look at RT's coverage of the war, you must be pretty brainwashed to trust RT any more than American media.
There are plenty of corruption and issues in EU, some of which RT may have covered legitimately, but at least we're not intentionally massacring civilians and sending our poor and minorities to die as cannon fodder in an useless invasion. There's a reason why all European neighbours of Russia have or want to join NATO, and that is its imperialistic and aggressive policies.
You should come visit us in Finland or maybe our neighbour Estonia and really see what ordinary people have to say about Russia. Real people, who actually live next to them.
Well, different standards apply for government than for private companies.
The government is not a company regardless of how many doofuses want to run it like one.
lol perfect
> a company "shut themselves down" to make a big political statement
They were following the law. Anything else is just promises by people who are not exactly known for following through with them
Shutting down because the law says it, and to prevent really big penalties, is not making “a big political statement
The law didn't require them to shut the service off for those who already had the app installed. It just prevented new updates or downloads. Shutting off the app immediately was just theater and reinstating the app with no changes to the law is just the second act.
The law says that US cloud providers are fined if they continued to provide services to Bytedance.
As far as we know, Tiktok is operated on US servers by Oracle. While it might have been possible to find another cloud provider and move all US data there, I can see them not wanting to do that given that there was no point if the app isn't distributed in the US anymore.
There's currently no evidence pointing towards Oracle shutting down cloud service to them though. TikTok appears to have just preemptively shut down the app before they were obligated to, complete with dramatic messages telling users what to blame and who to thank.
Even without following the letter of the law it's entirely rational behaviour for a popular market leader to foment outrage by fully blacking out services. 150 million users (in the US alone) is a very powerful political influence. Politicians frequently fold for a few thousand vocal people complaining on the internet.
It was a gambit used for net neutrality in 2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Slowdown_Day
Of course it's rational behavior. Nico was the one claiming that they were just "following the law", that's what this subthread was about. If you agree that TikTok was making a political point by shutting down, then you agree with the person you're replying to.
Not everything on the internet has to be a binary argument.
Such compromises happen between companies as well when a particular app is popular. Facebook and Uber accessing private java apis which meant Google couldn't change the internals as these apps are popular.
Sure that may be smart to forward interest.
Nico argued TikTok made the minimum change required by law.
Oracle was shutting them down shortly after the clock struck midnight Sunday GMT. [1]
[1] - https://www.reuters.com/technology/oracle-prepares-start-shu...
I believe Tiktok shut down the app in India in the same way without being "obligated to" either before the order came into effect, albeit without the dramatic messaging.
(The latter part is probably because Tiktok's banning was not particulaly divisive within the population as it is in the US.)
I don't know exact figures, but when Tiktok was banned, Instagram was really popular - due to being pushed by Facebook, which was really really popular in India by then. None of my friends were on Tiktok, but all where there on Instagram. The reels thing was not popular but Facebook linked the account automatically and you just keep adding Facebook friends there as well.
Tiktok had a better algorithm (to get hooked) but Instagram eventually caught up (with algo)..
The dramatic messaging was entirely the point. India probably did not have an easily exploitable target for such a message, so there was no point in trying that there.
Oracle did shut them down last night, if Google and Apple have to drop their apps on the apps store, Oracle and other providers have to drop them too. Btw, the app won't function even if parts of the infra is down. Btw, business is risk averse, they don't want to give any excuses for government to fine them. Bytedance should definitely shutdown everything and blocked all US users unless they have explicit, written and legally bidding instructions from the Justice Department. Only an executive order is enough. They asked Biden to give that, but Biden just smirked
Is anyone but politicians to blame?
I’m not sure this is correct. I see where you’re coming from, but there was a clear date that the law was going to be enacted by, and tiktok simply followed that date. Pretty much everybody expected tiktok to be required to shut down. The law is clear that there are penalties for tiktok continuing to operate past that date, so it’s not really surprising.
They were telling users who to blame and who to thank because in this specific case, the blame and the thank are pretty clear. The Biden administration approved the ban, and the Trump administration reversed it. Blaming one and thanking the other is also hardly surprising.
Help me understand then if they’re following the letter of the law what changed with the law between the shutoff and now?
Well, "the law" is a shorthand for "how the police behave" and there is a certain amount of realpolitik here. The basic argument here would be that the US Congress made a scary growling sound and TikTok folded immediately because the Congress is terrifying. But then Trump made more of a friendly sound and so they think they can operate a bit longer with some level of safety.
There is no question that TikTok is a politically sensitive app and the US/China are very nearly in the funnel to a major war so a lot of the usual niceties are questionable. Previously the US has attempted something that looked a lot like a black-bag kidnapping of a Chinese industrialist [0]. I'd imagine that the TikTok people are acutely sensitive towards how the law is actually going to be interpreted and enforced in practice.
This is basically the same tactic to the SOPA/PIPA protests [1]. I don't know why people are bending over backwards to pretend it was something other than a political stunt. Also, Trump's rhetoric has remained unchanged since well before this - a 90 day extension. They wanted to flex their muscle to show the US political establishment how many US users there were and how much sway they had to give them more leverage in their negotiations. That's about it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA...
[dead]
The timeline doesn't add up.
Jan 17: Biden administration says it will leave TikTok ban enforcement for Trump [1]
Early Jan 18: Trump says he will 'most likely' give TikTok a 90-day extension to avoid a ban [2]
Late Jan 18: TikTok makes app unavailable for U.S. users ahead of ban [3]
Midday Jan 19: TikTok begins restoring service for U.S. users after Trump comments [4]
They already knew what was going to happen. They also changed the message shortly after disabling it from "We're working to restore service in the U.S. as soon as possible, and we appreciate your support. Please stay tuned." to "We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office. Stay tuned!" [5]
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/biden-administrat...
[2] https://nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-likely-give-...
[3] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/tiktok-makes-app-unav...
[4] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/tiktok-says-restoring...
[5] https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/tiktok-sends-notice-to-users...
There's no evidence that they were obligated to shut off the app immediately at the time the law was enacted.
Which is curious if the sourcing by The Information is legitimate, considering that the FTC hasn't yet begun enforcement.
If your cloud provider tells you they are shutting you down on date X, you want to fight as hard as you can until X and then shutdown gracefully to have a chance to explain to your users why your system is going down. If you wait until you get shutdown, you have no way of pushing a graceful shutdown anymore.
I'm saying that it is curious that Oracle would be acting before the FTC began enforcement, if this sourcing is actually accurate.
Oracle has no interest in running afoul of the US government at all. Their internal culture in many ways views them like that of a quasi-government institute. So in thus case they probably are feeling responsible to actually be the ones enforcing the law.
I imagine shutting down ByteDance is not like flipping a switch. They have a mountain of infrastructure and “shutting down” could mean nuking the data or otherwise getting it out of their cloud entirely. If it has to be done by a certain date you’d need to start nuking things well in advance to be absolutely certain you’re in compliance by the deadline. I’m surprised the shutdown happened as late as it did if this wasn’t a completely staged crisis.
That’s a trivial problem to solve though. Just push an update to the app that shows the „we were banned“ message if a specific API endpoint isn’t reachable anymore (and general internet connectivity is still there of course). Then you can operate as normal until your servers are forcefully shut down.
That's not true, distributors of the app are fined. Meaning, very specifically, app stores.
From (2)(a)(1):
> (A) Providing services to distribute, maintain, or update such foreign adversary controlled application (including any source code of such application) by means of a marketplace (including an online mobile application store) through which users within the land or maritime borders of the United States may access, maintain, or update such application.
>
> (B) Providing internet hosting services to enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of such foreign adversary controlled application for users within the land or maritime borders of the United States.
Possession of and providing non-distribution ( / maintenance / update) services to a "Foreign Adversary Controlled Application" are not in any way a part of the "Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act". Operative services are specifically and intentionally excluded from the list, to ease the burden of enforcement.
Are you saying serving content to the application would not count as maintenance?
Legally, no, it doesn't
Are you a DOJ lawyer or Federal judge?
If not, what is your basis for your conclusion?
I don’t use TikTok but the “down” page mentioned you can still login to download data. What’s the cost and scope of providing that feature without US cloud providers?
They shut down and reopened without any changes to the law. They are open now, despite the law being in effect.
They reopened with formal understanding that there will be an executive order tomorrow to suspend the enforcement of the ban. That is a big deal and it's something that they can point to to defend themselves in court should that happen. When President Biden signed the bill, it gave him the ability to extend the deadline by an amount which he declined to do (beyond saying "I'll let Trump admin deal with it"); and soon-to-be President Trump is saying he will do it tomorrow.
> formal understanding
I think you mean "campaign promise."
No legally significant action has been taken between now and yesterday.
Are you privy to the private discussions between Trump and the heads of TikTok, Apple, Google, and Oracle? Or are you simply assuming there have been no such private discussions?
Trump isn't president yet, so any such conversations are not legally significant actions the way the person you're responding to meant.
Not actions, but legally binding statements of intent. If Trump offered a binding statement to the heads of all major players that he intends to offer TikTok the 90-day window and work out a "deal" once in office would be more than sufficient justification for these companies to ease enforcement until things become more resolved.
There is no mechanism by which Trump can offer a statement of intent that legally binds him to following that specific course of action after he becomes president.
Any violation and associated fine would proceed though court. I assume such a statement of intent would have meaning there.
That's not how the law works, though. Let's say Trump goes back on his word and doesn't sign this executive order, and then ByteDance (etc.) get into legal trouble. If they can convince a judge/jury that they had a strong reason to believe that they'd be acting within the law as they believe it would have been executed by the incoming Trump administration, that could be a persuasive defense.
That doesn't mean TikTok would be able to continue operating, but it could mean the parties involved wouldn't have to suffer penalties for their operation up to that point (past the ban date). But maybe it wouldn't work, and a judge/jury would throw the book at them. We just don't know until and unless it goes to court.
I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to argue? Obviously you understand that that if you create a contract stating that you agree to do [x] in the future, then you are indeed legally bound to that agreement.
If you're arguing that qualified immunity would enable Trump to break the contract if he so chose without consequence, then that is probably true, but I see no reason that would imperil the companies having a rock solid defense against enforcement penalties in the interim period.
Such a contract - where someone promises to use their (future) presidential powers in exchange for some consideration from the other party - would be illegal and unenforceable, because someone paying the president to exercise executive powers to their benefit is literally just bribery.
In what universe does this apply to the president? If the president promises a company to do X, it’s not a contract. I’m not even sure the president is allowed to make a contract with a private entity to give them a political favor.
There is no law or precedent to prohibit someone from engaging in contracts because of holding public office. In fact there is even an ongoing movement to try to get more politicians to do exactly this so that campaign promises would be more likely to be executed. Again qualified immunity would probably make these contracts impossible to enforce against a politician, but in this case the agreement would work as a defense if for some reason Oracle et al faced legal threats or fines for continuing to work with TikTok.
You can create contract, but contracts require consideration, and I don’t see how you do consideration in a case like this without it being a bribery.
Trump => Agrees to avoid interim enforcement against companies facilitating the operation of TikTok + legally clarify matters when he gets into office.
Companies => Agree to temporarily facilitate the operation of TikTok until matters are further clarified.
I don't see anything particularly controversial here.
I'm pretty certain an executive order cannot overrule a law. So they're just hoping to either get an actual reversal of the law while Trump is in term or just hoping nobody after him will care.
It's like betting on jury nullification but without the benefit of double jeopardy protection. It's unclear if any of the US companies the law is aimed at will risk it.
An executive order can't overrule a law, but it can direct the DoJ not to enforce a particular law.
Which would be an EO counter the constitution and obviously not durable itself. In 4 years the next DOJ can just enforce the law on the books with 4 years of evidence of companies openly breaking it. It'd be a slam dunk case
The law allows the president to grant a one time 90 day extension. (In this specific case)
Trump isn't president and the ban went into effect before he was. There's no legal extension possible anymore under this specific case.
It’s federal law, and the president can offer a pardon allowing anyone to ignore federal law for as long as they remain in office.
The courts on the other hand can permanently block laws.
> the president can offer a pardon allowing anyone to ignore federal law for as long as they remain in office.
no, the president can pardon individuals convicted of a criminal law, which is not at all what you describe here
Most famously Richard Nixon received a pardon by Ford immediately after his resignation but before any prosecution. Also, it’s any federal law, the exception is impeachment and nothing else.
So, pardons can very much apply before conviction or even prosecution. They may not pardon someone for something that hasn’t happened, but as long as there in office when the crime is committed that’s more a technical issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States
After President Gerald Ford left the White House in 1977, close friends said that the President privately justified his pardon of Richard Nixon by carrying in his wallet a portion of the text of the Burdick decision, which stated that a pardon carries an imputation of guilt and that acceptance carries a confession of guilt.[6] Ford made reference to the Burdick decision in his post-pardon written statement furnished to the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives on October 17, 1974.[7] However, the reference related only to the portion of Burdick that supported the proposition that the Constitution does not limit the pardon power to cases of convicted offenders or even indicted offenders.[7][8]
> pardons can very much apply before conviction or even prosecution
Is this really the case? Has this specific situation ever been ruled on by the Supreme Court? Burdick v. U.S. doesn't address "pre-pardons" or blanket pardons. Nixon was never prosecuted or tried.
The specific situation applied in Burdick.
The court ruled they could reject a pardon given before prosecution thus avoiding the need to testify about someone else. It would be a moot point if the pardon was invalid.
To be clear "they" (who can reject a person) is the recipient of the pardon, not the court.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States
But that's not the relevant part of Burdock for this thread.
The relevant part is that an (accepted!) pardon does apply before indictment.
Presidents can pardon classes of people. Carter pardoned all people guilty of evading the draft during the Vietnam War. So Trump could pardon everyone involved in certain companies or involved in a specific act.
This feels like a stretch, I don’t think it’s a pardon they are after. Pardons don’t really work like that.
TikTok I think was going for more of a shock factor. Maybe even without talking to Trump they have credited him as restoring it, might seem weird for him to “go back on it”.
Or maybe it’s to put him in good light.
Trump issued a statement saying that he would issue an executive order after he became president that retroactively would dismiss any fines which satisfied both TikTok and the app hosting providers (Apple, Google).
Also, the technical bit serms entirely on app distributors.
This is the internet.
The President can offer pardons for criminal matters. However, he is required to uphold laws passed by Congress, particularly bipartisan ones affirmed by the Supreme Court.
For example, why would the President have a veto power if he can simply post-facto ignore laws they pass?
He's only accountable to Congress (SCOTUS also affirmed that) and good fucking luck ever getting the required votes to remove him from office. He can do whatever he wants with impunity.
> He's only accountable to Congress (SCOTUS also affirmed that)
No, SCOTUS ruled that the President is not subject to criminal prosecution.
---
On many, many occasions, the courts have ruled executive actions invalid.
On no occasion, have courts assigned criminal liability to a President.
SCOTUS explicitly affirmed that as the rule.
I'm sure the SCOTUS that said "your crimes are legal" will stand up to him now
IDK.
My comment was just re "SCOTUS also affirmed that"
SCOTUS pointed out that they weren't crimes committed by Trump. We then saw the political prosecutions of Trump backfire spectacularly in a way that strongly suggests that the balance of the US population agreed with the SCOTUS call that the prosecutors didn't have a case that Trump had to answer for.
There’s a bit of a “live by the sword, die by the sword” situation going on here.
Presidents can’t just ignore a law categorically (although they regularly do, e.g. DACA, DOMA, etc.) On the other hand, presidents can certainly decide not to prosecute a particular entity under a particular law. That’s the heart of the executive power versus the legislative power.
Here, Congress wrote an extremely specific law that applies basically to one company. Which isn’t impermissible. But it’s also not clear to me that Congress can insist on immediate enforcement of that law without crossing effectively usurping the executive power and directing the President to prosecute a specific company at a specific time.
Technically, the President + Executive can do whatever they want, including prosecute parts the Executive!), until the President is either impeached or replaced by election or incapacitation.
Technically yes. But what I mean is that, even in terms of the spirit of the law, the situation is a bit murky, because Congress effectively wrote a law that requires the executive to prosecute a specific company on a specific deadline.
That's actually one of the reasons the president has a veto. If the president doesn't want the law to pass, then there isn't much point in passing it unless Congress makes a show of force with the 2/3rds majority, which is also the majority needed to remove him from office.
Similarly, one of the reasons the president has a pardon power is because he doesn't have to enforce those federal offenses. E.g. imagine that a president without pardon power instead offers "plea deals"/settlements for a $1 fine or concocts vacuously lenient house arrest enforcement.
The original constitution basically accepts that there is very little you can make a president do, and it instead formalizes what would otherwise be a gray area (it does have plenty about what he can't do). Some of this has changed over time especially as the judicial branch has granted itself more power.
The entire system is built on checks and balances. For instance even a simple district attorney can choose to effectively nullify laws within his jurisdiction by not prosecuting violations - something that has regularly happened in contemporary times. Even the final check - the lone juror - can also nullify laws by similarly choosing to acquit alleged violations regardless of the evidence.
You could obviously create a far more functional system but it would probably be far less stable. The reason you have all these checks and balances, from top to bottom, is that the Founding Fathers were obsessed about the risks imposed by both a tyranny of the majority and a tyranny of the minority. And non-enforcement of something effectively comes down just a continuation of the status quo, making it difficult for any group to [openly at least] impose their will on others.
You're not wrong but the only real recourse for an executive that fails to uphold the laws created by Congress is an impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate.
Theoretically that's true but in practice there is ample precedent for Presidents refusing to enforce specific laws. In one instance (DACA) the Supreme Court ordered a President to continue a previous President's official policy of not enforcing certain laws against certain people!
Don’t confuse the oath of office for a binding agreement. The president is supposed to uphold the law, but they are only held accountable by impeachment.
They even have broad immunity while conducting official acts up to and including breaking the law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States_(2024)
“Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024), is a landmark decision[1][2] of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court determined that presidential immunity from criminal prosecution presumptively extends to all of a president's "official acts" – with absolute immunity for official acts within an exclusive presidential authority that Congress cannot regulate[1][2] such as the pardon, command of the military, execution of laws, or control of the executive branch.”
It obviously irrelevant whether the law was bipartisan or not, and the Supreme Court never "affirmed" the law--it denied a preliminary injunction.
As to upholding laws passed by Congress--just two days ago, Biden did his last round of student debt forgiveness, bringing the total up to $188 billion.
I’m not trying to “both sides” this. I’m just saying that the standard you’ve articulated for how promptly the president needs to act on a law like this isn't the standard we apply in practice. The government tries to reach deals like this in lieu of enforcement actions all the time.
Did they shut down at the last moment necessary or did they shut down during what is likely a peak browsing time in the U.S.? Did they need to include messaging about political figures to notify the user of the reason of the ban?
I understand that there was this law. It's a political statement because of the political message being sent out to the user base. The act of shutting down on its own is not a political statement.
The law did not require them to suspend the service.
The law requires Oracle who hosts their data companies that provide cdn services to stop working with them. The law did require them to suspend service, but not quite as soon as they did and nothing had changed legally
The law required them to choose from among several options, one of which was suspending the service. The law did not permit maintaining the status quo as an option.
No, it does not at all require ByteDance to suspend service.
It requires Apple and Google to stop distributing the app on their app stores, and it requires any US-based hosting providers that host TikTok services to stop providing those services.
ByteDance could shut down any US-hosted services and serve from outside the US, and be entirely compliant with the law. The TikTok mobile app might become out of date and stop working (for people who already had it installed on their phones), but www.tiktok.com would continue to work just fine.
>and it requires any US-based hosting providers that host TikTok services to stop providing those services.
And they were forced to use those hosting providers (oracle) by the US. It's not like investing loads to bring all the data over to singapore or so would serve them well either. They'd still lose the US business relatively quickly and with lower chances of turning things around like they might've. Why bother?
What do you mean, "no"? You agreed with me.
The option you describe is another among the several options available.
Unless you're saying that the service shutdown would not have brought Bytedance into legal compliance, which would be a novel assertion.
But now they are breaking the law by turning it back on.
Nothing in the law changed since yesterday. This is only theatre.
But bringing the service back again today is not following the law, is it? Trump hasn't taken office yet. Curious if you've now changed your mind.
Someone else pointed out that "the law" is shorthand for "how the police behave" and that has certainly changed because of VP Trump's statements.
A) Behavior and statements are different things. B) Biden also said he wouldn't enforce the ban (and also, it was the last day of his administration, so enforcement by Biden wasn't even possible)
This was a political gift to Trump, as the messaging in TikTok's app makes perfectly clear.
Police behave how government leaders want them to. Government leaders changing their statements changes the actual behaviour of police.
It seems like striking fear into the hearts of users to make them realize a ban is really on the table is in their best interest. They want to not be banned, and giving everyone a 48 hour show of users on the platform counting down to the end, then being really upset when they think it's gone is a great demonstration that people want their Tiktok.
* Trump gets a free layup to look like the hero for unbanning it
* Trump will think hard and heavy in the future about banning it again, knowing there's a lot of passionate young people that will reconsider voting for him next election if he does
Seems like a smart move to me.
I like how it is just a given that he is just going to ignore term limits.
I'm Canadian, I forget about term limits
Plus has there ever been a US president that came back after a term away? Usually when a "new" president comes in you figure they'll be running again next time.
Grover Cleveland also had two non-consecutive terms, and the twenty second amendment is pretty clear in it's language that you can only be elected to the office of President twice.
They shut down before the law required them to (by a few hours), and now they’re back despite no changes in law or action by the president. Biden had already issued an executive order, nothing changed
That would be my question also. You can't explain the shutdown as following the law if the law didn't change between the time of the shutdown and coming back on. It seems to me like the more accurate assessment here is an anticipation of policy changes, which however fruitful do not reflect any change in law, but perhaps some change in the degree of reassurance that the law won't be enforced.
If it's not that, it may well be as the original commenter in this thread suggested a stunt to make a point.
In 2012 a coordinated action by 100,000 sites (including major platforms like Reddit, Wikipedia and Google) all went dark for 24 hours to protest SOPA, which was successful in killing the bill. Some only changed the color scheme and added a message but others shut down.
> which was successful in killing the bill
the protests had no bearing on the outcome of the bill. most of us didn’t even know they were taking place.
Sorry what?! I was in Australia and even from here it was obvious it was happening. Maybe go back refresh your mind on old HN posts. Sorry not meaning to be rude but the digital protests of the day were very significant. Lots of media coverage and site blackouts and banners and average punters waking up to the interruption. Stacks was going on. You can even watch Internets Own Boy doco where it’s covered.
having lived through that period and relying on the internet to do my day job i didn’t notice.
also if you look at the history of the bill, there is no mention of public opinion at all. They shelved the bill due to lack of agreement.
Well, speak for yourself, not "most of us". On 01/18/2012 the HN front page was basically nothing but SOPA/PIPA content:
https://news.ycombinator.com/front?day=2012-01-18
As for your claim they had no effect, that's not what the sources from the time say—on the day of the protests 13 senators announced their opposition, including 5 former co-sponsors:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/01/pipa-support-col...
When you lose five co-sponsors in one day and that day happens to coincide with the internet shutting down, I don't find it very credible to try to claim that there was internal dissent all along.
I very much noticed. It was all over pretty much every major site. I'm surprised to hear of anyone online that day that didn't notice.
Uber has used this tactic many times in their early days. It mostly worked because citizens got used to cheap rides and got mad at their government for taking it away.
> Has there been any other behavior like this in the past where a company "shut themselves down" to make a big political statement and then almost immediately undid the shut down?
OnlyFans did something similar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnlyFans#Restrictions_on_porno...
That wasn’t a political statement. Per your link, it was a belief that that could not continue the credit card payments while staying in compliance with the law.
> flip-flop so quickly
The timing and phrasing make it clear that this was planned and negotiated in advance, and the shutdown was just for show in order to be able to post a memo about how "President Trump" saved it. If actual negotiation had to occur, it would not have happened in the twelve hours between midnight and noon on Sunday morning.
The point of the stunt was to persuade large numbers of younger folks that the Ds are the bad guys and Trump in particular is the hero. And it'll work as designed.
> If actual negotiation had to occur, it would not have happened in the twelve hours
A spur of the moment decision would be more like Trump than a lengthy negotiation.
What’s the evidence of this? It seems highly plausible but do we have any proof besides speculation?
My partner uses TikTok and was greeted with a message today saying that DJT saved the app. That isn't possible because he isn't president yet. It's all very embarrassing.
I don't think I will be able to handle 5 more years of this without moving in a very remote place and limited information streams.
I’m going to go found a place I’ll call Galt’s Gulch for maximum irony.
I'd pay good money for a newspaper that would go out of its way to avoid mentioning Trump, Musk, and all these other highly exasperating people, unless it's completely unavoidable (e.g. "Trump declares war on California").
Also the CEO of TikTok is going to sit directly behind Trump at the inauguration. It's not even subtle and half the point is that it isn't subtle - bend the knee to Trump and you'll be taken care of, is the message. We operate just like Russia at this point.
Also, expect to see that Facebook is partnering with TikTok on Monday morning. The head of the bill banning TikTok just invested 100 million in Meta... so I imagine there will be a followup announcement how Trump brokered some deal to Americanize TikTok or something.
I got an internal ad on Facebook telling me to connect my TikTok account the other day.
We’ve also started seeing TT ads on Reels, and a brand new blue-checked Facebook account appeared on TT yesterday and rapidly gained 100Ks of followers.
I'm old enough to remember when selling out the American people to the CCP would have been a career ending scandal.
Selling them out to the Iranians? Pardoned and the person involved got a job on Fox News (Oliver North).
Selling them out to the Russians? Well, it worked fine last time, a bunch of minor figures went to jail, but the boss remained untouched.
So why not sell out to the Chinese? Remember, it's only illegal when a Democrat does it.
> Also, expect to see that Facebook is partnering with TikTok on Monday morning. The head of the bill banning TikTok just invested 100 million in Meta... so I imagine there will be a followup announcement how Trump brokered some deal to Americanize TikTok or something.
Well, that makes this interesting. The bill also allowed a 90-day extension if they found a buyer and were in the process of finalizing it.
This may put this cringe ByteDance stunt and Meta/Zuck's pandering to Trump into more perspective. The Hero coming to save the day with a magical 90-day extension. As long as everyone plays their scripted part. On the other hand, it's probably just a funny timed coincidence that will pass in 3 months
[added] The president would have to approve any sale of apps caught in this law
> Also, expect to see that Facebook is partnering with TikTok on Monday morning. The head of the bill banning TikTok just invested 100 million in Meta... so I imagine there will be a followup announcement how Trump brokered some deal to Americanize TikTok or something.
Wait, if this is truly what this outcome was about, this seems.. huge? Can you share more information about that?
It's possible for people who aren't currently the president to do things.
“Be President while the other guy still is” is not one of them.
There isn’t enough time for the current President to enforce this. A convincing pledge from the incoming guy that he’ll allow them to continue operating is all it would take. How you get a convincing pledge out of this guy, I have no idea, but apparently they believe it.
He's also telling them to buy a shitcoin. It's all very well believing he magically saved TikTok, but I think there's a lot that will be real hard to swallow. The cycles between FA and FO are getting really, really quick…
it turns out that sometimes what you find out is that nothing happens after you’ve fucked around.
And sometimes it’s the rest of us who get to find out.
The current president already said he didn’t intend to enforce the ban anyways.
That doesn’t mean much when he’s about to go.
TikTok operated in a way that did not need to happen. Biden's administration was explicit in that the enforcement of the ban were to be performed by the Trump administration. Trump signaled that he would sign an EO allowing a 90 day extension to the ban terms on Monday. TikTok are now operating based on this information.
Who is currently in charge of the oval office is an irrelevant quality.
Note that the ban was not really on TikTok, but the ownership. TikTok could be owned by many other parties in the world. It just can't be ByteDance or parent/subsidiary which has ties to China.
> Trump signaled that he would sign an EO allowing a 90 day extension to the ban terms on Monday
How does that work? If congress passed a law banning TikTok how can the president just override it for 3 months? What's to stop him from overriding it for the next 4 years?
It's outlined in the bill and is explicitly stated.
I've lost interest in this topic unfortunately, but its pretty clear even past all the legalese with the terms defined from what I remember.
I read the bill and didn't see it stated anywhere. I'd genuinely appreciate a link or even a copy/paste with the relevant section that I could look up on google.
But that is essentially what is happening. There is long-standing convention for the president elect to not step on the sitting president's toes prior to inauguration, but Trump has been bucking that convention this time around. This is just an impossible to ignore example.
It’s actually illegal for people who aren’t currently the president to negotiate as if they were.
Declaring your intent to create an executive order the next day is not a negotiation
He's bragged several times that he saved TikTok. Trump also said the Israeli peace deal wouldn't have happened with him, which is an admission of breaking the law that states you cannot act as president without being president.
But Trump already knows he is above the law, so none of this matters.
Israel already broke the peace deal btw, but as with a lot of Israel news, you'll be unlikely to see that reported on.
That does not take away the fact that Trump was directly negotiating with Netanyahu before even won reelection.
As far back as July, then again in October.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0q_8zGJGxc
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2024-10-13/trump-...
Okay, fine, let's play this game.
What did Trump do to get TikTok back online?
He agreed to extend to TikTok an executive order that grants it a 90 day extension, as the law explicitly allows the President to do.
Doesn't the law explicitly require TikTok to have a convincing deal in place, and to be able to show proof of that to Congress, before such an extension can be granted?
At 17:05 in this video (and I believe discussed once elsewhere but I can't find it/don't want to rewatch it): https://youtu.be/pZkoV5UnPvw
> as the law explicitly allows the President to do.
I think this is debated, which is why Apple and Google may not bring back TikTok to the stores... at least that's what I read.
I don't know but TikTok itself said it was because of him.
No idea and we might never know, but, do you think ByteDance would just lie about it?
Trump agreed to use a provision in the bill to offer a one-time 90 day extension on enforcement: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521...
Yeah... there's no such provision. The only mentions of the president in that bill are:
1. In the definition of a "covered company". The bill itself already saus that TikTok is covered; this is only a provision to add other companies to the list.
2. In determining what qualifies as "divestiture" to have the ban lifted. That's described as happening when -
> the President determines, through an interagency process...
"TikTok wrote me a big check and said nice things about me" isn't an interagency process.
Moreover, just in case we've forgotten, *Donald Trump is not currently the president.* He has literally zero power until tomorrow afternoon. He can't grant pardons, he can't lift law enforcement decisions, and he can't write executive orders. The promise of an executive order, even if such an order would be lawful tomorrow (which I can't understand how it would be), is not a legal document that can make something legal today.
> He has literally zero power until tomorrow afternoon
For very weak definitions of power. Zuck didn't wait to bend a knee until the inauguration. Because power.
Since you ignored the passage I linked, let me qute it for you and the surrounding context if it helps you learn to read:
(a) Right of action.—A petition for review challenging this Act or any action, finding, or determination under this Act may be filed only in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
(b) Exclusive jurisdiction.—The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any challenge to this Act or any action, finding, or determination under this Act.
(c) Statute of limitations.—A challenge may only be brought—
(1) in the case of a challenge to this Act, not later than 165 days after the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) in the case of a challenge to any action, finding, or determination under this Act, not later than 90 days after the date of such action, finding, or determination.
^ That is where the 90 day stipulation came from.
===
> Moreover, just in case we've forgotten, *Donald Trump is not currently the president.
Right okay, what does one do with that information? It's common practice for Presidents to collaborate with their successors during the handoff period. Both the Biden and the incoming Trump administrations collaborated on the Gaza ceasefire, as way to help gradually transition power.
Bro is upset about Trump using a clause in a law, but has no problem with Biden and Kahmahlah declaring that something is part of the constitution based on absolutely nothing. Bro … after what Biden and Kahmahlah did, there is no valid criticism that any Democrat can have of Trump. Anything short of abolishing the constitution, as Biden and Kahmahlah tried, is less bad than what Biden and Kahmahlah did.
Why did you misspell the VP's name 3 times like that? It kinda makes your entire message seem very unserious.
Now, how exactly did the outgoing administration "try to abolish the constitution"?
I missed that one: how did Biden snd Harris try to abolish the constitution?
https://www.npr.org/2025/01/17/nx-s1-5264378/biden-era-natio...
> Biden says the Equal Rights Amendment is law. What happens next is unclear
> In response to an NPR question about whether the archivist would take any new actions, the National Archives communications staff pointed to a December statement saying that the ERA "cannot be certified as part of the Constitution due to established legal, judicial, and procedural decisions."
That has literally nothing to do with attempting to abolish the US Constitution.
If a president can decree amendments, the Constitution means nothing. If you can break the constitution to change it, as Biden attempted, then how do you have a constitution?
paste your article into chatgpt and tell it your thoughts. I've very curious if you can convince it you have a valid point. More so, you may come out more educated and everyone wins
https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2025/nr25-004
> “In 2020 and again in 2022, the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice affirmed that the ratification deadline established by Congress for the ERA is valid and enforceable. The OLC concluded that extending or removing the deadline requires new action by Congress or the courts. Court decisions at both the District and Circuit levels have affirmed that the ratification deadlines established by Congress for the ERA are valid. Therefore, the Archivist of the United States cannot legally publish the Equal Rights Amendment. As the leaders of the National Archives, we will abide by these legal precedents and support the constitutional framework in which we operate.
Pointing out that Biden, in contradiction the the US constitution, tried to alter the US constitutions. I don't make the facts, they are what they are.
I’m not sure what to say other than that you have a bizarre interpretation of the article. I mean in no way, shape or form is Biden trying to abolish the US Constitution.
The US Constitution does not allow the president to decree new constitutional amendments.
The ERA was introduced in 1923 and passed by Congress in 1972.
If the ERA was dully ratified, then it would not need Biden to decree it law. If Biden can decree an amendment to the constitution as law, then the constitution has no meaning.
It has been ratified though.
Biden is just pointing that out, no?
No.
https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2025/nr25-004
> “In 2020 and again in 2022, the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice affirmed that the ratification deadline established by Congress for the ERA is valid and enforceable. The OLC concluded that extending or removing the deadline requires new action by Congress or the courts. Court decisions at both the District and Circuit levels have affirmed that the ratification deadlines established by Congress for the ERA are valid. Therefore, the Archivist of the United States cannot legally publish the Equal Rights Amendment. As the leaders of the National Archives, we will abide by these legal precedents and support the constitutional framework in which we operate.
Don't post fake news.
It is very clear that it is Trump doing the negotiations around TikTok. The current administration is at this point powerless.
If you mean because they used the term "President Trump", that honorific is for life. See, for instance, the recent passing of President Carter for a million examples. If you mean because he couldn't have executed legal actions yet - he could have offered private and legally binding statements to all the major players - Oracle, Apple, and Google.
> he could have offered private and legally binding statements
No, he couldn't? It's not even clear he'll be able to do anything with an executive order when he is sworn in, but President elects certainly can't.
I don't know why you think he couldn't. A legally binding statement of intent to offer TikTok the 90-day window and work out a "deal" once in office would be more than sufficient justification for the heads of the various companies involved to ease enforcement until things become more resolved.
> A legally binding statement of intent to offer TikTok the 90-day window and work out a "deal" once in office
Would not be legally binding. The President cannot unilaterally bind the U.S., and he is free to make and break statements of intent.
Presidents are allowed to offer legally binding political favors in private?
Calling it a political favor is quite silly. He stated he was likely overturn it for months now, but the public indirect phrasing was probably not sufficient for the involved actors to feel was sufficient to act on, a private statement of definitive intent would be.
Oh maybe the very clear messaging in the app and by the inbound administration, who is heavily supported by tech elites. The same people who have been very open about their feelings towards opposition and who and what they support. No one will come out and claim this was the case, but its not like they are trying to hide it either.
Do you need to eat shit to know it is shit?
Isn't it enough to see, smell, you have to touch and eat it repeatedly so you can conclude: yes, this is shit. You are now expert in shit eating and the professional opinion is that this is really shit, no mistake is made here!?
If that’s the case this was totally bungled, the app was down for less than 12 hours, overnight during a weekend. If they wanted maximum effect Trump wouldn’t have tweeted until 5pm eastern to give people a chance to come to terms with the shutdown actually happening.
They want to be able to livestream the inauguration tomorrow on Tiktok.
Sure, but TikTok coming back online around this time would have also allowed for that & been more effective propaganda for Trump as savior of the app.
It gave people all of Sunday to react to the shutdown on TikTok ahead of Monday where the focus will be the inauguration.
They shut down long enough to get attention but not long enough for people to find another platform
It had to have been a PR move.
The Tik Tok in-app notes for "shutting down" and "we're back" both referenced Trump by name. I doubt they would do that without his explicit consent.
Trump beamed his name and heroics directly into the eyeballs of 50m people before he even took office. That wouldn't have happened without the brief blip going dark.
Odds are good he said he'd pardon them (which is a whole different story) but ensured they'd go dark for a few hours, either by withholding his guarantee or by directly coordinating it with them.
This is Trump. It's always about him. If we haven't learned that we haven't learned anything.
Ha ha are you serious? Trump is a fragile-egoed narcissist.
He's not even in power and already everyone's sucking up to him.
like your conspiracy theory, lots of entertainments in it.
The goal was always to get TikTok divested of Chinese ownership, not to ban it.
The ban was the stick and selling it for a lot of money was the carrot. ByteDance surprised almost everyone in choosing the stick.
> The goal was always to get TikTok divested of Chinese ownership, not to ban it.
Seems like the goal pivoted recently - the goal is to keep TikTok Chinese and have them supporting the corrupt regime taking over the US, similar to other foreign adversaries have in the past
> ByteDance surprised almost everyone in choosing the stick.
shortly after Trump tried to force bytedance to sell its shares during his first term, the Chinese government passed laws to include the recommendation systems used in social media into the export control list. bytedance thus won't be able to sell tiktok without approval from the chinese government.
Does anyone have a citation for this? Probably higher quality if it's in Chinese even if I have to machine translate it. Because that would be a clear pointer of suspicion.
2020 report by nyt, paywalled of coursed
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/technology/china-tiktok-e...
the official export control list in Chinese
https://www.most.gov.cn/tztg/202312/W020231221620858841394.p...
it is on the 29th page, with export control number 086501X, item 18.
OK, that's pretty convincing. And it's interesting how much other stuff is in there like OCR for Hanzi!
It's like real life is playing like a shitty TV series. Constant cliff hangers, plot twists that never resolve....
Agree, and the velocity is amazing, it's really hard to keep up with the shenanigans. In my opinion, it will have a negative impact on the economy, education, birth rates etc.
Government should stay out of the way, and I don't want to hear about it every ten seconds, on the other hand, I don't want to have to read the news every five minutes to audit what they're doing.
I think it's obvious that US lawmakers were somehow convinced ByteDance would absolutely divest from TikTok if threatened with an ultimatum. They were never prepared for an actual ban and the resulting fallout. Now that it's obvious they won't divest (which should have been obvious the entire time), they flipped
> US lawmakers were somehow convinced ByteDance would absolutely divest from TikTok if threatened with an ultimatum
I worked on the bill. Everyone assumed it would hit the ban, get an extension, and then either remain banned or get sold to Elon, Ellison or a Brexiteer.
Can you point to a lawmaker who has flipped?
Here's what Chuck Schumer said:
"It's clear that more time is needed to find an American buyer and not disrupt the lives and livelihoods of millions of Americans of so many influencers who have built up a good network of followers" [1]
The deal was divest or ban, not look for "more time to find a buyer". My point is they were never prepared for an actual ban.
[1] https://x.com/kenklippenstein/status/1880007290830688609
> they were never prepared for an actual ban
This is have your cake and eat it too politics. I can pointedly say that Schumer’s office isn’t surprised Bytedance ran out its 180 days.
Won't somebody think of the influencers.
I think the bigger point is there are a lot of young people making really decent money on TikTok. (I know a few of them.) The result is a lot of push back from a lot of people who are effectively loosing their jobs. This is probably more clear to politicians now than it was a year ago, since the actual “threat” of the situation set in for more people.
As popular as the platform is with the younger demographic and the voting preferences of said younger demographic it's political malpractice for democrats to not try to at least salvage some face in this whole ordeal, whether you think the blame is misplaced or not.
Here we have a group of people that have given up on their duties re: checks and balances because following orders is easier. What a surprise that they're spineless in other ways too.
> What's that saying? The best way to get a promotion is to cause a problem and then fix it?
There's too much effort and uncertainty involved in actually creating a problem and then actually fixing it.
It's much easier and more reliable to create the perception of a problem by promulgating lots of FUD, then engage in performative theatrics to nullify the FUD and proclaim the problem fixed.
What's the difference between the perception of a problem being present and the existence of a problem?
If you create an issue, and solve an issue, indifferent of the issue being real, you'll be credited with solving the issue. It's ridiculous at this scale
> What's the difference between the perception of a problem being present and the existence of a problem?
Well, it would be the same as the distinction between real and imaginary in any other context.
Perception is reality
No, it very much isn't. Reality is reality, and people's perceptions of it are often quite incorrect.
The phrase is not a defense of some hyper relative worldview. It’s commentary that the perception of the many facts, which of those are highlighted, which are ignored, which biases shine through and which narrative wins, etc., at the end of the day, is the reality you must deal with. Reality is downstream of facts.
You can be passed out in the back seat but a car crash is still going to kill you
That’s not what the saying means, obviously -_-
But the meaning you're presumably referencing isn't applicable to this conversation.
Not exactly the same but ChatGPT's firing and rehiring of Sam Altman seems to be in the same vein
Union strikes may fit that bill.
> it's crazy to see so much of a flip-flop so quickly.
Trump was against Tiktok before he was for it.
He was also against crypto currencies before he released his own.
[flagged]
Crypto is a very easy way to funnel bribes to the sitting president, who has immunity for actions taken in regards to "official actions".
> Hey, I bought $1,000,000,000 $TRUMP coin, can you ease up on $RegulationImpactingMe?
> Regulations are official actions, so sure I can take a look-see.
> Crypto is a very easy way to funnel bribes
Interesting... are you able to expand on this? My understanding is that the $TRUMP coin runs on Solana, which similar to Bitcoin runs on a public ledger and therefore offers limited anonymization (basically none).
It doesn't matter if it's anonymous. What's important is buying $TRUMP is a tax-free method with plausible deniability to increase Donald Trump's net worth.
Anyone is free to make an "investment," there is no disclosure requirement, and an accusation of bribery (even if one could be made legally against a sitting president, which SCOTUS tells us it cannot) would require a provable quid-pro-quo.
trading crypto isnt tax free if it isnt in tax deferred or tax exempt entity
and when transferred in a way that would otherwise require a disclosure to a politician or campaign, the crypto asset and transaction would also require a disclosure
if there are other benefits that the crypto world is superior at, then thanks for describing a use case and value proposition relevant on a geopolitical scale to the largest nations on the planet. a lot of people here cant imagine any because they arent the target audience
I don't think the idea is to buy crypto locally, and then donate the crypto to Trump. The purchase is the donation. You just wake up one day and decide to purchase some shitcoin. The seller happens to be Trump. He walks away with your USD, and you can keep what you bought or just throw it away.
Thank you, you expressed this more clearly than I did.
I mean, isn't this the same as donating to Trump?
> I mean, isn't this the same as donating to Trump?
Not in a legal sense. In the US, donations to politicians and campaigns are tightly regulated. Foreign entities aren't allowed to donate. Donations have to be reported, are subject to limitations, etc.
In crypto, none of that applies. Anyone, anywhere in the world, can invest essentially unlimited funds into a memecoin. It's not technically a donation because you're buying something, and it's not technically going to Trump, because you're buying from some pseudonymous entity on the blockchain. Nevertheless, the money goes to Trump. It's an ideal venue for laundering bribes.
Good point, though lobbying groups are often endorsing and donating to candidates and are backed by sentiment in other regimes like AIPAC. I guess $TRUMP is just creating another backdoor around foreign donation regulations.
In the US, lobbyists representing foreign interests must register as such. Failure to register is a crime: that's what Michael Flynn was convicted of, before Trump pardoned him.
In contrast, any foreign party can purchase $TRUMP.
> trading crypto isnt tax free if it isnt in tax deferred or tax exempt entity
Sure, good luck enforcing that. Although crypto isn't anonymous, it is pseudonymous. In any case, you aren't subject to the same taxes as a traditional gift about $20000 and you aren't subject to the same regulation as campaign contributions.
> and when transferred in a way that would otherwise require a disclosure to a politician or campaign, the crypto asset and transaction would also require a disclosure
That's the beauty of the grift. "Investing in $TRUMP" isn't a transfer to a politician or a campaign: it's a purchase of a memecoin on a public blockchain. It's a way to give money to Trump without meeting the legal definition of "giving money to Trump."
> if there are other benefits that the crypto world is superior at, then thanks for describing a use case and value proposition relevant on a geopolitical scale to the largest nations on the planet. a lot of people here cant imagine any because they arent the target audience
I don't know what you're trying to say here. I think I just explained a pretty use case for crypto as a means to buy political favor. Other benefits of crypto include: (a) purchasing illegal goods, (b) defrauding naive consumers.
the hotels were functioning that way through the entire administration last time
and the $DJT stock is already doing this as well
What you’re pointing out is just not a unique aspect of crypto or that interesting in the Trump portfolio of “things vulnerable to being used as kickbacks in a currently legal way”
> the hotels were functioning that way through the entire administration last time
Sure, but it's a matter of scale. It's difficult to rent a billion dollars worth of hotel rooms.
> and the $DJT stock is already doing this as well
Yep, that's another scam.
> What you’re pointing out is just not a unique aspect of crypto
Yes and no. Crypto offers a uniquely unregulated and perhaps unregulatable means for malfeasance. NASDAQ tickers are tame in comparison.
Fwiw, the moral of the story is not "all crypto is evil" but rather "crypto should be regulated like any other instrument in order to prevent fraud" and perhaps as a corollary "sitting presidents shouldn't be issuing their own meme coin."
Absolutely. How dare he be so innovative in his bribes. He should have gone the respected route and started a foundation.
A foundation? Kamala got a $20 million "book deal". Obama took the Clinton method to ridiculous extremes getting paid $400k for 30 minute chats of minimal content, repeatedly.
Was that book deal paid by anonymous foreign actors in untraceable crypto currency? No?
> People aren't allowed to change their minds?
Sure they are, but they should explain why they changed their minds. In the case of meme coins like $TRUMP, it's hard to defend crypto as an investment or as a currency, which leaves the obvious reason: it's a scam.
In the case of Trump, I'm sure he was all for crypto as soon as he realized that he personally could make money from it. Same goes for his NFT grift.
not sure why people still try to understand Trump after all these years him being a public figure. he does absolutely NOTHING and EVER which does not help his bottom line and benefit him personally. he’ll fucking steal money from a children’s charity which is about as low as humans go - the lowest scum of the earth to make a penny. hence him “changing his mind” (he was a democrat and was sucking clinton’s dicks for decades) has nothing to do with me and you changing our minds based on something we learned - for him there is a single thought - how can I profit from it.
Don't attempt to anthropomorphize Donald Trump. He's more like a lawn mower with daddy issues.
he’ll leave office as world’s first trillionaire so pretty expensive lawn mower
Ah yes, the Robert Mugabe school of economics, a surefire way to create a nation of billionaires.
> Political things aside, it's crazy to see so much of a flip-flop so quickly
Trump has never had any issue he has not been on both sides of. He has no ideology, he does what benefits him in the moment at any given moment.
According to the people I work with, all they care about is kids in cages. They value “tough talk” on immigration above anything else. Being influenced by Russia or China don’t even register.
> all they care about is kids in cages
To clear, they want kids in cages. Did I read that right?
> Has there been any other behavior like this in the past where a company "shut themselves down" to make a big political statement and then almost immediately undid the shut down?
A number of internet services (e.g. Wikipedia) shut down temporarily on Jan 18, 2012 as a political statement against SOPA.
Heh; I thought you were talking about trump the first few times I read this.
He appointed a bunch of corrupt Supreme Court judges, and they upheld an obviously unconstitutional law (bill of attainment). Now, on his first day in office, he gets to be a hero by unilaterally deciding not to enforce the law.
So, moving forward, (1) we should expect increasingly unjust and draconian laws, and (2) as long as you do what Trump asks, you can break whatever federal laws you want.
(Zukerberg, Bezos and Trump have already gotten in line for this.)
> it's crazy to see so much of a flip-flop so quickly
I wish people would understand that Trump has no ideology. Over a span of decades, Trump has been critical of liberals and conservatives, often at the same time. He's praised conservatives and liberals, often at the same time. His political positions are aligned with whatever benefits him the most.
He doesn't care about making life better for the middle class. He doesn't care if immigration restrictions are relaxed or tightened. He doesn't care about whether or not transgender people have access to health care or can or can't serve in the military. He only cares what positions on those issues will benefit him and his friends at any given time. And if tomorrow holding the opposite position will benefit him more, he'll switch, just like that, and somehow convince his base that's what they believe too.
Trump is the one who was championing the idea of a TikTok divestiture or ban, back when he was president the first time. He's only changed his mind on that because opposing the ban is better for him now.
He who can destroy a thing controls that thing. Expect the new administration to have great influence on tiktok policy and content.
Already do and users are noticing. Ads have been introduce in a really obnixious facebook/instagram style and contebt moderation is more facebook/instagrem esq as well. It would surprise no one on the platform if meta has already aquired it, and it just needs to be announced.
100% it's what happened. And the craziest part is that it worked because Biden went along with it. It's easy enough to argue Trump played hardball to negotiate for any divestiture that may occur; because that was his goal all along. The narrative/pundits can spin this easily in his favour.
Either because they gave in to the ploy, or because they were unable to close a TikTok deal, the Democrats look incompetent here. And Trump gains favour in the younger demo (that he's already pretty strong in) AND with SMB because he gave TikTok more time.
oh - and his true audience all along: an American oligarch is about to get at least half of TikTok for a steal.
Anyone doing graft, corruption or just questionable wealth accumulation in the millions or single billions is going to look like small ball for at least the next four years.
Yeah it's just decent strategy on their part (I hate to say). Even if they don't profit directly off of the TikTok deal they look like absolute bosses for being able to "give" Americans what they wanted all along.
I dont think we know the actual range of motives for shutdown. Oracle may have forced it, for instance.
Epic Games sorta did this to Fortnite, but the reversal wasn't quick
The SOPA and PIPA protests were basically that
> What's that saying? The best way to get a promotion is to cause a problem and then fix it?
In Trump's world, I think you should cause a problem, blame somebody else, and then fix it.
moonshine stopped working also. I guess it was under the same parent org. They all back to working now.
Is it a big political statement to shut down a couple hours before the deadline of shutting down?
The app stores removed the app in accordance with that timeline too.
No. It's a big political statement to include political messaging and plead to political figures when you shut down. Then to praise those political figures afterwards is additional political messaging.
No, many users are sharing the theory that the downtime was to allow meta or google to take over the backend. Content delivery is different on the app now. For example, ads being served during videos not between videos.
There was no deadline, the app stores didn’t need to remove it.
The Biden administration said it would be left to the Trump administration to review, they had no reason to shut it down. It’s purely to force Trumps hand a bit.
> As of January 19, the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act will make it unlaw- ful for companies in the United States to provide services to distribute, maintain, or update the social media platform TikTok
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/TikTok_v...
Please do some research next time before spreading lies.
That is simply a topical remark within the judgement denying the injunction. It isn't relevant to what is enforceable or being enforced. The Act in question doesn't contain wording that implies that TikTok would have been required to be taken immediately offline, as the act requires enforcement by the FTC, which hasn't yet moved on the matter.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7520...
It clearly states it will be unlawful for companies (e.g oracle for cloud, google for app distro) to provide services to Tiktok
From the White House Press Secretary:
“It is a stunt, and we see no reason for TikTok or other companies to take actions in the next few days before the Trump Administration takes office on Monday. We have laid out our position clearly and straightforwardly: actions to implement this law will fall to the next administration. So TikTok and other companies should take up any concerns with them.”
Please do some research next time before accusing people of spreading lies.
Thanks. So that was between friday night and today, that means it would also be true that Bytedance could not rely on the autonomous aspects of the US government to not create liability, unless given an explicit assurance.
I wouldn't say following the law would be purely to force a hand, I would say multiple things can be true at once. They still had liability.
Other government agencies, like the SEC, has been filing court cases all the way till the last minute even though they’ll likely get dropped tomorrow. It is understandable to take a risk averse approach for a company.
> Political things aside, it's crazy to see so much of a flip-flop so quickly.
"Rep. Mike Waltz calls out the Biden campaign's TikTok account: 'They should be ashamed'":
* https://www.foxnews.com/video/6346831867112
Waltz chosen as Trump's national security advisor:
* https://www.npr.org/2024/11/11/nx-s1-5187098/trump-national-...
And currently "Trump security adviser doesn't rule out continued Chinese ownership of TikTok":
* https://www.reuters.com/technology/trump-security-adviser-do...
So ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Trump going soft on China was predictable.
Trump's biggest backers, Elon Musk, Jeff Yass...etc. all have ties with China.
Was it? Apart from Elon’s dependence on China market for Tesla sales, I didn’t think so. Trump has been talking a lot about going hard against adversaries. The TikTok ban is something he supported. And it’s more popular on the right than left.
What am I missing.
Trump as a private citizen, can't issue a statement and automatically over-turn a law.
If someone wants to enforce the law, they still can. It's still on the books, and Supreme Court upheld it.
[dead]
[flagged]
It literally was? Everything that happened in the last 24 hours specifically has nothing to do with any legal requirement or deadline. It was a show.
The US presidency fully devolved into a mafia this time around, no more mincing words or operating behind the scenes. Just like a mafia don demands, all fealty should be in public and fully subservient, no half measures.
Till now, commenting or criticizing someone was fair game, not anymore. Musk and trump have shown they can petty and vindictive. So no more commenting in public too. Not sure what this does to the press. Over time people will be trained to think free press is bad too.
The US president is not all-powerful. If he was, Trump would not have been forced to hand over power to Biden in 2020.
Certainly he is petty and vindictive. But there have always been petty and vindictive people in power, and people that were too scared of them to speak their mind. But there have always been those who still dare to criticize people in power.
Trump resisted handing over power after the 2020 election, and to date, he has faced no significant legal consequences for those actions.
Given that lack of accountability, is it unreasonable to suggest the stakes will be even higher in 2028? If there were no consequences last time, why wouldn’t there be an even greater effort to challenge the outcome, should the need arise?
This isn’t a binary issue of whether the president is all-powerful or powerless. It’s a spectrum, and since 2020, we’ve objectively moved further toward the "all-powerful" end. The absence of meaningful checks and consequences has set a precedent, making it harder to draw the line in the future.
> Trump would not have been forced to hand over power
Can you re-read your sentence and ask yourself if this is a normal thing to say in a working democracy? That this is even on the table means Trump IS a dictator. He was just too dumb to know how to make it work in 2020. From a non American lens, it actually looks like you handed power to a dictator because he won "fair and square" this time. I have trouble believing the US will have another genuine vote in my lifetime.
Courts and Congress are a main check: he appointed 3 Justices, and Clarence Thomas is corrupt + qanon wife, that's 4 of 9. Already when congress has gone against him like with the shutdown he wanted at the end of Biden's term, Musk, the richest man in the world, threatened to primary them, and we'll see much more of that.
Nazi salute Musk also did a $1 million a day lottery system for republican voter registrations with some loopholes and got away with it.
We're pretty fucked.
This is just a publicity stunt to capitalize on his popularity among Gen Z: https://www.newsweek.com/young-people-most-optimisitc-about-.... Trump is simply picking up the ball Biden fumbled.
>Till now, commenting or criticizing someone was fair game, not anymore. Musk and trump have shown they can petty and vindictive.
Tons of people criticize both of them. In fact, both Musk and Trump have publicly criticized each other, and have now made up.
Republicans have learned to weaponize attention far better than Democrats. Negative attention is still attention, and where Democrats shrink from "gaffes" or criticism, Republicans just recognize that public criticism is still a form of attention. Even among each other. Whoever gets the most eyeballs, top stories, and headlines for longest wins this game.
Vicious, vindictive, petty, nonsensical, random, and trolling tactics are all strategically useful in this media landscape.
Correct, but now there will be not even a semblance of bipartisanship. It's not even enough to be a member of the same party, you must pledge full unwavering loyalty and never criticize the administration or face the consequences of being ostracized, attacked, power revoked, and prosecuted by a weaponized DOJ. The media, both social and legacy, are fully on board now too, the gloves are off.
Also, you can now commit crimes and then pledge loyalty in exchange for a pardon. See Eric Adams.
> > Musk and trump have shown they can petty and vindictive
This is great. Sociologist tells us that any given person can only have 150 friends maximum, same goes with enemies , it will be very long 4 years for whoever sits in the 150 enemies at any given time, but all things considered they aren't people too dissimilar compared to Musk and Trump.
While petty revenge goes on, policy as always gets ignored and problems emerge (inflation, other pandemic etc) and the whole thing will collapse because at the end of the day even a perfect and experienced captain won't be able to steer perfectly a 400M people strong super tanker such as the US, let alone a vindicative one busy lashing out on his enemies aboard.
It will end up like the Evergreen in the Suez canal.
Trump said yesterday in his speech that they want a model where the US owns 50% of Tik Tok and has some oversight.
This is pretty much the exact same setup that US companies get in China. This seems like a pretty decent compromise actually. Free speech advocates win because people still get to use the service, but national security folks also get a win because they can monitor its use by a foreign government and shut things down if it’s being used maliciously.
I don't want to live in blue China, especially when the oversight is the Trump administration.
I wouldn't call required government control a free speech win.
> This is pretty much the exact same setup that US companies get in China.
I mean, no? Meta, Google, X, Snap and American social networks in general are banned in China.
You're very late to the party.
https://oversight.house.gov/the-bidens-influence-peddling-ti...
How is this at all related to what the person was saying? They made no mention of financial corruption. They're explicitly talking about speech and press.
I think it's pretty clear Hunter Biden has been sleazily profiting from the position of his father.
What's missing is Joe Biden's involvement.
If your politics are against Joe Biden, I guess you can just kind of imagine that he must have participated.
IMO, we should find corruption in politicians flat unacceptable, even if -- especially if -- they are on our own "side".
You may want to become concerned when the president can unilaterally contravene laws passed by congress and validated by the Supreme Court.
additionally, wasn't the "whistleblower" who made many claims about Hunter Biden's laptop found to be blatantly fraudulent? dude was later convicted for making false statements.
IIRC the Romanian and Kazakstan ones were also heavily thrown into doubt.
whole thing reads like whataboutism
Comparing Hunter Bidens sale of his name to the Trump organization as if it's the same is so laughable.
How many pump and dump crypto scams is Joe up to? "Media" company stock sell offs? Hotels he puts government employees in so he can charge their stay?
At the risk of "what about"-ing, this list is laughably small compared to the Trump's bribe docket.
Neither of these are acceptable, a president and their associates should not be able to personally enrich themselves from the office. I know this disclaimer won't matter to someone who just really wants to argue, but this does absolutely nothing to move the needle for me. Pointing to someone else's corruption to excuse Trump's corruption is just a losing battle, you will never convince me to care about one when the other is just allowed to fly.
This seems to imply that the president elect can make unilateral guarantees contravening US law. That’s a surprising outcome.
Prepare yourself from many more surprises from this lawless regime. The US supreme court has already said he is immune from prosecution.
The future has been clearly telegraphed, and who is going to stop him?
In his own words years ago, he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and his supporters would find excuses for him.
He’s also the guy that triggered all of this by signing a presidential order to change TikTok ownership during his first run.
Does he have a coherent position on this that these actions support?
Does he have a coherent position on anything?
To accumulate power for him and the people he likes
No, he does not.
The law gives him some power to grant a 90-day reprieve, iff he makes some 'certifications' to congress w.r.t. progress toward compliance.
That's only before the ban, not after. The ban is already in effect. This is a violation of the law, plain and simple, and the law does not allow for an unbanning after the fact. The 90 extension could have been done before the 19th, but not after.
Simply put, this is law breaking. The President-elect is making promises to break the law day one. This is not surprising.
If you are surprised this happens given Jan 6 events you have been living under a rock.
There is a good chance there will be no more fair elections in US.
This was a pretty big talking point during the election, towards the end I didn't go a day without hearing about how Trump will end democracy or how democracy was on the ballot.
What the hell happened? For anyone that honestly believes that, why pack up and go home when Trump wins the election?
It seems USA is completely blinded by some immaterial force. How can people not see all the blatant lie from Trump and his bootlickers? Why is USA refusing to fight (or at least help allies substantially) against Russia, which commits crimes on the level of Nazi Germany in WWII?
You're still thinking of him as a president and not as the new monarch of the US. I wouldn't be surprised if he is around for more than one term and incrementally greater and greater authoritarian powers.
Hes no spring chicken so that remains to be seen. I do however worry about who is waiting in the wings to ride on his coat tails.
The surprising part is that people are still surprised. Trump can do whatever he wants and there will be no pushback. We are talking about the guy who launched a meme coin a few days before taking office and made $50B+ overnight.
I think those chickens just haven’t come home to roost yet. His wife launched her coin today. There is no way this isn’t being looked at closely. Impressively quick start to the new shit show.
A wide open door to get foreign political donations (see: bribery) in plain sight.
Is the US dollar going to survive this presidency? Honest question. I can easily see a path to replacing it with enough political/VC will.
Here’s the law: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521...
No, Trump can’t legally postpone or give reprieve to TikTok. The time has passed for that.
Once Congress has enacted a statute and the President has signed it into law, the executive branch must enforce it. An executive order cannot override or suspend a duly passed law unless Congress included an explicit waiver or suspension provision in that law. Nothing in the text of this act appears to grant the President such discretion, so there is no straightforward way for the President to “undo” or pause the ban by executive order. The only way to alter or lift the ban would be through new legislation or a valid constitutional challenge in court.
That seems unlikely considering the Supreme Court already rules on the matter.
That's not the law that passed. The law that passed is https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/815 (lengthy law -- see DIVISION H—PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATIONS ACT), page 62 in the PDF.
Also, both the House and the Senate have pending legislation to extend the deadline.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/391 https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/103
The executive branch is responsible for enforcement of laws. He could just choose not to enforce it, no?
Surely this is not the first case of a president not enforcing a law.
So then presumably this goes back into court, and then what?
But that's the point isn't it. He's testing the waters.
There will be no consequences and therefore few limits to his power.
Welcome to the new dictatorship.
I'll post this here for posterity:
He'll find a way to get a 3rd term in power. Maybe he'll claim the constitution means no 2 consecutive terms, maybe he'll just ignore it, start a war, whatever.
But I'd be willing to bet on it. In fact, I just might...
A little bit difficult to get the president elect who is to be inaugurated today (the 20th) when that same president elect in his own words reasonably believes that the 2020 election was stolen.
I think we're all very certain that a thorough investigation into the 2020 election will clear up any concerns about it.
Trump can choose to not enforce the law. That is of course illegal, and a high crime, but who is left to stop him?
In my city, a great deal of laws are not enforced. Enforcement is a policy at most levels, it seems. The interesting thing, to me, is that there’s no fear of future administrations enforcing, or even Trump pulling a 180 and using the law being broken as leverage.
See my comment above. This is a misunderstanding of how the executive branch works. Once Congress has enacted a statute and the _President_ has signed it into law, the executive branch MUST enforce it. An executive order cannot override or suspend a duly passed law unless Congress included an explicit waiver or suspension provision in that law. Nothing in the text of this act appears to grant the President such discretion, so there is no straightforward way for the President to “undo” or pause the ban by executive order. The only way to alter or lift the ban would be through new legislation or a valid constitutional challenge in court.
In essence, the executive branch already had a chance to veto the law, but didn’t do so. The signature of the President (whomever that is at the time) seals the fate of the law.
>That’s a surprising outcome.
It's President Trump, what are you going to do about it? The man has been regularly breaking the law since 2016 and there is never any political will to stop him.
Trump v. U.S. established it's not illegal when Trump does it.
I feel like Americans didn't realize that the country slipped into a mixed authoritarian regime now.
As any other mixed authoritarian regime, the laws matter somewhat but are also balanced with the intent of the guy on the top.
And I did say authoritarian, not dictatorship, those aren't the same level. There's a lot of shades of black between Norway and China.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Trying and doing takes a minute for him, fixing it is a long process with consequence on all others mostly.
All those opportunist-narcissist shit-stirrers out there rely on the prudent and consequently slow self fixing mechanisms of societies (beyond the dumb and lazy childish masses vegetate below these figures and so looking up to them) like viruses on the delayed adaptation of the immune system. The host that feed them may easily die this way? Not their problem!! They have their shine and rule moment and they do not have much of miserable and futile life left anyway, f*ck others!
The president can pardon whomever he wants. It's in the U.S. Constitution.
Do pardons extend to companies? That could be a really unintended consequence of the whole "companies are people" precedent.
It might be surprising, but SCOTUS confirms it
They're just 9 clowns in robes these days
If this stands, it certainly is. It’s a mockery of the whole of the system. Congress better act on overturning it post haste or enforcing it post haste.
[dead]
They only have one option for the next two years: Impeach and remove. GOOD LUCK LMAO
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho to the rescue!!
For those who haven’t seen it yet, go watch Idiocracy from Mike Judge. It’s a preview of the years to come.
That's a unfair comparison towards President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho. Didn't he give up his position in the end towards the more qualified main character of the movie?
After attempting to murder him first. But yes.
Or way older and much more eloquent (albeit less digestible) "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman. Or even older "The Medium Is the Massage" by Marshall McLuhan.
Money quote from President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho to cement how he and Trump align on values:
> Come on, scro! Don't be a pussy! Besides, you do a kick-ass job and you get a full pardon.
Remind me again who pardoned his own son.
More like a documentary of the last eight.
The last two felt more like Weekend at Bernie's.
iT's a doCuMentArY!
It's a film that was intended as a joke, and uses Eugenics as its premise. Yes, the Internet has made idiots louder, but it has also helped intelligent people become smarter. The next 4 years will be like the last 8, minus the pandemic.
>The next 4 years will be like the last 8, minus the pandemic.
Yes, calls to takeover ally countries and releasing a presidential cryptocurrency really remind me of the last 8 years.
Don’t worry, Trump will get us another pandemic.
We still haven’t restored the part of the US federal government that stopped SARSv1 (they operated out of China and other countries with the cooperation of local authorities). Trump disbanded them before SARSv2 (aka COVID-19), so they weren’t around to respond to it.
Also, we’re still funding the biological weapons research programs that almost certainly created COVID (according to documents from multiple departments in the Biden administration).
On top of all that, RFK’s trying to switch everyone to raw milk in the middle of a bird/cow flu pandemic. That creates a new disease transmission vector that’ll probably help it cross to humans.
There is no eugenics in that movie?
>uses Eugenics as its premise
Uh, false?
Is anyone aware of any opinion poll among US population about banning tiktok? This to me feels like one of the issues with potentially largest disconnect between voters and politicians
Edit: found one from Pew. "The share of Americans who support the U.S. government banning TikTok now stands at 32%." Sept 05, 2024. In contrast, 87% US lawmakers voted for the law that caused this.
28% oppose the ban, and 32% support it. So a majority are either in favor or ambivalent. Two years ago a majority supported it: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/09/05/support-f...
Support has declined and opposition has increased. I don't think there's much of a disconnect here though, since it doesn't seem there are many people with strong opinions counter to what Congress chose to do.
"Not Sure" != "ambivalent". It's a mistake to lump "Not Sure" and "Opposed" together and declare a majority, as the group as a while does not represent a specific stance. Any attempt at nuance for either side gets bucketed into the largest category.
That group seems like the most interesting question... what sub groups do they fall into.
Anytime there are such large numbers of "undecideds" it's likely they are low-information, and an opportunity for Trump (or any unscrupulous politician, but really, Trump) to lie to them and turn them to whatever side they wish.
Yep.
But that's why it isn't a direct democracy. Sometimes government needs to do things that are not popular.
But of course this is always going to be an opportunity for a populist to take advantage of the disconnect. Sometimes, as in this case, that is damaging. But of course it's well within the rights of politicians to play that game.
I wonder if those numbers would change if people read the same intel reports and knew how far the Chinese spies are up our asses.
You’re overestimating the number of people that care about it. A good chunk of people really don’t care about privacy, data security and potential exposure to propaganda, no matter how much we (engineers who actually care about it) tell them to.
I assume most americans today are already under the impression their government spies on them and facebook/google will gladly give anything that is asked for, how does the chinese spying on them make any difference for the average citizen? If I was a regular american and had to choose I'd take the foreign spy 10/10 times. What will the chinese do to the regular american citizen compared to what his own contry could do with this information?
If you're diaspora and other smaller interest groups for sure, but the general citizen probably wouldn't care at an individual level. I'd argue that the NSA revelations and how everything just got worse and worse since then killed any chance of the public caring about this kind of stuff.
> people read the same intel reports and knew how far the Chinese spies
People do, and after Snowden revelation, they wonder why they should care.
The population was forced to accept the fact that they are constantly spied on 10 years ago.
Decisions have consequences.
Well, those who made the decision decided to keep the intel secret, so we'll never know.
You bring up valid point. Did the legislators lie en masse to us about national security to remove a competitive app from the American ecosystem or not. If the national security issues exist, where is the outrage from our elected officials? If not, our government is for sale.
A lot of people hold the view that privacy isn't important unless you have something to hide. They likely wouldn't care about some government on the other side of the world knowing what stupid tiktok videos they watch.
They probably would. But so long as the decisions are made using secret information, how can we know? We can only assume they are lying to us, until they show the proof.
Until they're shared to the public, the wise move is to choose not to believe them.
The problem with a poll is that the general public is likely not privy to all the information that the people in charge have. I think the best thing to do here is just come out with all of it, lay it on the table, and see what the public thinks then. If you have a good reason then show us.
That is exactly what the government has not done all these years. Why be tight-lipped if there is solid evidence and data, its not some issue of nuclear weapons/military-strategy.
People are fickle and will forget about this in a few months.
Days
More people supported the ban than opposed it in multiple polls. You’re leaving out the people who weren’t sure when polled
>Edit: found one from Pew. "The share of Americans who support the U.S. government banning TikTok now stands at 32%." Sept 05, 2024. In contrast, 87% US lawmakers voted for the law that caused this.
The relevant poll would be one right after the ban was enacted on bipartisan support. It's far too politicized now meaning that a huge percentage of people will simply support/reject it purely based off of "their candidate" being for/against it.
This holds for both sides of the debate.
The timing and rhetoric from lawmakers make this ban really seem about Israel. Lawmakers and citizens are pretty disconnected on that in general.
You know polls are a rotten way to make policy. Easily manipulated. In fact, Hitches said in "Letters..." that any time you see a poll just realize it's someone trying to change your mind with the bandwagon fallacy - isolating your own opinion as wrong and outside the norm or trying to reinforce the "right" opinion by confirming that you're part of the cool-kid club.
Yes, polls are an imperfect tool. But I think they remain the only tool we have to gauge what decisions coming out of Washington are product of broad popular support vs ones product of intense lobbying from shadowy powers.
I often wonder what value a survey has if those surveyed have not enough information and facts at hand.
we have lawmakers making reproductive laws who don't know how babies are made. Those making the laws don't have enough information on hand.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/super-awkward-clip-republica...
it's irrelevant in politics because they are still going to act on their own level of information regardless.
Did they poll AIPAC?
So you are saying Trump went against 87% of lawmakers?
[dead]
[dead]
If you exclude "not sure," it's 52% support banning. Also, the survey was not limited to voters.
Note that a majority/plutority becomes more skewed when aggregating constituencies.
Granted 52% -> 87% is still a big increase, but there you have it.
I think apps like TikTok or YouTube Shorts literally brainwash people. It’s one of the dumbest things ever invented on the Internet, yet incredibly addictive at the same time.
Never had TikTok, but that's exactly what I thought when Youtube introduced Shorts and I found myself spending long sessions in them.
However, now I think it's the same infinite scroll we already had in twitter and reddit -- but instead of text and images, now it's just videos.
At the beginning the content was really dumb and bad, but after some time it became way better. Now my feed is basically cooking recipes, chemistry experiments, interesting physics facts, bits from my favorite comedians, etc. Maybe Youtube learned my tastes, or maybe the content creators learned how to exploit better the platform. Either way I'd say I'm happy with the result now.
I still think some people are getting brainwashed by certain content, but in the same way as they were getting brainwashed in twitter and reddit.
For me, in reddit (and hacker news), I tend to actually read the actual video, read the comments, sometimes even leave a comment. Much more time spent on an actual item.
For short videos, it is a continuous stream of video's where a new video is automatically started after the last one. This is what makes shorts so horrible. You are forced to watch a new video every 15s to 1 min. Versus actively deciding yourself how long you look on a particular item. It becomes bad as your brain gets trained to loose interest after 1min.
Don't download titkok. It's like Shorts but works a lot better.
Both are like using slot machines but on tiktok you win (dopamine hit) more often - or at whatever rate the house wants you to.
Even if it is recipes and chemistry it's the format that's the issue, it still fries your dopamine and lowers your attention span.
This type of comment comes up here a lot, but maybe you should show us what exactly you mean?
Because at least for physics and chemistry, those are topics where, in my experience, you need deep, sustained engagement to make any personal progress on them.
Sure, you can probably learn a few fun facts through TikTok but really what's the point?
There are only 24 hours in a day. The hours you spend doomscrolling through - in the best case - fun facts about physics and chemistry are hours you spend not doing anything of value, like learning about actual physics or chemistry.
I get that you don't need to be doing something super productive all the time, what I'm saying is that I think you're fooling yourself if you believe that TikTok and co. are anything more than the shallowest form of entertainment available.
That is exactly what TikTok does, they are more popular because their tastes algorithm is even better than Shorts for figuring out what you actually want to watch
its like how 30 years ago when people would numblessly flip through hundreds of cable channels for hours, but with endless tailored content and extra dopamine shots on top from social feedback
its very telling how, while youtube (classic) also has these same ingredients, the ux of looking through a menu is far less addicting than the slot machine mechanism from swiping up
yeah but cable was limited by channels and by producers. now anyone can make a video and it's possible to tailor that to tiny niches that would have never been served by cable.
It's a slot machine, a scroll is an arm pull. Sometimes you get a brain tickle and you keep on scrolling to get more. I'd bet money that the brain activity is exactly the same.
100% agree on this and go further; it rots their brain. We have to have the societal courage and guts to admit that it is conceptually the same as things like drugs/alcohol/smoking.
Then again, we lost that battle with misogynistic, language-rotting, and violent rap music because we were too worried about being called racists, so there might not be hope we'll do better this time around.
Yes, rap music (and video games, and rock music, and comic books, and pinball machines) definitely ruined the world by rotting the childrens’ brains.
It wasn’t the gutting of the educational system, that’s far too simple an explanation.
Do you think rap music has had more of an impact on society or democracy than TikTok or YouTube shorts or just Facebook?
[flagged]
Do you think forums like the one you are on right now do not?
We're the product of all the information we consume, but forums like HN aren't custom-tailoring what I'm shown to maximize engagement from me.
Do you think there might be some variation in the degree of negative effects a forum like Hacker News has compared to TikTok/YT shorts?
No, because reading is more healthy than mindlessly watching short videos. There is only so much content on the front page, it's not a slot machine you can pull for hours like tiktok.
I can't believe how ignorant some people could be.
It is so easy to find reports and evidence of how Tiktok could be of great value to people.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/16/dining/tiktok-ban-cooking...
https://www.today.com/popculture/books/what-is-booktok-meani...
Having some amount of utility doesn't contradict it possibly being used for nefarious purposes by it's owners though. If I intentionally wanted to design an information warfare weapon, I'd make sure to sugarcoat it with interesting/funny/useful content to make it palatable. Just like putting the soldiers inside a giant wooden horse.
Not that I really care enough to ban TikTok, but the value demonstrated here is pretty spurious. You could swap "TikTok" with "socializing", and I'm sure these people would've had similar outcomes.
AR-15s can be used for hunting but it doesn’t mean it is always used for good
> I can't believe how ignorant some people could be.
Wow, it goes deeeeeeep.
For the record -- the law for TikTok divestment was not passed on its own, but was instead included in the foreign aid (including Ukraine) package https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/23/tech/congress-tiktok-ban-...
It is not clear if it would have passed if not that procedural trick... So one has to take this into account when considering 'bipartisan support' of the thing.
This is a misleading view of history. It is true that it was included in the foreign aid package, but the TikTok ban was also passed in an isolated bill in an overwhelming bipartisan manner beforehand.
90% of Republicans in the House voted for the TikTok ban alone. 73% of Democrats.
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/202486
It is very clear that it would have passed without that procedural trick, because it already did.
Correct. I advocated for both these bills. The TikTok ban carried Ukraine.
Now post the lobbying money received by lawmakers, as well as their history of trades of Meta stock.
>so one has to take this into account when considering ‘bipartisan support’ of the thing.
I do not. I can hold a person accountable to their vote on this legislation. Their vote on this legislation caused the Supreme Court to release an opinion that affects every citizens 1st amendment rights. Now if they released a statement at the time condemning this while also talking about the importance of the aid they might have some leeway.
How does the ruling affect the 1st amendment rights of US citizens? It entirely affects foreign business owners.
Accountable for sure, but it's less clear who was in favour and who was against the bill compared to if it wasn't bundled together.
Standalone vote in the house was pretty supportive and bipartisan too https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/202486.
Congress has a limited amount of time and attention unfortunately, so omnibus bills are very common. That doesn’t invalidate the contained legislature.
I don’t agree with the widespread usage of such “tricks”, but I do understand the harsh reality and limitations of representative democracy.
Thanks for this. It’s the first I’ve heard of it.
The standalone vote for it was overwhelmingly in favor of a ban. See other comments like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42762082
Yes it was included in a foreign aid package to make it more palatable to Congress. Advocates of the bill on this site are not bringing that up because they support the bill.
> but was instead included in the foreign aid (including Ukraine) package
I don't know why these kinds of shenanigans are still possible. It makes a complete joke of politics and legislation (and by extension: law).
I know I'm shouting at clouds here, and I know the reason is: the sheeple don't care enough to change this thing for the better. But I still feel the need to point it out.
I don't think the sheeple can, sadly. Govt has been so thoroughly captured by corporate interests that I think the fall of America will happen before the govt starts governing for the people
While it’s back in the US, it seems to be a separate version from the rest of the world. My account is European and I can no longer log in within the US without a VPN out of the country. My GFs account is American and she can login but has lost access to some accounts and the ability to watch livestreams which my version of the app still has. I wonder if the 13 hour “outage” was for a larger scale data migration for a separate US version
> I wonder if the 13 hour “outage” was for a larger scale data migration for a separate US version
First I've seen this theory and it makes a ton of sense in light of the new discrepancies between what US and non-US accounts can see and search for.
I also can not see livestreams. It says "Unstable Network Connection". And I have 2 separate "air gapped" phones and TT accounts - no shared details and both behave the same.
There are lots of conspiracy theories online. However, I think it is just that the process of bringing the stack back up may be difficult. They also have a huge shopping network, that has also been down, and there are emails/communications to shops saying they are working on fixing it. Also, when I take a link from TikTok and post it in a downloader app, it no longer works since the URL is broken.
Maybe some microservices did not come back up (outage), or maybe they were knowingly compromised as part of the extension deal. While I can see that Lives can not be censored, I do not know the reason for shopping to be disabled, so I suspect it is an outage.
[ Actually shopping is also "live", so maybe that's why ]
We will probably find out over the coming days.
Today morning, lives are back, link sharing (downloads) are working. Have not seen shops yet in 2 minutes of scrolling
Maybe it’s intentional, maybe it’s just the technical reality, it’s a bit early to call. We on a tech site ought to know what a shitshow split brain scenarios can be.
If so, all the more reason to distrust and ban this product. They’ve clearly not been honest with the public.
Completely unrelated but here’s the Wikipedia for an interesting book called The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-events in America: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Image:_A_Guide_to_Pseudo...
(1962) is shockingy relevant. I have to read more dystopian sci fi from that era just to keep up with current event
"Trouble Every Day", a song by Frank Zappa released in 1966, that's just as relevant nearly 60 years later: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFNkacckLBU
(but not in a way relevant to the TikTok topic)
Similarly, you might be interested in the Adam Curtis documentary HyperNormalisation: https://vimeo.com/191817381
+1 to Adam Curtis. Binged everything he's ever made last year.
Have you read it, and if so, do you recommend it?
The people pretending that the TikTok law is a speech issue are ignoring that no one was requiring TikTok to change their content at all. The law was written to allow for 0 impact on users if the CCP-connected parent company simply divested.
Their preference to shut down instead of receiving tens of billions of dollars would be a clear violation of a company’s fiduciary duty to shareholders for any normal company. But ByteDance’s allegiance isn’t to their shareholders.
Many American civil liberties organizations think that the the ban is a free speech issue:
https://action.aclu.org/send-message/tell-congress-no-tiktok...
https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-scotus-tiktok-ban-violates...
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/01/eff-statement-us-supre...
It seems to me that they aren't "pretending" they honestly believe the issue is about free speech. Laws that does not explicitly curtail free speech but effectively still does just that can certainly be created.
I don't know if it's a free speech issue but legally speaking it's definitely not a first amendment issue because the law targets foreign corporations and the Constitution doesn't apply to foreign entities
The ACLU hasn't been a credible defender of free speech in some time. (FIRE and EFF still credible.)
This issue is not about freedom of speech to any of the players. Its geopolitics. The ACLU and the EFF care about the precedent it sets.
Shocking news: different players have different motivations.
> Laws that does not explicitly curtail free speech but effectively still does
You can say the same thing about an antitrust law that forces Alphabet to sell Youtube.
Well they’re clearly wrong.
Go read the SC unanimous judgment. It’s very clear and lays out exactly why they’re wrong.
In fact they do a lot more than that because they state off the bat that there isn’t even a first amendment question (a Chinese corporation doesn’t have first amendment rights in the U.S.), but they go beyond, assume the first amendment does apply, and still explain why that isn’t valid.
ACLU is a biased organization and only supports the bill of rights when it suits their political alignment.
[flagged]
The 1st Amendment doesn't apply to Chinese companies operating in the US.
I keep seeing this type of comment here, like a sell is the obvious thing to do. Why? Selling / divesting TikTok US under these circumstances would surely not fetch the best price. In addition they would immediately create a global competitor that have the same product. Why would ByteDance the company or its investors want that?
Not to mention, why would they trust the US to pay tens of billions of dollars after this rigmarole? The incoming head of state doesn't exactly have a great track record of seeing through on promises to pay and is threatening tariffs against all and sundry.
Anybody with that kind of financing readily available is throwing it at AI and not another social network, no matter how useful it might be for domestic propaganda.
Well yeah, of course Tiktok isn't going to get the best price now that it has tried and failed to play chicken against the US government.
They should have seen a law like this being passed coming years ago. That is more than enough time to divest.
Too late now for them, I guess. They can take the financial hit for being so bad faith.
In practice, US social networks usually promote content that is aligned with US cultural values and geopolitical interests. Whether this is because the government is actively leaning on them or just because being run by Americans colors them with those values, I don’t know. But the fact is, it’s not a coincidence that TikTok is the main place pro-Palestinian content was allowed to go viral, and it’s likely that changing owners would change the content on TikTok even if the law doesn’t actually require it to do so.
> Whether this is because the government is actively leaning on them or just because being run by Americans colors them with those values, I don’t know
Look up Mitt Romney’s comments where he plainly says they need to ban TikTok because they can’t control the narrative on Israel-Palestine. Narrative being his word.
I'm not defending them here, but the laws in China prevent a sale, so technically they have a duty to uphold China's laws first before upholding their fiduciary responsibility. Same with any American company and following American laws.
> the laws in China prevent a sale
First I've heard of this.
The conflicting legal obligations remind me of the Microsoft "safe harbour" case, which is becoming a lot more relevant and still isn't really adequately resolved.
Does this mean they would be obligated to censor tank man content in the US at the CCP's request?
They’re majority owned by non Chinese investors. I don’t see how china law would have any say.
Chinese laws are whatever Xi says they are, so that's where Trump negotiating a deal for himself / his rich buddies comes into play..
I think that's a major part of the concern. Their first duty is to the Chinese Communist Party. Historically all sources of information in communism have to serve the goals of the party above all else, and this is tightly controlled.
I do not understand this line of argument. On the one hand there is a political decision to ban-or-annex a foreign company, on the other hand the reaction should not be political and in general political implications should not be discussed?
And if anything, if tiktok US is sold it will be way below its actual value, so there are many reasons to resist this apart from the political ones. And I assume they expect they will come to a concession in the first place.
> Their preference to shut down instead of receiving tens of billions of dollars would be a clear violation of a company’s fiduciary duty to shareholders for any normal company.
This is not strictly true - when a company leaves a huge market, it is imprudent to leave behind a well-resourced competitor in place. If I were a ByteDance shareholder, I'd hate if it spun off TikTok America LLC, and then having TikTok America compete against ByteDance in Europe and the Rest of the world on an equal technological footing, but perhaps even deeper pockets from American markets.
>Their preference to shut down instead of receiving tens of billions of dollars would be a clear violation of a company’s fiduciary duty to shareholders for any normal company.
Would you argue for Tesla or Apple to sell to China? Do you think Musk would divest his China business? The parallels are almost identical
1. Tesla cars collect a huge amount of data.
2. Tesla is already banned from being driven by government officials.
3. Tesla has the best self driving algorithm
4. Chinese cars are already banned in the US
5. China is Tesla's second largest market
6. Tesla is the 3rd largest EV company in China
Would you be surprised if Elon decided to exist China instead of "receiving tens of billions of dollars" from China?
Bytedance is privately held. With a 20% stake by founders and employees. Divesting according to the bill terms would have them giving away portion of their most precious IP that is the fyp recommendation system. Any reasonable company would refuse to totally divest and create a competitor just because a government said so. Also TikTok makes money for advertizing to the entire world not just the US.
It's not "give away" when they get to charge the market price for it. They presumably also wouldn't inherently even have to split up the company, rather than e.g. do an IPO for the entire global enterprise.
Except now they get to remain the owners and they don’t have to sell at fire sale prices, so it turned out to be the best possible outcome for their shareholders.
I’m not arguing it’s a restriction on TikTok’s speech or bytedance’s speech.
It’s a restriction on my speech. Telling me where I can publish a video? Telling me what apps I can download? Telling my software vendor what software they’re allowed to let me get? Telling internet providers what servers they’re allowed to let my device access?
The law doesn’t fine TikTok. The law fines the people who let me download an application I’ve chosen to use. At $5,000 per instance.
It’s not about TikTok’s rights being violated. It’s about mine, and yours.
No court in the land will agree with your interpretation. The first amendment protects speech, but it doesn't grant you the right to publish that speech wherever you want. If it did then Facebook couldn't ban people from its platform, for example.
The Supreme Court with its unanimous decision made it very very clear it’s not about freedom of speech, but about foreign adversary having access to data profile of 180 million US citizens. And believe in lawmakers argument of foreign adversary propaganda to those citizens.
Why do people on hacker news keep drudging up freedom of speech ad nauseum??
Show me where it is an infringement of your 1st amendment right to a private platform? You’re free to criticize the government however you see fit, but you’re not guaranteed the right to a microphone and stage that isn’t yours. There are plenty of other communication channels you can use to express yourself. Your 1st amendment rights are not being infringed by being denied access to TikTok, just as the far right isn’t having their 1st amendment rights being infringed by being denied to use BlueSky as their platform.
There isn't this much fuss about the foreign ownership of physical and broadcast media laws.
Is the difference really about whether you can post on the platform or not?
> Telling me where I can publish a video?
This is like arguing graffiti laws are censorship.
I get that you believe that's what's happening, but I can't imagine any US court agreeing with you.
The law (and the US constitution) does not guarantee any particular platform for your speech. It just guarantees that you can speak, and courts have interpreted that to mean that you need to have some reasonable platform, and that laws can't put an unreasonable burden on your ability to speak on some platform.
As an aside:
> Telling internet providers what servers they’re allowed to let my device access?
The law does not target internet providers at all. They are not required to block traffic to *.tiktok.com or any of their IP addresses.
> It’s a restriction on my speech. Telling me where I can publish a video? Telling me what apps I can download? Telling my software vendor what software they’re allowed to let me get? Telling internet providers what servers they’re allowed to let my device access?
You are being ridiculous now. None of those are forms of speech.
And restrictions on your ability to perform certain actions is literally what being in a society is about. If you don't like it then find another society. Just like you can find another ISP, place to publish your video or platform to use apps you want to use.
The government isn’t banning TikTok, the law only requires a change in ownership. The current owners are choosing to performatively shut down in an attempt to bully their way through that requirement
The US need not restrict any of your speech. You’re not directly communicating with any of TikTok’s users when you post to it, TikTok is. In the Internet age, even apparent one-way communication is handshakes upon handshakes. Consider this: You’re free to send whatever messages you want to ByteDance. They’re just not allowed to reply (or have anyone reply on their behalf). The app is a useless binary blob if it can’t set up a TLS connection.
> Their preference to shut down instead of receiving tens of billions of dollars would be a clear violation of a company’s fiduciary duty to shareholders for any normal company.
It is not. A company would be (financially) punished if it didn't follow regulations. DiDi was an example. https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/23/investing/didi-us-delisti...
> Their preference to shut down instead of receiving tens of billions of dollars would be a clear violation of a company’s fiduciary duty to shareholders for any normal company
This is only true if you assume the US is the only market that matters. But TikTok is very much an international phenomenon, and selling would likely harm the company far more than a couple billion. Firstly it would give another company everything they need to run a global competitor to TikTok, including software, infrastructure and userbase. Secondly it might encourage other countries to also force TikTok to sell.
Giving in here would be the beginning of the end of TikTok and could well be argued to be a violation of the company's fiduciary duty to shareholders. It would be the ultimate version of chasing short-term gains by selling the long-term future.
> Secondly it might encourage other countries to also force TikTok to sell.
Wouldn't that be a no-op if they already did so?
Interesting position. I wonder if another country could just force Musk to divest himself of Twitter in the same way. Could solve a lot of headaches that way. Maybe the EU could force the issue.
Depends on the political power of the entity and it's existing laws.
In your example, Musk could stop the app in the EU, much like TT is/was doing.
With this said, is the EU law written like the long standing US laws that give the TT law the power it has? If they have to enact new laws that would conflict with its member states wishes/dealings with other nations, expect it go to nowhere.
Possibly they could force him to divest from whatever legal entity Twitter operates under in that country, or force Twitter to stop operating in that country, but they would have no authority over the US corporation.
It won't. It would be fantastic if the EU banned Meta or X. Instead they're suddenly scared of continuing to fine them for their endless illegal data harvesting and gatekeeping to cozy up to Trump.
Rep Mike Gallagher, the sponsor of the bill, published this op-ed making it sound like a speech issue: https://www.thefp.com/p/tik-tok-young-americans-hamas-mike-g...
Personally, I am more concerned about people pretend it is not.
Fifuciary duty to shareholders is one of the most pernicious forces against progress there is.
The short term "number go up" mentality is breeds is a cancer.
That's somewhat of a myth that lets these companies off easy, there's no ruling that says you have to maximize profit at all costs, or at all to an extent. The sole motivator is greed.
The former does not imply the latter. Look at Bezos, he spent years re-investing in Amazon to provide long-term financial benefits to his shareholders. Pressure for short-term gains comes from shareholders on Wall St, it’s not a fundamental property of shareholders.
It's a complete myth used by the greedy to justify corporate greed. The only way someone would ever be succesfully prosecuted for this is if they'd clearly intentionally crash the company. Go do a search, you won't find a single other prosecution.
I really hope this changes your mindset. The number go up mentality is purely a result of avarice from those enacting it, it has 0 to do with any laws, it's all personal greed.
"Shut down in the US" not shut down everywhere, if I'm not mistaken. It also doesn't seem like an obvious violation of their fiduciary duty. The eventual growth in all other jurisdictions could easily be claimed to be worth more than the sale price, and it could also be argued that selling to US holders would harm the platform internationally.
>"Their preference to shut down instead of receiving tens of billions of dollars would be a clear violation of a company’s fiduciary duty to shareholders"
I am shedding tears for those poor shareholders.
This does not make sense, it is like saying that requiring bezos to sell his newspapers is not a free speech issue (I might or might not support such action as I am not a free speech absolutist)
You should talk to the ACLU. Get them straighten out.
https://action.aclu.org/send-message/tell-congress-no-tiktok... https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/banning-tiktok-i...
"You may speak if..."
Is a freedom of speech issue.
This is a shakedown and violation of property rights.
What would happen if Brazil says they would ban X if Elon Musk didn't divest from it?
X would be blocked in Brazil.
Now, expect Musk and his billions to push lobbying weight around to ensure Brazil paid dearly for it.
International politics is a treacherous game.
What does this have to do with X, Brazil, or Musk?
Another free speech interpretation: the right to assemble. I cannot assemble with the group of people I once was with TikTok gone
There's no government restrictions preventing you from assembling elsewhere.
Your interpretation would make shutting down any place where people assembled unconstitutional which was clearly never the intent.
Of course you can. Nothing stops the same group of people from congregating on Discord, Rumble, or even in real life.
If you used to assemble at a public park, and the city closes the park entirely to turn it into something else, does that violate your right to assemble too?
I'm not buying this drivel - the company stands to make way more than one rushed and limited buyout would garner.
Your argument is a false dichotomy, and it's made in bad faith. You argue that they should have taken a 10B pay day, meanwhile they are alive today and arguable worth over 100B.
That would be if they were American, even if they were not Chinese, not every country puts shareholders capitalism above everything else a company is suppose to decide upon.
But those running corporations are fiduciaries - the have a legal and ethical obligation to their shareholders. If those shareholders want to not maximize profits and have other objectives, then that's totally fine and then the managements obligations are to those aims of the shareholders.
> pretending that the TikTok law is a speech issue
A lot of folks here are saying that the TT ban had nothing to do with free speech. A couple of indirect rhetorical questions that might be relevant to help illuminate opinions about TT:
1. If there were a single newspaper (in the pre-internet era) that developed and printed a lot of reporting with a particular political outlook and was the home of many columnists known for being the premier thinkers with that outlook, and a law were passed that had nothing to do with the content but had the effect of shutting down that paper, and only that paper, would this be a speech issue?
2. If a political rally were assembling to petition for redress of their grievances, and a law were passed that told them they could say what they wanted but the rally was only allowed to occur in a specific field 30 miles outside the city and 3 miles from the nearest paved road, would this be a speech issue?
3. Given that deadtree-books-in-physical-libraries are not the primary point of reference for most people anymore, if you wanted to block access to certain kinds of information and/or make a statement about doing so, what action would you take in the 21st century to do the equivalent of a book burning? And would this be a speech issue?
There are obvious and easy things you can point out about how the TT law is different from each of those three scenarios, don't @ me about that. But it seems to me that most people who are serious (or, publicly serious, which is a little different) about supporting the TT ban give reasons for it that would be inconsistent with their answers to one or more of those three questions.
(1) Doesn't match the situation at all, because the law didn't require the paper to shutdown - it required a foreign company to divest so that it is US-owned, and the paper could continue operations as normal.
That's a pretty substantial difference.
(2) Also doesn't match the situation, there is no requirement that TikTok restrict the reach or audience of their content in any way AFAIK.
(3) The situation is more akin to "foreign government owns the local library, and can decide based on the identity of the person walking in which books the person is allowed to see and check out" - seems obviously problematic at least /if they do that/
All your examples miss the part about the company being a foreign government's psy-ops vehicle.
Which of these examples includes the parts about foreign control? This is the primary issue as far I was aware. The chinese state does not have first amendment protections because they are not american citizens.
Recent and related:
TikTok goes dark in the US - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42753396 - Jan 2025 (2187 comments)
I guess we know now why TikTok voluntarily went dark.
Wonder which companies will be assured by TikTok's assurances there will be no consequences for helping them break the law.
I just hope this causes congress to dig their heels in again. Almost can't believe what I'm seeing.
In a sane world Congress would be furious at the executive overreach.
I don't remember the last time either party called out their colleagues for questionable use of executive orders, but to do so would require principles, and we haven't seen those in decades either.
It would only take 38% of Republicans in the Senate to vote with Democrats to remove Trump from office to get him out of politics for good.
Defying the literal law on a matter of national security certainly qualifies as treason, or at least a vague "high crime and misdemeanor."
Now that he's done his job for the Republicans (delivered a red wave), is there any benefit to keeping a kleptocratic monster in power?
Should Congress just remove him from office and let JD Vance be president?
Edit: Not sure why being downvoted. China bots?
No, there’s a LOT of MAGAts on HN.
I downvoted your comment because you're wrong. The constitution defines treason pretty clearly, you're not going to get a treason conviction without the US being in a legally and officially declared war with China. There has never been a treason conviction for any act committed after WW2, the last time the US was officially in a declared war. The Rosenberg's selling nuke secrets, the Walkers who decrypted Navy communications for the Soviets, those guys who went over to the Taliban or ISIS... all highly illegal but NONE of it was treason.
Furthermore your comment is poorly thought out. Impeaching Trump would be very bad for the popularity of Republican senators, anybody should be aware of that regardless of how you personally feel about the people involved.
Despite my own feelings on the ban, this kind of royal court politics is the worst potential outcome. Disregarding a law that was passed by a bipartisan majority, signed into law by the president and ruled on by the supreme courts feels like the start of a very dangerous path. Not to mention the prosecutorial discretion may be creating massive liability that the new administration could use to extract favors from some of our largest tech companies.
>Disregarding a law that was passed by a bipartisan majority, signed into law by the president and ruled on by the supreme courts feels like the start of a very dangerous path
I don't understand why this is not the primary takeaway. Regardless of the specifics of this issue, it is objectively a huge power grab for a president to vow to not enforce a law that had bipartisan approval of both the legislative and judiciary branches.
> Regardless of the specifics of this issue, it is objectively a huge power grab for a president to vow to not enforce a law that had bipartisan approval of both the legislative and judiciary branches.
Isn't that the road we've been walking down for a while now with the proliferation of executive orders?
I'm not a fan of this outcome either, but it doesn't strike me as a revolutionary departure from current norms.
This should be a lesson: most prosecution and enforcement is discretionary.
This isn't a power grab. That already happened when the Supreme Court invented out of thin air the idea of presidential immunity. There was no basis for that.
Supreme Court justices are political operatives and the conservative supermajority has gone on a spree of overturning precedent and inventing law on a scale not seen since Marbury v Madison.
“Historical tradition” as a legal doctrine is completely invented. “Major Questions Doctrine” is a massive power grab over the other two branches. Presidential immunity is simply the “unitary executive” doctrine, also completely invented.
We already have a dictator.
Let me introduce you to Andrew Jackson
The executive branch has the power to decide whether or not to enforce a law. For example, see weed laws not being enforced.
The law has a provision permitting the President to grant 90 day exceptions. Trump has indicated he'll sign one tomorrow. This isn't going around the law, it's just the law as written. We can debate whether the law was good or bad, but this is an outcome the law directly supports.
It's a potentially successful power grab because the law isn't widely supported by the populace. Trivial to say "those eggheads can pass what they like, I will protect you from them"
My read says the law itself is a presidential power, doesn't have to be pushed unless the President wants it
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
>I don't understand why this is not the primary takeaway.
Because this takeaway is wrong.
> Disregarding a law that was passed by a bipartisan majority, signed into law by the president and ruled on by the supreme courts feels like the start of a very dangerous path
The very dangerous path started a long time ago, or at least that's how it feels from abroad. "He can't" followed by "He wouldn't" then "He did".
IMHO this is the reason things should be laws not weird tradition and conventions if they really matter, (same reason that the fault of things like SCOTUS upturning Roe v Wade is in Congress for never making it a law instead of just a precedent
> feels like the start of a very dangerous path.
I'm baffled people keep saying this. You're miles down the dangerous path - you've almost reached the end of it. This is nothing new.
>feels like the start of a very dangerous path
Start?
I'm old enough to remember how things used to be and it sure wasn't perfect, but JFC is it bad now.
That’s how all dictatorships work.
Everything is illegal.
You live by the KING.
The actual bad precedent set here is that the US executive branch has the authority to censor the media.
That is incorrect in this case. The "censoring" was done by the legislative branch, congress.
The "uncensoring" is done by the executive branch.
That’s actually the exact opposite of what has happened.
Yes, and what's even worse to me is Trump's explicit motivation for supporting TikTok now. Like there are some interesting philosophical, moral, and maybe legal arguments against the TikTok ban but what he's seized on is simply that TikTok was a useful tool (as far as he's been told) for gaining votes. Keeping it around just benefits him politically and personally, so that's it.
You know what, that’s is actually correct.
Practically necessarily trumps concerns of fictitious and imaginary constructs
Mechanistically, the law applies to the app, not the service. It's not clear to me that serving videos to users that already have the app is a violation of the law.
It also applies to their cloud providers
We are watching the norm be created that ‘what apps we are allowed to use’ is something that is in the personal gift of Donald Trump.
That is a very weird precedent for us to be setting.
The law specifically gives the president a 90 day extension.
The executive order will just be baldly illegal, and what happens in the litigation on it is the next battle.
TikTok is, as we speak, breaking US law.
No there's an actual provision in the law that allows the President to delay enforcement one-time for 90 days: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521... . This was an explicit provision of the bill.
I won't argue against the idea that Trump is on a dangerous political path based around patronage and personal favors, but the law does grant him the authority to give TikTok a 90 day extension. If TikTok has not sold by then and he fails to enforce the law, that's a bigger problem.
> Disregarding a law that was passed by a bipartisan majority
I wonder if there was actually a bipartisan majority in favor of getting rid of TikTok?
Yes, the bill passed by a bipartisan majority, but TikTok was not the only thing in that bill. Previous attempts to advance a standalone TikTok bill had failed to get majority support.
This time it got attached to a bill that provided $60 billion in aid for Ukraine, $26 billion in aid for Israel, and $1 billion of additional humanitarian assistance for food, medical supplies, and clean water for Gaza. There was also $8 billion for security in Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific.
A lot of Congress considered that aid (or parts of it) to be critical, and it had taken a lot of time to get there. I bet as a result of that a lot of Congress members would vote "yes" even if they disagreed with the TikTok part.
When Biden signed it he spoke about the importance of all the aid provisions and didn't mention TikTok at all.
Only four more years of this stuff to go. In other news Trump coin has plummeted by a few billion as Melania launched her own meme coin with a ~4bn market cap.
> Disregarding a law that was passed by a bipartisan majority
It was a rider tacked onto a must-pass bill. There’s nothing about the manner it was passed that makes it special or particularly blessed. This was classic congressional sausage-making.
And yet the law is the law. There's no premise that says the manner in which a law is passed determines its enforceability.
[dead]
[dead]
How do you figure? The explicit domain of enforcement is the executive branch, so if the new guy coming in says something akin to "They've made their decision, let them enforce it" that's somewhat by design even if you may not agree with it.
The system was designed with these checks and balances in mind explicitly.
> if the new guy coming in says something akin to "They've made their decision, let them enforce it" that's somewhat by design even if you may not agree with it
It’s absolutely not. Which is why non-enforcement doesn’t release liability; if you break a law that the President declines to enforce, people can sue the government to force enforcement today and the next President can enforce tomorrow.
The ultimate consequence of that interpretation would mean that the executive does whatever it wants since all enforcement of court rulings or laws fall to the executive.
Prosecutorial discretion is not a "check and balance" it is a cost cutting approach that allows worse laws to last longer
Yeah, I think that's bad. Some level of prosecutorial discretion is obviously needed but furthering a state of affairs where laws are meaningless depending on if you have the favor of the executive is dangerous. The checks and balances in the passing of the law make sense but there should be a strong norm towards actually enforcing things and pushing the legislative branch to change the law if there is something wrong with it or the judiciary to rule on if it is actually legal.
Congress looking towards an enforcement while the President trying to make a deal. It is going to be interesting how this plays out.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/speaker-johnson-2-...
I wonder how Mr. Johnson is proposing to do his enforcement, seeing as how the executive is the branch of government charged with enforcing the laws.
Congress could impeach. In a sane world, if the executive continually ignores Congress, then that's what would happen.
Exactly. We could have had a discussion about whether a executive order can override house of representatives had such order be issued by Trump post inauguration yet overriding it prior to that should be the bigger deal here.
It's unfortunately not news that a Trump presidency doesn't respect the mores of the office.
The president can pardon people for breaking federal law and can stop the enforcement of federal law[1] so as president elect it makes sense that he can effectively neuter any federal law short of congress deciding he has gone to far and impeaching and removing him.
[1]i.e. federal agencies no longer prosecute personal marijuana use by executive order
There's anecdotal evidence that something funky is going on in the background. More so than usual.
A handful of very prominent creators critical of the US (or other) governments have had their accounts just disappear. The algorithm is also showing decidedly different type of content.
What accounts?
This is just the beginning. Not sure America will survive another 4+ years of this clown.
“America won’t survive this presidency! If you don’t vote in this election you won’t get the chance to vote again!”
Been hearing that shit since I started paying close attention to presidential races with the first run of Bush in 2000.
Man, the current democratic party just does not know how to solve problems in a way that people appreciate.
Absurd that the Republicans are somehow going to swoop in and "Save the day" on an issue they themselves championed.
Looking this up, is this [1] the bill? Cuz it turns out this bill was sponsored by a Republican and passed during a Republican controlled House in 2023, by a supermajority 352 - 65.
People always blame Democrats for things that Republicans do.
[1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521...
It also passed a Democrat controlled Senate and was signed by a Democrat president, who then elected to not even attempt to enforce the law today, his one day to do so. Either of those could have blocked it. It's at the very least bipartisan and the talk at the time of passage was that the Dems could deliver on Rep promises. Neither side seems to want to be the ones holding the unpopular bag.
AIPAC made sure it had bipartisan support.
When the "real problems" are TikTok access and who can enter in which public bathroom you know everyone loses, panem et circenses
I’m not certain, but I think there might also be some other issues people talk about.
But TikTik is an important forum for the people of the world to solve our thorny issues! In the days before social media, our world was a mess. Today we are awash in sage, well-reasoned discourse: a new Age of Enlightenment! What fools we'd be to tinker with this valuable information ecosystem. /s
The incentive structures inherent in modern politics encourages all politicians to alternately champion or repudiate unworkable solutions to problems that themselves are likely exaggerated or fabricated from whole cloth.
The parties are just brands competing against each other to appeal to different segments of the same market, offering essentially the same product in different packaging. Getting your competitor to adopt a market position that you've already prepared a response to is a neat trick.
This is par for the course, and I don't understand why anyone would expect anything different.
This just seems trivially obviously not true to me.
> Man, the current democratic party just does not know how to solve problems in a way that people appreciate.
What would have been a solution to the problem that people would have appreciated?
A privacy law, for starters.
Publish the algorithm. Allow users to choose which algorithm they want to use.
DEM looks bad now bc they just lost power. DEM did not solve it earlier bc an unpopular party can't do hard/unpopular things. GOP may have a shot, if they will be as popular as they looked in November. End of day it's about popularity and power.
The outgoing Biden administration actually stated that they wouldn’t enforce the ban for just one day, choosing to leave implementation of the law to the incoming Trump administration.
Efforts to save TikTok have been bipartisan (“Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said he spoke with Biden on Thursday to advocate for extending the deadline to ban TikTok.”) and efforts to enforce the ban have also been bipartisan (“Democrats had tried on Wednesday to pass legislation that would have extended the deadline, but Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas blocked it. Cotton, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that TikTok has had ample time to find a buyer.”)
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/biden-wont-enforce-tik...
Trump was banging the drum regarding banning TikTok, then changes his tune in the 11th hour, and will now use this to come out as the hero and savior. Not to mention how many republicans supported this.
I gotta hand it to him it’s kind of genius
The bill was cosponsored by 54, 32 of them were Republicans. I think the primary author was a Republican.
My 12 year old daughter was cranky this morning about Tik Tok being banned, then walked in ecstatic it was working again. I’m like “I wonder if Trump fixed Tik Tok,” and sure enough. She gave me a high five. My 6 year old son is already MAGA because the boys in his class love Trump.
Like inflation, this was a problem Trump created and now he’s getting credit for fixing it.
It's probably not a good idea to let a 12 year old use tiktok.
12 year olds having mood swings because their digital crack was banned for half a day. God help us all.
Take this as an opportunity to teach them about why they shouldn't trust politicians. Make sure you tell them about Trump being the original supporter of the ban https://www.npr.org/2020/08/06/900019185/trump-signs-executi...
I'm sorry, your SIX year old is MAGA? I mean maybe this is an America thing, but my 6 year old knows literally nothing about any politician. How are 6 year olds even aware of Trump?
Looks like you’re getting downvoted, but this exactly matches my kids’ HS friends who said “now I finally get MAGA - let’s make America like it was before the Tik Tok ban!”
There isn’t too much teens really feel on a day-to-day basis with politics and this is one of them. I’m not a Trump fan at all but his ability to spin things like this and the stimulus checks will need to be studied.
[flagged]
It seems like an oversight to me that all the discussion about political impact leading up to this has focused on consumers. Statements like "Gen Z likes TikTok, so banning it risks alienating them", "Gen Z will forgot about TikTok and move on to the next thing in due time", etc.
I think this overlooks one key detail. The focal points of the new online world -- "influencers" -- rely on TikTok for the lion's share of their income. Taking away a fun toy might not radicalize someone but taking away their livelihood might.
And even if these users are a tiny fraction of a percent, they wield outsized influence (obviously). They are the new media. Risking losing these people, many of whom have been largely apolitical, seems like a huge tactical error in retrospect, and one that Trump would predictably take advantage of if given the chance.
> Absurd that the Republicans are somehow going to swoop in and "Save the day" on an issue they themselves championed.
Absurd that when Trump initially proposed this it was considered a stupid and racist idea. Now they’re for it.
[dead]
[flagged]
Mr. Chew, does TikTok access the home wifi network?
Mitch McConnell is 83.
Yes, instead of the dynamic vigor of the youthful Donald J Trump (77)
Plenty of chatter about this topic on HN reflect the same viewpoint as the octogenarians in Congress. Outlaw something on allegations and not evidence or trial, when said allegations apply to local alternatives as well.
I’m just happy TikTok is back. It’s a big loss for Reddit
Am I missing something? How? The users would've went to Meta or Google I assume
The less people get sucked into the toxic Reddit bubble, the better.
What do they, or any elite gain/lose by gaining/losing the appreciation of ordinary people.
Do you care what a cattle or a sheep thinks? Some may, but the majority don't give it a shit.
They do still need our votes. But they forgot that, so they lost. I voted for democrats but they got what they deserved.
I would like to ask Chinese president Xi Jinping when will Google and Facebook be available in China and all the rest of the Western social apps. Can I get any clarity and assurance? Thanks.
Well fifteen years ago Google was available in China. And at that time, while the masses simply used Baidu, among the educated it was well known that Google delivered better results. And that was because Google capitulated to the censors. The government had a direct hotline into the Chinese offices of Google and could demand the search engine immediately ban certain keywords or results. At that time Baidu's censorship was quite a bit more heavy-handed than Google's. It was Google that grew tired of this arrangement and decided to quit. They first moved the operations to Hong Kong, and then later the Chinese government decided to block the Hong Kong version of Google.
As a former Google employee, during my employment I found plenty of internal blog posts from the China team at that time about this arrangement. It was amazing to me that a lot of these internal blogs simply weren't deleted because people forgot about it and storage was so cheap.
A quick google suggests that in 2008, Google's search market share in China was ~45%. That's pretty significant.
Zuckerberg already tried in 2015, went on a tour, gave obsequious speeches, spoke in Mandarin and asked Xi to give his unborn child an honorary Chinese name. Refused on both occasions.
Guy really doesn’t have a spine
Reminds me of the ultimatum I gave my dog last week: I told him that if he didn't stop pooping on the floor, I would punish him by pooping on the floor myself.
I think that’s a bad metaphor, though I don’t particularly know what you’re trying to say.
Did you know that foreign companies are banned from owning more than 25% ownership of a tv and radio broadcast licenses in the US? I'm sure you've spent much effort looking into and trying to repeal those laws too.
China isn't your dog. What if you invited your neighbour over, and they pooped on your floor, repeatedly. And then they said you're not allowed into their house.
Just as soon as they allow the Chinese government censors to control what is and is not available on the platform.
How you see his position as different from ours is an astounding result driven by American imperialist propaganda.
None of these entities are on your side. Highlighting a false dichotomy does nothing.
The propaganda works well indeed. People taking sides is perhaps the saddest part of this story since the politics can be well understood with just a little review of history. You put it well in saying that none of the two are on your side. Wake up, sheeple; stand for principles, not one or the other government.
When Google and Facebook agree to also base their servers in China and follow Chinese censorship law.
You're welcome.
Could you potentially see an issue with both countries disconnecting their economies and communication networks? As we do this, I worry a war gets easier to start.
The straight up "shout out" in the pop-up, I almost couldn't believe my eyes.
I don't think I've seen anything like it in a long time. I also don't think an American company would ever do that as it seems "unprofessional." Ironically, it probably got them huge bonus points so they know what they're doing.
They're Chinese. They know how to handle a shakedown by Party officials: it needs both bribes and flattery.
Damn, this is the simplest, most accurate breakdown on what’s actually happening that I’ve come across. The incoming administration is pretty transparent in the bend toward corruption, and these folks know exactly how to manage that as a business challenge.
You could say that, but if it turns out to be working in the US...
[dead]
> I don't think I've seen anything like it in a long time. I also don't think an American company would ever do that as it seems "unprofessional."
Have you been paying attention the last few weeks?
NVIDIA: https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/ai-policy/ "As the first Trump Administration demonstrated, America wins through innovation, competition and by sharing our technologies with the world — not by retreating behind a wall of government overreach."
Companies aren't stupid. They know that in order to be successful in today's world, you have to personally fellate Trump. Thanks to the American voters for bringing us this reality.
"Sucking up" implies there’s a meaningful choice—that firms or individuals can realistically be expected to show courage now. But voters chose this, knowingly. Blaming firms for bowing to public will misdiagnoses the issue and wastes emotional energy fighting a false battle.
Whats the realistic alternative? Standing up to Trump? The president who has explicitly said he will retaliate against firms and individuals who oppose him.
The same president who was re-elected even though everyone knew this was coming?
If this bothers you, and you want to address it, focus on identifying the real root cause and work toward changing that.
And if you genuinely believe firms would act differently, make the case. But let’s be honest—how many rational people would stand up to someone who:
- Faces no accountability, - Has the Supreme Court and legislature backing him, - Is in power for a second term, - Commands an incredibly effective political machine (Fox-GOP), - has die-hard voters behind him?
This all reminds German companies about a 100 years ago, so much.
[flagged]
Ah, the propaganda GUI element. I distinctly remember covering it in my HCI class. Right between 'How to Design Intuitive Interfaces' and 'How to Influence Favorability Ratings with Popups.'
not only has tiktok done this before, uber & lyft & doordash did it in california in the lead up to elections
I have no issue with American companies trying to change American policies.
This is the prologue to a potentially dark time in American history
world* history
I agree they know what they are doing by manipulating or perhaps secretly enriching Trump. He posted on Truth social that he is seeking 50% US ownership. That’s very odd. Why not 51% so that there is US based voting control? Or full divesture from China as the law requires?
And then there’s the fact that the conditions for an extension aren’t met as written in the law. There’s no way he can certify to Congress that the conditions are met, which is why he’s trying to use an executive order. But that’s illegal.
They didn’t need to turn off in the first place. The Biden administration had already said they wouldn’t impose any fines.
This was literally nothing but a political play intended to give Trump a boost.
The Biden administration signed the thing into law. Of course they need to comply. And people are acting as if somehow TikTok decided to self-ban and have now un-banned. No, it's only those with the app already installed that are able to continue to use it. It's still blocked on the app stores, and will presumably stay that way until tomorrow.
Then why did they sign the law?
When have you ever seen anything like it in the past ?
The relevant part of the pop-up:
> We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office.
Additionally, an extract from TikTok's later statement [1]:
> In agreement with our service providers, TikTok is in the process of restoring service. We thank President Trump for providing the necessary clarity and assurance to our service providers that they will face no penalties providing TikTok to over 170 million Americans and allowing over 7 million small businesses to thrive.
What the fuck? That's some incredible bootlicking by TikTok. They've done a great job making Biden seem like the bad guy for banning TikTok, while Trump saves the day by rescuing them. This is especially ironic considering Trump was the one who wanted to introduce the ban in the first place until he gained 15M followers on the platform.
[1] https://xcancel.com/TikTokPolicy/status/1881030712188346459
Biden could have easily deferred the penalty phase by 30-90 days. He did not, even after the blowback this past week.
[flagged]
I mean, the promise to boosting Trump in the popup is probably literally what got them the promise of an executive order, possibly with the suggestion that if they wanted to stay on Trump's good side they'd best ensure their algorithm was Trump-friendly in future.
Of course, everything he does is quid pro quo. Now he has a sword of damocles he can hang over their head to ensure he can get anything he wants in the future.
It’s like America is rapidly turning into 90’s Russia and people are cheering for it.
I'm wondering if it's just the facade has been removed.
Biden was right about the oligarchs characterization.
[flagged]
[flagged]
> The problem is most readers still think theres a discernable difference between the parties.
No, the problem is people like you who try to convince others that Democrats and Republicans are the same, when some child-level reasoning is all that's necessary to disprove this tired bit of rhetoric.
> The problem is most readers still think theres a discernable difference between the parties.
I will give you excellent odds we're going to immediately see a definite difference between presidencies here.
I love how the US government had exempted US government accounts from the ban.. Lmaooo
After the ban, Pornhub displayed a message asking people to contact their state representatives. I reckon it's a self-interest thing.
> Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses
“panem et circenses“, Juvenal 100AD
[dead]
This whole theater from the start was designed to flex just how much influence China has on the U.S.
No matter what happens now, china was the real winner here.
It's odd to me that people seem to be mostly viewing this as a free speech/democracy issue. To me it's more like if newspapers were printed with toxic ink or something. The negatives of TikTok have nothing to do with the speech expressed by the "creators" on the platform, but rather with the overall harmful effects of the algorithmic firehose.
It's true that this means all similar US-based things should be banned as well, but banning them isn't a matter of suppressing the speech and letting TikTok continue isn't a victory for free speech. It's just a victory for a gross sort of psychological pollution.
> The negatives of ~Tiktok~short form videos have nothing to do with …
It feels silly with this coloring of TikTok as the evil when meta, Google and a dozen other American companies are doing the same, just less successfully because they let advertisers and corporate interests buy priority in the algorithm which literally just boils down to “you likely like the same stuff as people who like the same stuff as you”.
You really can't tell the difference between Americans doing it and a foreign nation doing it?
I agree. I'm not saying TikTok is much different than others. I'm saying when we see TikTok banned we shouldn't feel like "Oh no, not that!", we should feel like "Well, it's a start, but let's do more in that direction."
> It feels silly with this coloring of TikTok as the evil when meta, Google and a dozen other American companies are doing the same
Ban them all...
You're arguing crack should be legal because cigarettes are
The odds [edit: ^W^W^W^Wchances] are just lower that Google and Meta would rig the algorithm to subtly color peoples opinion in favor of China and Russia.
If TikTok is doing propaganda by subtly promoting some reels over others -- who would know? Why would they not be doing it and how can anyone know they are not already doing it?
Not anything blatant of course. Blatant stuff does not change peoples opinions anyway. Just subtly bump some reels that has been proven to shift a demography in a certain direction.
TikTok has all the data it needs to work with the minds of people and also all the ability. And China has the motiviation..
Of course Google and Meta might promote other goals in their algorithms, but the chances of a leak of that happening is definitely higher in current American companies
“Intentionally trying to destabilize the country and trying to sell you things are literally identical issues.”
>It's odd to me that people seem to be mostly viewing this as a free speech/democracy issue.
The catalyst for the ban was Israel/Palestine. You must consider this - TikTok did not adequately censor pro-Palestine content. This was confirmed as a major problem for Israel by the CEO of the ADL.
When an app gets banned because it is not inline with the US military industrial complex you must consider the spirit of free speech laws.
>the overall harmful effects of the algorithmic firehose
What material effects are those?
There is by now "free speech" being published for every single combination of personal interests, demographic, and personal opinion and personality traits.
If you wanted to push, say, white supremacy, to a trans mountain bike riding sci fi fan -- I am sure the content that will do that job is out there. Not with 100% certainty but enough to control a population. The question about controlling the population is only about picking the right reels to show to whom in what order.
If you control the algorithmic firehose and control who sees what, you basically control the minds of the population.
Not by explicit propaganda. Only by nudging and bumping content.
People can make conscious decisions to not want their worldview defined by traditional sources, whether it is Fox News or The Daily Show or whatever. But with TikTok everyone gets something different and who knows how it is geared or rigged.
A diminished attention span. Assuming that's still considered a harmful effect.
> It's true that this means all similar US-based things should be banned as well
Or... regulated? I'd be all for privacy regulations and data handling regulations that would affect the algorithms of everyone but as long as the law is targeting TikTok only and not also FB, Insta, Twitter, etc, the idea that this ban is about "the overall harmful effects of the algorithmic firehose" is a total red herring.
I'm not saying the ban is about that, but it does accomplish something in that direction, and we need more bans that are explicitly about that.
Ultimately though I don't think regulations about privacy and data handling are sufficient. To go just one level deeper, a large proportion of the data in question should not even be collected, regardless of how it's handled or who it's shared with. But many of the problems are even deeper, and have to do with things like how big companies are allowed to get and how much venture capital is allowed to destroy things that work by funding things that don't.
It's not about the algorithmic feed, it's about allowing your #1 adversarial state to have control over that algorithms parameters. They don't let Twitter, Google, or Meta operate in China.
Where's the smoking gun for these privacy issues? Why hasn't the FBI or anyone else investigated and discovered these issues, if they exist?
The US has very little privacy law.
This isn't about privacy; it's about who gets to promote what ideas to Americans. Do you think that a post about Tienanmen Square, about Uyghur persecution, or about Taiwanese independence, will get nearly as far on a Chinese controlled media platform?
They don't. https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/A-Tik-Tok-ing...
Because the Chinese Communist Part is not stupid enough to just exploit their leverage over sovereign nations for shits and giggles. You don't need a smoking gun to understand how corporations in China operate. They operate with the blessing of the CCP, and regardless of whether they've ever done anything, the scale of what they could do if they wanted to would be some spectacular lessons in modern propaganda.
To me it's more like a newsstand selling only aliens magazines, bigfoot books and sexy (but not yet porn) magazines.
Every magazin with a title "bigfoot found!" reveals another "mermaids discovered" magazine, and below that a "tony blair is a reptilian, proof inside", and if people want to stay there and consume all the magazines, why not? In the end, there's more quality content there, than on discovery channels (ancient aliens, mermaids, etc.)
not even joking:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11274284/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1643266/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1816585/
...
One way the free speech angle might make sense is that TikTok (and other foreign-run social media) normally aren’t as susceptible to domestic pressure to throttle, shadowban, etc certain types of content (like airing of some politician’s dirty laundry).
I could absolutely see that being the case. Trump and the Republican Party now have a solid thumb on US-based social media via Musk/Zuck, which makes lack of control of foreign social media more of a pressuring issue than it had been before. It looks bad if the popular discourse taking place on uncontrolled media differs wildly from that on its controlled counterparts.
> TikTok (and other foreign-run social media) normally aren’t as susceptible to domestic pressure
TikTok has been uniquely subject to political pressure over the last half decade. They didn’t buddy up with Larry Ellison because Oracle has the best servers.
At least for the time being, traditional media outlets don't seem to have a problem airing US politicians' dirty laundry.
You talk about censorship but if things are happening it will be a lot more subtle than that; more about what you show than what you hide. Peoples opinions are already shifted a lot by what reels they watch. By controlling what people see you control what people think; at least many enough.
Censorship is outdated. With the amount of data and reach TikTok has they have something more akin to mind control.
Principle being the same as traditional politisized media, but the effectiveness of TikTok is just on another level. You see "people like you" sharing what they honestly believe for good reasons. Only thing TikTok did was decide to show that clip, and not the other clip of a person like you saying the opposite thing, also hearthfeltly and for good reasons...
The whole way Tiktok went black and the number of times it has mentioned President Trump in a positive note - to me - reinforces the idea that Tiktok is just a propaganda tool (in this case, for Trump). I would not be surprised if the whole act of going dark last night was because Trump told them that's how it needed to go so he could be a hero by Monday.
The way most of our biggest companies and wealthiest are just lining up to do Trump's bidding is what I would expect from unstable 3rd world countries but never from the US (I know cause I came from one).
[dead]
By saying China's using Tik Tok to subvert "democracy," aren't we really saying voters are not individual agents but rather a mob subject to manipulation by propaganda? I sometimes cannot believe it's those who so loudly cry about threats to "democracy" that simultaneously take such a cynical view of the democratic process. Rather than tackle the narratives substantively, they'd argue about who gets to manipulate the mob. It's just wild to me. If that's your view of the electorate, then the whole "democracy" thing is just a cover for elite power. Honestly, maybe there's some truth to that, but it sure flies in the face of the sanctity of voting and "democracy."
> voters are not individual agents but rather a mob subject to manipulation by propaganda
Who is even saying this is not true? The United States government is more aware than maybe anyone else that influencing human opinion and action is a statistical problem once you have enough scale.
Just look at the history of the USIA [1] and its successor the USICA.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Information_Agen...
And today's Bureau of Global Public Affairs[1]. Which "engages media to shape the global narrative on American foreign policy and values [and] communicates U.S. foreign policy objectives to the American public." Of course, it's difficult to pierce the veil and determine exactly how they go about doing this. Narratives are propaganda.
https://www.state.gov/about-us-bureau-of-global-public-affai...
I think anyone who says democracy is good and the will of the people should be respected is implicitly saying that is not true. Implicitly saying voters are individual agents and not a mob.
Otherwise, if democracy is good and votes should matter and at the same time voters are a mob subject to manipulation... democracy is what? A system of government by whoever can do better propaganda? Why would that be good for anyone except those who do propaganda?
So yeah, I think many people are claiming that is not true.
One question I would ask if people are just a mob, who is actually pushing the buttons? Owners of media, political leaders, are also humans, no? They have the same weaknesses, at least in principle.
If you accept some people are different (those who command and control propaganda) then we must conclude that not all people are vulnerable to it, so maybe it's a spectrum. But still democracy sounds like a bad idea, as a majority are probably on the low end of the spectrum, and the majority rules.
There are hundreds of HN users commenting here as if their opinions have meaning and value.
Which would be in question if they could all be under various states of “influence”…
At the very least the median credibility would be roughly zero.
Chase Hughes:
"Manipulation Playbook: The 20 Indicators of Reality Control"
[flagged]
Yes. This is well known since Antiquity when the Athenian Democracy voted to condemn Plato to death.
Read more about the period and you will see that the Democratic cities of yore, Athens first and foremost, often swinged towards taking bad decisions, and that a whole corporation of "sophists" manipulated public opinion without shame (read e.g. Gorgias).
The great progress that enabled the restoration, extention and stabilisation of Democracy in the modern era has been indirect, representative democracy and base, written bill of rights/constitutions that aren't asily modified, requiring majorities of 2/3rds or more and constraint what can be voted on.
> ...when the Athenian Democracy voted to condemn Plato to death.
That was Socrates, not Plato.
Socrates was allowed to choose his own punishment too, so he wasn't exactly condemned to death right away. He also had the opportunity to escape prison. He chose not to.
Qhat you doesn't make much sense, starting with your claim Plato was sentenced to death by Athenian democracy, which there is no evidence of that I know of.
The one condemned to death was Socrates. Kind of weird for that to be the detail you get wrong…
I agree with everything you're saying, but I also can't fully square up that the equivalent American apps aren't allowed in China. This is about freedom of speech on app built by a country that has no freedom of speech. I realize this point is orthogonal, but is still an important element of the decision.
> also can't fully square up that the equivalent American apps aren't allowed in China
It's a chance to showcase how we're "more free" or literally just as restrictive
If stooping down to their level is the move we make, then we should immediately stop acting as if we are more “free” or democratic than China. You can’t have it both ways.
This is an incredible point. Instead of using this crisis to pressure Beijing to crack open the China market to US companies or even just get some concessions, Trump just folded to look like a champ.
Ad-funded social media platforms make money by measurably altering people's opinions and behavior. It's literally their only job—everything else is in service to that goal.
Given that this is what they do day in and day out and that the successful ones are by all metrics very good at it, it seems totally reasonable to assume that one could trivially be turned from manipulating people into buying stuff to manipulating people to voting a certain way or holding certain opinions.
One person one vote is the guiding principle of democracy and, yes, it assumes that no person is able to actively hijack someone else's vote for their own gain. We have systems in place to prevent voter fraud, and I think that we should have systems in place to prevent systematic individual targeting of individuals for algorithmic manipulation as well.
What we don't need is a law that specifically targets foreign companies doing it. Our homegrown manipulators are just as dangerous in their own ways.
> aren't we really saying voters are not individual agents but rather a mob subject to manipulation by propaganda?
I disagree with this interpretation. It's creating a sort of false dichotomy -- voters can still be individual agents AND ALSO they can be manipulated by propaganda. And the key is that propaganda doesn't have to be wildly successful in order to impact a democratic process. It just has to convince enough people to sway an election. That is, and always has been, one of the trade-offs of democracy. That's why we say "democracy needs an informed electorate to survive" -- because an informed individual is less likely to be easily manipulated.
The advantage of democracy is that the propaganda game gets played every few years and current elites can lose. Under a system of freedom of speech, there is very little stopping a decently (but not massively) funded rag-tag group of competent individuals from running a more efficient propaganda campaign than the powers-that-be (think of Dominic Cummings' Leave campaign in the UK for the perfect example).
This is the best system we have found to establish the impermanence of the elite class. Because this is the real beauty of what we in the west call democracy: not the absence of an elite class, for there is no such system, but it's impermanence.
And while that is all well and good within a country, the argument is that it would be unwise to allow a foreign hostile power a seat at our propaganda game. Especially one which does not reciprocate this permission.
This is a thoughtful reply. But, if it's just propaganda games played by the elites, I suppose another way to ensure informed outcomes might be literacy tests. Or property ownership.
I guess more than anything I'm just surprised that it's the "threat to democracy" crowd that would be taking such a cynical view of democracy. They're admitting that Trump's propaganda was just better than theirs. Which is, in some ways, hilarious.
If I were the CCP this is perhaps the cleverest talking point I could have possibly come up with, propping up TikTok while simultaneously condemning democracy.
But to substantively respond: NO. This is exceptionally naive. Democracy assumes shared fates and aligned incentives among (both voting and communicating) participants. A foreign adversary mainlining their interests into half the population of the US absolutely violates this assumption.
> a mob subject to manipulation by propaganda?
This idea goes back to the founding of the nation. It's the very reason we have an electoral college.
And the reason we didn't have universal suffrage.
Bingo. I never understood why "foreign influence" was supposed to be a bad thing. Free speech is grounded in the idea that people are capable of reasoning and forming their own opinions. If we truly trust in that, the source of the influence - foreign or domestic - shouldn’t matter. People who advocate for censoring foreign sources of influence are implicitly admitting that they don't trust their population to think critically.
> Free speech is grounded in the idea that people are capable of reasoning and forming their own opinions. If we truly trust in that, the source of the influence - foreign or domestic - shouldn’t matter.
Sure, but then why is electioneering banned by polling places? Or why is voter intimidation illegal? You have the draw the line somewhere.
> are implicitly admitting that they don't trust their population to think critically.
A democracy that is NOT a direct democracy is already admitting this. This is exactly the reason we have proxies in a representative democracy.
> implicitly admitting that they don't trust their population to think critically
I think that is the case though. I will come off as arrogant and my lack of vocabulary might make it sound less elaborate, but a huge chunk of the population is not able or willing to so. This is why every time a country is facing a crysis, the populist politicians gain in popularity. People are already stressed out by their jobs, paying the bills, rising cost of living, so who wants to spend time and effort to research the causes of this, evaluate which proposed solution seems most realistic, what the tradeoffs are, compared to the dude who tells them that the problem is very simple and that he has the solution that is equally simple. It's the immigrants stealing the jobs, or the heat pumps forced upon them, or solar cells.
And it doesn't even need foreign social media to come to that.
> I never understood why "foreign influence" was supposed to be a bad thing. Free speech is grounded in the idea that people are capable of reasoning and forming their own opinions.
You should invest a minute thinking about the problem. Pay attention to your own opinion: people are capable of reasoning and forming their own opinions. Focus on that. Now, consider that propaganda feeds false and deceiving information to the public. In some cases, the decision-maker is only exposed to propaganda. Even if that decision-maker is the most rational of actors, what kind of decisions can he do if they are only exposed to false and deceiving information?
There are plenty of reasons why libel and slander are punishable by law. Why do you think they are?
> people are capable of reasoning and forming their own opinions
The problem is that people aren't ideal rational agents. Our collective reasoning tends to be heavily biased by the environment, and that there are actors who abuse this (by injecting ideas that indirectly help their agendas) for their personal gains. And in China's case, they want to undermine freedoms, including freedom of speech.
We can consider ourselves as "rational, critical thinkers" all we want, but we aren't as there are myriads of ways we're gullible in one way or another. Plenty of examples in our history books.
Still, I think that free speech is still more important, as it's the only way for a society to recover. With freedom of speech, an antidote (for a lack of better term) can eventually be found and injected into the public discourse, without it the future looks bleak.
The way I see it, we need to encourage improvement of education on social sciences, human psychology, game theory and so on, encourage critical thinking but forewarn of all possible fallacies, and hope that it will be enough and that the inevitable counter-reaction won't prevail and undermine the effort.
> I never understood why "foreign influence" was supposed to be a bad thing
Because people are not capable of being informed on every topic in the world.
Especially in a world that is increasingly more complex and nuanced.
And this ignorance has been demonstrated to be exploitable in order to tear apart societies.
Easy: reach the future electorate when they’re pre-teens and feed them influences that eschew critical thinking as a core value.
If you can believe that lead pipes contributed to the collapse of the Roman Empire… well, let’s just say the Internet is a series of tubes.
The concerns about TikTok merely as a propaganda platform are naïve and almost quaint when considering what might actually be happening.
Does everyone think critically and rationally? If not how many don't (especially during key election periods) and can this group cast an oversized influence on election results or public opinion?
Having the choice of two options at the ballot box, and social media meaning many people now form political opinions from anonymous accounts online does not fill me with confidence.
Exactly. To the degree elections are not rooted in a competition of ideas and individual agency, but rather are downstream of elite power and influence, then there are other more direct means of controlling populations, all of which tend to be a lot bloodier. All of this strikes me as a really dangerous path.
> I never understood why "foreign influence" was supposed to be a bad thing.
It would be less of a problem if US platforms were allowed into China to influence the Chinese too.
Read some books. 1984 would be a good start.
plenty of dangers, but considering what people actually do and care about on TikTok, I wouldn't really compare this to Facebook.
>People who advocate for censoring foreign sources of influence are implicitly admitting that they don't trust their population to think critically.
Tbf, America did spend decades tearing down education to help support that conclusion.
You could ban every non-ethnically Chinese channel to push Chinese superiority. That would be bad, right?
And before you say, “but they’re not doing that”, remember that we’re discussing how this theoretically could be a bad thing.
> aren't we really saying voters are not individual agents but rather a mob subject to manipulation by propaganda?
I take the view that the reason freedom of speech is important at all, is that people can be convinced to act in certain ways by speech — if it couldn't lead to action, no dictator would fear it.
We, all of us, take things on trust. We have to. It's not like anyone, let alone everyone, has the capacity — time or skill — to personally verify every claim we encounter.
Everywhere in the world handles this issue differently: the USA is free-speech-maximalism; the UK has rules about what you can say in elections[0] (and in normal ads), was famously a jurisdiction of choice for people who wanted to sue others for libel[1], and has very low campaign spending limits[2]; Germany has laws banning parties that are a threat to the constitution[3].
I doubt there is any perfect solution here, I think all only last for as long as the people themselves are vigilant.
[0] https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/voting-and-elections/...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism
[2] https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/party-spending-and-pr...
> …aren't we really saying voters are not individual agents but rather a mob subject to manipulation by propaganda?
…yes? Is that even slightly controversial? If it wasn’t the case, why would propaganda even exist?
Theres an implication that The Internet meant we have a commons connecting the world that no one country can completely restrict. But a commons too important to all modern societies to blanket ban. In theory we should be less susceptible to propoganda than ever since we can see multiple viewpoints and interpretations in minutes. As opposed to being beholden to maybe 3-4 mainstream news programs on television.
Human nature proves to fall quite short of that ideal, though.
> aren't we really saying voters are not individual agents but rather a mob subject to manipulation by propaganda?
Yes, it is. Always has been.
> threats to "democracy" that simultaneously take such a cynical view of the democratic process
> then the whole "democracy" thing is just a cover for elite power
You'd have to have fallen hook, line, and sinker with America's propaganda to actually believe that democracy is NOT a cover for retaining control over a population.
The US has been playing this game in other countries for a while now, to keep a check on who comes to power and who does not (always using support for democracy as an excuse). Gautemala, the arab spring, bangladesh - these are just some of the examples. And it's become very blatant of late.
Why is illegal to put false stuff on products label, like food or medicine? Where is the free speech to lie and manipulate the user? With your point of view the EACH user should somehow find the skills to analyze and review each product each time they user or trust some other persons word.
The algorithm is not a person to have free speech, my issue is with the algorithm, I am OK with the village drunk to post his faked documents but I am not O with state actors falsifing documents then same state owned actors abusing the algorithm to spread that false stuff. So no free spech for bot farms and algorithms, they are not people (yet)
> aren't we really saying voters are not individual agents but rather a mob subject to manipulation by propaganda
Part of the reason Western democracies are failing is we forgot that pure democracy doesn’t work. The founders described this amply in the Federalist Papers. Democracy tends towards tearing itself apart with partisanship and mob rule.
It’s why successful republics have mechanisms to cool off public sentiment, letting time tax emotions to reveal actual thoughts underneath (see: the Swiss versus Californian referendum models); bodies to protect minorities from the majority (independent courts); et cetera.
You act as if individuals and a mob are mutually exclusive. Who do you think makes up a mob?
> By saying China's using Tik Tok to subvert "democracy," aren't we really saying voters are not individual agents but rather a mob subject to manipulation by propaganda?
Well, we don't know what was said in the classified meetings, but yes, we know that propaganda works.
Excuse my European ignorance, but in what way is a system a "democracy" where one person can overrule actual democratic structures? The power centralized into one person is unheard of in what I would call "democracies".
I do find people's faith in Democracy, as opposed to Authoritarianism, somewhat exasperating. Two candidates, pre-selected by the powers that be to lead the nation, compete in inane televised debates, wave flags and make promises that everyone knows they are going to break. This everyone debates hotly, and then lines up to register one bit of Holy Democratic Choice, to be averaged with a hundred million similar bits to determine, by a margin of a few percent, the one and only legitimate Government of the People, by the People, for the People. My Ass.
In the end, "democracy" is about power and control, just like any other form of government, and the TikTok ban is just another power-play, however it may be justified publicly. Not that I'm overly sorry to see it banned, by the way :)
Until very recently, "Democracy" was a dirty way to describe a government. It was in the same class of failed government models as tyranny, the rule of the mindless mob.
> aren't we really saying voters are not individual agents but rather a mob subject to manipulation by propaganda?
If you want to view it that way, sure. But I could also just say you and I are both sacks of blood filled flesh.
> Rather than tackle the narratives substantively,
Meta (et al) are just AS guilty as TikTok. The difference is substantial and subtle - the US government could conceivably sanction a US-based entity to the point of them not existing. A chinese based one doesnt have to play by the rules. Fine them? No problem, their gov has an immeasurable amount of money. The only option is to simply not let them play at all.
> aren't we really saying voters are not individual agents but rather a mob subject to manipulation by propaganda?
I invite you to consider the possibility that this is true. That at the population level, propaganda actually works. This would support the fact that it's been a key tool used by regimes (including ours) since before the printing press was invented.
I don't really know for certain whether this is accurate, but it's hard for me to look around the world at global politics and determine that it isn't.
> voters are not individual agents but rather a mob subject to manipulation by propaganda
This is the fundamental problem with American democracy and democracies all over the world.
It only works if the voters are well informed, educated, and generally competent. Otherwise it’s just a manipulation game where someone can lie and lie and lie and be elected president. And at that late stage phase of democracy, who gets to manipulate these people better is who holds power.
Sort of?
I think it's definitely the case that the group of voters in 1789 was much smaller and more homogeneous than it is today.
I also think the nature of propaganda has changed a little as well. Today, messages can be delivered cheaply to everyone, everywhere, from anywhere, nearly instantaneously. There is far less of a propagation delay, and far less of a natural check on the rate and volume of propaganda.
Maybe not, but it strikes me as a really dangerous path. If we don't believe the electorate acts from a position of moral authority, but rather are downstream of elite power and influence, then there are other more direct ways of controlling populations. And they tend to be a lot more bloody.
It was always like that.
Yep, it basically amounts to agreeing 100% with the Chinese justification for their great firewall, which is that a free internet is subversive to their national interest and to their citizens. But Americans will argue that it's somewhat different, since when they do it it's not dystopian or something
> aren't we really saying voters are not individual agents but rather a mob subject to manipulation by propaganda?
Yes, exactly.
A symbiotic view of life: we have never been individuals https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235518850_A_Symbiot...
I have it on personal experience that DARPA seems to be enthusiastically funding more digital twin and collective intelligence projects than ever. Simulated virtual publics are going to become more common in both war and politics. Collectives are going to be the driving force of the coming century, and the sooner the American public evolves beyond fetishizing the individual, the better.
By resorting to walled gardens that by definition have to provide a filtered experience via algorithms rather than raw experience of older internet forums and image boards, haven't many of these voters already made that choice of being wanting to be manipulated?
> Honestly, maybe there's some truth to that, but it sure flies in the face of the sanctity of voting and "democracy."
Although some choose or have to squawk loudly about it, the sanctity of “democracy” is not universally or even widely accepted.
To extend the Winston Churchill quote, it’s mostly a charade but it’s the best one we have (in my opinion).
At least someone has to (currently) manipulate the voters into voting a specific way, instead of just ‘voting for them’, or threatening them at gunpoint.
> voters are not individual agents but rather a mob subject to manipulation by propaganda?
That is true, yet it's not incompatible with democracy. In the US Horace Mann established the foundational link between education and democracy. It's why civics and other forms of intellectual self-defence are essential.
The problem with social media (and BigTech lazy "convenient" non-thought) is not that it's a propaganda conduit as much as that it's antithetical to critical thinking. It's more complex than simply the content, it's the form too.
The US gov has just made the case for banning US owned social networks around the world, because they truly believe that social networks is a way for a foreign agents to interfere in local politics.
This is misleading. Most of the places that might want to ban US social networks were already doing so.
> By saying China's using Tik Tok to subvert "democracy," aren't we really saying voters are not individual agents but rather a mob subject to manipulation by propaganda?
Did you already forgot about the episode about Haitians eating everyone's pets? Based on that episode alone, what's you observation?
> I sometimes cannot believe it's those who so loudly cry about threats to "democracy" that simultaneously take such a cynical view of the democratic process.
You should take a minute to think about the underlying issue.
Propaganda is a massive threat against democracy and freedom in general. If a bad actor invests enough resources pushing lies and false promises that manages to convince enough people to vote on their agent, do you expect to be represented and see your best interests defended by your elected representatives?
Also, you should pay attention to the actual problem. Propaganda isn't something that affects the left end of the bell curve. Propaganda determines which information you have access to. You make your decisions based on the information you have, regardless of being facts or fiction. If you are faced with a relentless barrage of bullshit, how can you make an educated decision or even guess on what's the best outcome? You cannot. The one that controls the information you can access will also control to a great degree your decision process. That's the power of disinformation and propaganda, and the risk that China's control of TikTok poses to the US in particular but the free world in general.
> By saying China's using Tik Tok to subvert "democracy," aren't we really saying voters are not individual agents but rather a mob subject to manipulation by propaganda?
Yep. Same thing as the people arguing to reverse the Citizens United ruling. Lots of lip service is paid to "democracy" by people who have no faith in the electorate to actually exercise democratic sovereignty.
I'd argue that Democracy cannot be exercised by the electorate when > 36% of the voting population did not vote (90m / 245m https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2024-11-1...).
You're dealing with 64% of the voting population, who inherently lean one way or the other so a small nudge can be the difference between one side or the other winning.
e.g. Candidate swapping might bring votes from minority groups or Women.
Imagine a scenario when even 5% more people voted, suddenly the margins are much wider and the results hold stronger validity.
If TikTok was only targeted at voters then I think there would be less of a concern. My issue is more with what it shows to children. Science and law recognize that children aren't yet fully individual agents and are more susceptible to propaganda than most adults. Thus legislators and courts have been more willing to restrict commercial speech targeting children.
If that is truly your primary concern, you should be more worried about Instagram. TikTok is much better in that regard. It has parental controls, a restricted mode, screen time limits, etc.
I feel this is way too optimistic about the typical adult. Adults are most definitely affected by propaganda.
Problem is reality is so complex and usually all sides of a topic are right at the same time, in some way.
For any viewpoint A, there will be reels made by people in any demographic group who cares deeply about it for excellent and solid reasons. The same will be the case for anti-A.
Both of them will be convincing and TikTok can just choose which one of them to subtly nudge.
Your comment made me realize that politicians stopped "think of the children" along with the rise of social media. Before the rise of big tech they would routinely slam their fist on the podium demanding that we think of the children.
> aren't we really saying voters are not individual agents but rather a mob subject to manipulation by propaganda?
Like we've been saying since the founding of the country? yeah
"The body of people ... do not possess the discernment and stability necessary for systematic government. To deny that they are frequently led into the grossest errors by misinformation and passion, would be a flattery which their own good sense must despise." -Hamilton
The founders did not think that electoral college was a good idea, senators should be appointed and not elected, and only a few citizens should be able to vote generally, because they were feeling mean. They did so because they thought these things and the act of voting itself were simply instruments to produce good government. They rejected a democracy, and favored a republic, for this reason.
>voters are not individual agents but rather a mob subject to manipulation by propaganda
That has nothing to do with China.
Yes. But we're talking about children too - not just adult voters.
And the app collects every click, every face photo, all contacts, every keypress on external links, everything. The full social graph, shaping the trends of the younger generation.
We do have laws around elections like the equal time rule. Should we remove that too?
Of course propaganda works. That's why companies spent tons of money on ads.
Of course it also works on politics, especially if people don't trust "traditional" media, but arbitrary publishers (there's room for a guiding which is more trustworthy)
History over and over has shown that a public can be led into their own demise, including brutal war.
How much active influence China takes I don't know (and I never used tiktok) but we are certainly in a time of massive disinformation and denial of facts. Globally.
Of course voters are subject to propaganda.
YOU are subject to propaganda. Yes, you.
The existence of democratic sociopolitical structures does not preclude the existence of targeted mass propaganda, or the weaknesses of the human psyche. Nor vice versa.
Why do you think The Rule of Law exists? Large groups of angry people often make bad decisions with long term consequences. We have known this forever.
The winner of the election is often the party that spent more money on political advertising, so I'm sure this is a well known phenomenon.
I enjoy seeing HN independently rederive much of NRX thought via this situation.
In unrelated news, anyone see that NYT interview with Yarvin yesterday?
The one where Curtis made a fool of himself and his poor understanding of history?
> China's using Tik Tok to subvert "democracy"
And has there ever been an example for that or is it just a hypothetical scenario?
No one can possibly know. They just have all the power to do it very efficiently, without anyone noticing.
That’s sort of the ironic bit. IMHO it’s been this way for awhile, but because it was pretty much as you described (“the elite”) with the reigns we pushed the argument that voters were individual agents.
The genius in strategies enemies are using are leveraging the exact same levers already being leveraged against be populous: free speech as a roadway for propaganda, misinformation/disinformation, and widespread social manipulation.
There was a time when it was more difficult to scale these sorts of strategies so there may have been an illusion of agency. Also, a hundred years ago issues were a bit less complicated/nuanced so your voters could probably wrangle ideas intelligently more independently.
I also suspect the corporate undermining of the general population for their own wealth grab has weakened the country as a whole, including the voter base. We want to undermine education at every turn and stability of your average citizen so they can be more easily manipulated. That comes at a cost because once we’re in that position, whose to say youll (the US elite) will be the ones with the reigns? By weakening the population for your own gain, you open up foreign adversaries to do the same and they’re doing just that.
We should focus on improving general education and the populations overall stability/livelihood. That has to do with pushing back on some of the power grab the ultra wealthy have taken, at the populations expense. These are of course just my unsubstantiated opinions.
This sounds like an emotional appeal rather than anything based on science and fact.
That's the entire reason for representative democracy over direct democracy
I'm not sure it is- even if you think the electorate are educated and competent, it still makes sense to delegate the specific decisions to a smaller set of individuals who are given the time and resources to get into the detail. It just scales better.
"a mob subject to manipulation by propaganda"
Yes, that is correct.
Why is that so hard to believe?
For more than a century now the advertising industry has perfected mass psychological manipulation that aims to separate the masses from their dollar. These tactics as pioneered by the likes of Edward Bernays were plucked straight from the propaganda rule books, which has been successfully used for at least a century before that. We know that both propaganda and advertising are highly effective at influencing how people think and which products they consume. It's a small step then to extrapolate those techniques to get vast amounts of people to think and act however one wants. All it requires is sufficient interest, a relatively minor amount of resources, and using the same tools that millions of people already give their undivided attention to, which were designed to be as addictive as possible. We've already seen how this can work in the Cambridge Analytica exposé, which is surely considered legacy tech by now.
I'm honestly surprised that people are in desbelief that this can and does happen. These are not some wildly speculative conspiracy theories. People are easily influenceable. When tools that can be used to spread disinformation and gaslight people into believing any version of reality are widely available to anyone, it would be surprising if they were _not_ used for this purpose.
> If that's your view of the electorate, then the whole "democracy" thing is just a cover for elite power.
Always has been. It's just that now that we've perfected the tools used to sway public opinion, and made them available to anyone, including our enemies, the effects are much more palpable.
I hope Zuckerberg and friends, and everyone who's worked on these platforms, some of which frequent this very forum, realize that they've contributed to the breakdown of civilization. It's past time for these people to stop selling us snake oil promises of a connected world, and start being accountable for their actions.
Really? It is the most base fact that people can be manipulated by the ideas of others. Creatures trying to convince other creatures of one thing over another is just part of being a living animal. But the idea that people want to control who says what is wild to you? It flies in the face of the sanctity of "democracy"? Don't you think that's a bit of a hyperbole?
> If that's your view of the electorate, then the whole "democracy" thing is just a cover for elite power.
yeah. They don't necessarily want nor care to inform of the truth. they want that sort of manipulation as much as any other billionaire. Heck there's a good amount of people who simply want to be told what to do so they don't have to worry about the big stuff.
There's a reason many almost always choose convinience over anything else when working in practice.
[dead]
Just google Salt Typhoon, (I'll wait), and then tell me you want the TikTok app on 102M+ US citizens devices.
I see nothing Israel hasn’t done yet we give them billions of dollars in aid.
If China had America by the balls half as bad as Israel does, we'd be watching Biden and Trump take turns kissing Xi Jinping's feet on live television right now. It's besides the point and doesn't contribute to better foreign policy choices, just gives justification to the wrong ones.
On the phones of Trump and Vance, according to Wikipedia. Let's compose a Trump tweet on the issue:
"I was told that China had Salt Typhoon on my phone. I have always loved Salt Typhoon, it's a good thing. I talked to Elon, he'll fix it by merging TikTok with X paid in X shares. Let's focus now on making America great again."
You're saying that this Chinese app has a US government mandated back door that the Chinese could use?
Some 4D chess there, not sure who is playing whom at this point
[flagged]
The commentary is quite obviously there. Don’t confuse your lack of understanding with a lack of content.
“Congressman Michael McCaul (R-TX), the author of the bill to ban TikTok, owns hundreds of thousands of dollars of stock in Meta, one of TikTok's chief rivals. Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) bought up to $50,000 worth of Meta stock last January before voting to ban TikTok in April."
Exhibit 1. https://www.capitoltrades.com/issuers/431610?page=2
Couldn’t find recent info but back in 2014, Michael McCaul’s net worth was in the hundreds of millions. Hundreds of thousands of dollars in meta stock doesn’t seem like much for someone worth 1000 times that amount over a decade ago…
Markeayne Mullin’s net worth was ~$50 million a few years ago. $50k is 1/1000th of that networth also…
That’s not to say congress shouldn’t be banned from trading stocks like every other profession that might potentially have insider info. They absolutely should.
> Hundreds of thousands of dollars in meta stock doesn’t seem like much for someone worth 1000 times that amount over a decade ago…
That fact that it was a drop in the bucket for them makes it that much more outrageous, not less. It would have cost virtually nothing for them to avoid the appearance of impropriety, and yet they didn't. And why should they? There was no consequence. They are taunting us.
If you or I trade off anything close to insider information, we'd be in jail and lose most of our (ostensibly much more limited) assets.
And in fact, currently 2.5% of the sp500 is meta. So if these guys just have 100% of their net worth in the sp500, they’d have more META than these two transactions.
McCaul's net worth is estimated $294 million. His positions are a rounding error. That he owns so little Meta is impressive.
Mullin's net worth is 20-75 million. So up to 0.25% of his net worth if we use the low estimate is a Meta acquisition? Who cares?
> His net worth was estimated at $294 million, up from $74 million the previous year. In 2004, the same publication estimated his net worth at $12 million. His wealth increase was due to large monetary transfers from his wife's family.
You do realize these people have friends and family.
> Who cares?
Insider trading deprives _all other_ legitimate participants of the market. That the trade is small relative to this individual net worth is meaningless. That is value that should have been captured by someone else taking a genuine risk. It's a thumb on the scale of the market and it is morally repugnant.
Another:
- Markwayne Mullin (R Oklahoma) purchased $15-$50k Meta stock on 01/02/2024 [0]
A nice list: https://www.capitoltrades.com/issuers/431610
[0] https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/3-politician...
A lot of people have some Meta shares. It's a widely owned stock.
You may believe no member of congress should own equity in any company, but that's a separate issue
I think it's the 'bought shares', then voted to ban a competitor that may be the issue.
Surely they are doing this to preserve free speech and for the security of hard-working freedom-loving god-fearing americans, and not for their own selfish interests.
I think they are doing it so the CCP doesn't have direct propaganda line into the home of most Americans. imagine how easy it would be to tip the algorithm scales to show, for example, stolen election conspiracy videos.
that’s like 300 shares at most.
What does the absolute number of shares tell you?
It's still mind-boggling to me that those in Congress can be shareholders.
Here's a video from March 14, 2024 on how Mike Gallagher (R-WI), who sponsored the H.R.7521 - Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, accepted his largest campaign contributions from Palantir, Google, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC):
https://www.tiktok.com/@iancarrollshow/video/734642717587849...
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C4jA_k8Pn12 (in case of censorship)
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/mike-gallagh...
Looks like Steven Mnuchin, David Friedman and Yossi Cohen were also involved. Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), said that "we really have a TikTok problem", since it's acting to alchemize the left-right political divide into a young-old one.
The video says that pro-Palestine content is some of the most censored content there is, but despite that, a large number of TikTok users are supporting Palestine and questioning Israel's authority to continue hostilities. It suggests that silencing these objections to the Israel-Palestine conflict by preventing their discussion and spread is one of the primary motives for banning TikTok.
I'm deeply disappointed in members of the Democratic Party who voted for the TikTok ban, whose actions call into question the integrity of their party and its priorities. I'm not as surprised by the actions of the Republican Party, which historically has sided with the establishment (Meta and other social networks under US jurisdiction), but openly voting for censorship in the face of calls to protect free speech from Donald Trump and Elon Musk is suspect.
And I'm profoundly troubled by antisemitism and how whataboutism is clouding journalistic integrity. With derogatory comments about Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and wokeism becoming more prevalent, we should be mindful of the slippery slope from oppressed to oppressor. This is why we must always call out injustice in all forms, even when it's inconvenient to do so, or risk sacrificing our principles and eventually our freedoms.
I'm reminded of the Paradox of Intolerance, that if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance, thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance:
To be fair they're all inside trading and most of them are corrupt. Time to wake up America
Suppose I wake up and discover that all congresspeople are insider trading. What do I do next?
That kind of comment has the opposite effect, it keeps people asleep with lazy (and corrupt) misinformation. Whenever people say 'they are all the same', they help cover for the actual bad behavior - it's now hidden among all the other behavior and not worth examining or pursuing, and rationalized.
They are certainly not all the same. If you don't distinguish them, you cut down the people actually fighting on the front lines. It's friendly fire. They are shot in the back.
they aren't all corrupt. and for those that are insider trading, few are beating the market.
Anyway, how many TRUMP coins did this cost them?
It's so awesome to see the executive branch, in a move for clout, decide to ignore a law passed by bipartisan action in Congress, almost by dictorial fiat.
Don't forget that it was also unanimously upheld by the supreme court!
Maybe this will be the hill he dies on. I can't bring myself to believe that he'll be allowed to literally become the day 1 dictator he that he promised he would.
m8 the only hill he'll die on is one of gold. The stooges have officially fallen in line in all of the places that matter: Congress, state houses, and federal courts.
Clearly US lawmakers were convinced they could easily force ByteDance to divest by issuing an ultimatum. They were never prepared to actually see a ban of TikTok
So the person who’s not currently president saved a service turning off that didn’t need to be turned off… sounds like marketing more than anything.
Everyone using the bipartisan consensus after classified briefings as evidence why the ban is a good idea is too young to remember 2003.
“The word bipartisan usually means some larger-than-usual deception is being carried out.” — George Carlin
I feel like the free speech enthusiasts are missing some imagination and failing to see the situation we are in post-algorithms.
By now -- people have used their free speech to make reels for every possibly viewpoint convincing any possible demography about anything. The trail of reels needed to convert a mountain biker to a racist, or a Lego builder to an LBTQ ally, is out there. Making the free speech isn't the issue in 2025.
The question is: Who sees what, and whose opinions are shifted in what direction.
The big social networks controls the algorithms. Controlling who sees what is the new "speak", where you directly influence peoples minds simply by showing the right reels at the right moments.
We have always had propaganda and media leaning in different directions. But people would know they are looking at Fox News or The Daily Show or Pravda. With TikTo... you find that people's opinion change very gradually and without perception over the course of half a year. Never seeing "TikTok" -- only seeing "people like you" (which can be a function of time, and evolve) sharing their heartfelt opinions.
Not anything blatant of course. Blatant stuff does not change peoples opinions anyway. Just subtly bump some reels that has been proven to shift a demography in a certain direction.
TikTok has the means to do it -- all the data about what reels cause what effect on what demographic, if they just wanted to.
If TikTok is doing propaganda by subtly promoting some reels over others -- who would know? Why would they not be doing it and how can anyone know they are not already doing it?
I am not saying this is definitely happening. But any discussion that isn't treating all the social networks as weapons of mass propaganda that CAN be used is awfully naive.
And focusing on the "speech" thing seems so misplaced. It's all about who is heard and seen, and that is today all about power and algorithms.
> With TikTo... you find that people's opinion change very gradually and without perception over the course of half a year. Never seeing "TikTok" -- only seeing "people like you" (which can be a function of time, and evolve) sharing their heartfelt opinions.
> Not anything blatant of course. Blatant stuff does not change peoples opinions anyway. Just subtly bump some reels that has been proven to shift a demography in a certain direction.
> TikTok has the means to do it -- all the data about what reels cause what effect on what demographic, if they just wanted to.
> If TikTok is doing propaganda by subtly promoting some reels over others -- who would know? Why would they not be doing it and how can anyone know they are not already doing it?
> I am not saying this is definitely happening. But any discussion that isn't treating all the social networks as weapons of mass propaganda that CAN be used is awfully naive.
Sure. But that's something that applies to every social network. Do you think e.g. Instagram doesn't subtly adjust which videos it shows you? They openly acknowledge that they limit the spread of videos that they consider "hate speech", and of course which videos they classify as hate speech is a politically dependent question. Or maybe you think Zuckerberg's interests are more aligned with what's good for you personally than the CCP's?
Like with your examples of Fox News or The Daily Show or Pravda, if I can see all the networks then I at least can compare and consider. Closing my eyes to one of them makes me worse off, especially when it's the only one that's not run by a handful of very similar people with very similar interests.
I am not sure why you think I think Instagram etc. are innocent. For all I care all social media could be shut down.
My point was that the free speech discourse around this is naive. The "speech" in question is providing ammunition for the owners of the algorithms, who are doing the most important expression through how those algorithms are tuned.
My point was that social media should be discussed more like nuclear weapons are discussed.
It makes strategically sense for US to not have Chinese nuclear weapons/social media deployed on its soil/in the heads of its citizens; regardless of whether US nuclear weapons/social media is morally superior.
I think it's funny that it's going online because the new President told people to just ignore the law. Interestingly, he is a convicted criminal so it kinda makes sense he would just tell folk to ignore the law. And even more interestingly, the back the blue/law and order type folks will be thinking this is a great move.
Is TikTok currently available in the US App Store and PlayStore?
I can maybe understand ByteDance breaking the rules on a promise from the president elect that it will be alright.
I would, however, never expect Apple or Google to take that liability (while not getting much out of it).
edit: It seems that the TikTok app has indeed not been reinstated in the stores yet.
Not only that but will American advertisers take the risk of allowing their ads to continue showing to American audiences, or for us based payment processors handle in app payments
Embarrassing.
Entertaining. But then, I'm European far away from this orange man.
Nobody is far enough, not with that actual power. Everything is connected and ripple effects travel far.
Plus our european politicians are weak and largely clueless, we will fold in front of China and let them roll over our automotive industry. There is war at our doorstep and enemy who repeatedly claimed he will wipe out half of our population, yet our reaction is next to 0, both immediate and long term.
It's entertaining in the US too.
Yeah you say that, but I just saw Elonia Musk stirring the pot by calling for MEGA “Make Europe Great Again”, so it seems he’s trying to spread his cancerous views into your political systems now too.
The average Maga got the attention span of a braindamaged goldfish so obviously this is long forgotten.
[dead]
Seems I spoke too soon about the US taking a good decision for once when it comes to cyber and civil security. Well... I wonder what muskov will come up with now that twitter is still at large inaccessible in China but tiktok is welcome in the US.
TikTok is still blocked in China.
Douyin is the Chinese TikTok equivalent. China isn't opposed to the concept of short form video, they just want to segregate Chinese users into their own app
Sounds like a great PR success.
People love being on the in circle of something "naughty".
Did the US president just told a private company to go ahead and break the law?
That is so embarrassing for the Democrats. Trump comes out that he wants to ban it, Biden finally does on like, the last week of his presidency, just so Trump can come in and save it. Now the millions of people who make their living on TikTok and everyone else who simply likes the app are now thanking Trump for bringing back the app he wanted to ban in the first place.
Just staggering incompetence.
Least surprising outcome of 2025.
Truth be told, I did expect Trump to suck up to Putin first...
USA politics is pretty much a joke or reality tv these days so anything can happen. Not a presidential crypto rug pull though, tHaT wIlL nEvEr HaPeN.
Does anyone know what the actual bill that got signed was. All I can find is a bill that was passed by the house but stuck in the senate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protecting_Americans_from_Fore...
It passed in the House 352-65, and in the Senate 79-18, both in April 2024.
That didn't take long. Can we now roll back the bill that gave presidents the authority to unilaterally ban a service in the first place?
The president didn't ban it. Congress did, and the Supreme Court upheld their right to.
I am opposed to the ban fwiw, but being able to overrule it is a pretty big power grab for the president
Didn't the law passed by Congress give the president the power to deem a service owned in part by foreign entities as a national security threat?
I may very well have horribly misunderstood the situation, but I though Congress here only allowed the president to decide.
It’s still unavailable in the Apple App Store.
Trump should launch a Tiktok clone on Truth Social in 90 days when the reprieve expires. I'm surprised there wasn't a new platform ready to pounce on new users. Absolutely nuts that one of the biggest refugee destinations is literally named after a Mao-era propaganda tool.
But in all seriousness, there's 3 branches of government and 2 of spoken. Trump's voice should be moot. Hopefully he's put in his place by our institutions and shamed for attempting to subvert the system of checks and balances described by our constitution.
Chinese here, sorry for my poor English.
I want you to know that the name of the app is '小红书' (小 little 红 red 书 book), and the name of the propaganda tool is '红宝书' (红 red 宝 treasure 书 book).
I don't think there is such a "name after" thing. There are a lot of mixed reviews on Cultual Revolution, a "name after" would bring a lot of risks during the growth of the app.
Thank you for clarifying!
The english translations are similar enough that I assumed a connection.
He for sure pitched this, but his team does not have the skills to create this.
Correct me if I'm wrong but TikTok was never forced to shut down for US users, it was just going to be removed from the stores and unable to be updated.
Is it back on the stores or not? Because if not, nothing about the ban has changed, it's only that TikTok undid the decision that THEY took to shut down.
Yes, this is correct -- TikTok's own "shutdown" was never required by law. I'm not in the US so I can't check for myself, but from googling it still seems to be removed from both the Apple and Google stores.
If Apple/Google don't change their minds, TikTok won't be able to get any new US users, and won't be able to distribute updates to current US users. To continue using it in the current state, US users will have to keep the same phone and TikTok will have to continue supporting whatever last version(s) they're on indefinitely. (Modulo the few that might jump through VPN and app store locale setting hoops.)
And I don't see how Apple/Google could change their minds: the ban bill comes with a 5 year statute of limitations, so regardless of how convincing the Trump administration is in their promise not to enforce the law, the next administration inaugurated in January 2029 would still be able to impose the penalties on Apple/Google for 4 years of non-compliance. Those penalties would be cripplingly massive even for the world's largest companies (I'm reading an estimate of $850B [0]).
As far as I can tell, the only events that could end this are (1) TikTok finding and agreeing to sell to a US buyer or (2) Congress overturning the ban.
It's odd that people are talking as though the saga is over now...
[0] https://www.theverge.com/2025/1/19/24347325/tiktok-service-p...
Gotta turn it off long enough for people to notice, but not long enough for people to find another platform.
>supreme court says that tiktok might be a threat to national security
>yeah, let's just ignore that. Dance videos on tiktok are more important than security
That's so f-in absurd. I can't even wrap my head around why anyone would literally protest against the ban. I just hope that germany, or rather europe, will have such a ban, too, and that it get enforced properly.
National security is a load of crap. How can you still believe anything they say when the entire security establishment literally bold-faced lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction to justify a completely unnecessary war?
Right out of the KGB and FSB playbook: feed them so much lies from all directions they stop trusting anything at all.
Curious to see if this ends up increasing the userbase and TikTok's foothold in American culture.
Is it too conspiracy-theorist to notice that the timeline for this matches the $TRUMP grift that added significant $billions to our new president’s net worth?
Somebody invested $6 billion in Trump’s meme coin. There should be an investigation.
Nobody cares any more. We’re a long way from making Carter sell his farm. We’re a long way from the integrity of Nixon. We’re a long way from the fidelity of Clinton.
This is what the American people wanted.
Trump and team may be the biggest public relations masterminds of all time. They realize that the populous is fickle and easily won over with obvious stunts. Define the villains and play the hero. It keeps working for him over and over and over. Truly incredible.
It is easy to confuse a mastermind with somebody who is simply willing to break the law.
> Define the villains and play the hero.
There's a quote I can't find right now that goes something along the lines of "If you let somebody define the terms of your reality, you've made a sorcerer out of them, unless you catch the bastard real quick".
Trump to a T.
> There's a quote I can't find right now that goes something along the lines of "If you let somebody define the terms of your reality, you've made a sorcerer out of them, unless you catch the bastard real quick".
Four quotes that capture the essence of not letting others define your reality or exert control over your perception:
1. “He who defines the terms wins the argument.” - various thinkers.
2. “No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.” - Eleanor Roosevelt
3. “Until lions have their own historians, the history of the hunt will always glorify the hunter.” - Chinua Achebe
4. “Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.” - Jean-Paul Sartre
WWE President
I really hate Trump, but the guy is a media (read: not political) genius. I doubt there will ever be someone like him in the Republican, or any party again.
Calling him a genius isn’t quite accurate. He’s not a genius anything. But he does have orbiters who know what they’re doing. He’s mostly just a puppet.
A little over 100 years ago the massively popular party enemy #1 T.R. was running roughshod over the republican convention.
Also a fan of executive action over congressional consent. And the son of a wealthy father in new york.
And opposed by a Democratic party which was very much controlled (to a fault) by its machine.
That's roughly where the similarities end though. I think they'd have strongly diverged on key points such as a man's duty to his country in war, presidential pardons, and right in the *****.
[flagged]
But Trump started the ban.
That shoutout has the vibe of some Banana Republic corruption…
GOP in the US has constantly been fear mongering about social media bias, but what they really mean is they want their own ideas / bias and nobody else.
From China's perspective, I wonder if there's a workaround to sell 50% of TikTok to a US public company, and then through a few intermediaries purchase a large enough holding in _that_ company to give them a board seat or two.
I believe that they are required to have no more than 20% ownership by "foreign adversaries"
This whole charade has had me laughing since yesterday.
The Caesars of Rome often played these public games to make themselves look magnanimous, while at the same time consolidating power and control.
Julius Caesar's rise to power is one example.
So Tiktok is the slave that got the thumbs up?
sources?
Are they going to do this daily from now on? Turn off turn on, turn off turn on…
meh. i always thought the real reason for the ban was EVERYONE in the states who has had to deal with ByteDance walks away from the experience thinking they've been dicked. Or at least everyone I've talked with. In my own experience, we signed a deal with US/TikTok and started spending money on things to uphold our part of the bargain. Then ByteDance steps in and says "no. we're canceling this contract," and we point out, "uh... hey bevis... we just spent money on your behalf," and their response is "sucks to be you." The case has been in California courts for about 5 years. We may get our money back before TikTok/US goes out of business.
Ha, I guess Trump is the pro business president after all since he's so transparently open for business himself. At least as of now it seems Bytedance outsmarted the detractors.
Enjoy your CCP dripfeed while it lasts. This crap is going byebye.
[dead]
The TikTok ban is worse for national security. It's trading in an imagined threat for a real threat. Though Xiaohongshu is having a cute little cultural exchange between Chinese people and Americans, there's so much more Chinese propaganda on that platform. I got recommended a few videos talking about Chinese/American wargames and how Americans were done for due to ultrasonic missiles and naval capabilities. You never see anything like that on TikTok. And the only reason Americans are exploring that platform is because of the TikTok ban.
> I got recommended a few videos talking about Chinese/American wargames and how Americans were done for due to ultrasonic missiles and naval capabilities.
You get those on youtube as well, for every combination of large power, I'm not sure why that its own should be a red flag.
"But what about!?!?"
If a significant number of users were to join another foreign-owned platform with similar issues, it is likely that such platform would be banned as well, if it is not already banned under FACAA.
TikTok is an issue in large part due to its popularity.
There are probably x10 America's propaganda on every social media sites, counting right-wing conservative politics alone.
exactly. This is typical western hypocrisy.
It's only propaganda because it's "them".
> typical western hypocrisy
How is it typical of Western countries, and how is it hypocrisy? US companies already do strange things to comply with China's requirements of them, for example.
On today, the 19th, Trump isn't president yet and can't issue executive orders.
Ed: to be clear, the original title specifically mentioned an executive order.
[dead]
Timezones are always the doom of programmers.
It's not yet the 20th anywhere in North America.
It is in China though...
One person got the joke ...
you might read that as a signal about the quality of the ‘joke’
Variants of this have been around for a century.
Russian Prime Minister Medvedev comes to President Putin and nervously tells him to abolish these time zones.
- Why, Putin asks him?
- Ah, I can't find myself with these times:
- I fly to another city, call home and everyone is asleep,
- I last woke you up at 4 in the morning, but I thought it was only evening,
- I call Angela Merkel to congratulate her on her birthday and she tells me she had it yesterday,
- I wish the Chinese President a happy New Year, and he says it will be tomorrow.
- Well, these are just minor awkwardness, Putin answered him
- Do you remember when that Polish plane crashed with the president? I called them to express my condolences, but the plane hadn't taken off yet !!
I live in Virginia.
But developers of TikTok live in Shanghai
Trump still has to do the inauguration. Even a reptile should understand the basic procedures of office. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ina...
I suspect the U.S. will end up getting its way and TikTok will be divested of foreign ownership by the time this all shakes out.
Trumo also had thr option to kill Huawai and didnt. He stopped the sanctions just before the company bankrupted.
Now they know to make own OS
Keeping this up and we might need to start introducing version management tools to the U.S. government.
this is on the edge of becoming a shitshow...
The US has already jumped head first into the shit can.
All those ideals of democracy I learned about growing up in the US - checks and balances, the rule of law, land of opportunity. It's all become a massive joke.
Well it needed people to enforce those things and it needed people to vote. Both those things didn’t happen.
People voted.
Wait till you see US troops on the ground in Ukraine working hand in hand with russians, killing Ukrainians because Zelensky refused Trump "just give up" deal.
Where does this leave US federal privacy regulations? What can an app do with the data of US users?
That was never the issue, if it was, the US would simply force certain privacy legislation upon companies, like the EU did.
It's about the global monopoly on tech products that the US has, which is obviously threatened by Chinese competitors. You saw the exact same thing with Huawei.
Even if you think this is about protectionism rather than state sponsored espionage (I don't think many would agree with you) your comment makes little sense. Because if you wanted to enforce that kind of protectionism you would still do it under the guise of privacy or security. Meaning you would simply impose such laws that would make it impossible for TikTok to operate, while at the same time being good for privacy.
>Because if you wanted to enforce that kind of protectionism you would still do it under the guise of privacy or security. Meaning you would simply impose such laws that would make it impossible for TikTok to operate, while at the same time being good for privacy.
Well that's exactly what happened. Except it's just a pretense that it's about security or privacy, which is a very easy thing to do.
So Ericsson was banned together with Huawei I take it, and some non-Chinese apps are being investigated similar to TikTok?
No. This whole ”it’s just protectionism” doesn’t hold water for one second. Huawei has been banned in other places as well, and no other companies in the telecom were simultaneously banned. It’s just not good policy to build critical infrastructure using hardware from a Chinese company.
The only thing I would have respected Trump for was the TikTok ban and now I don't have any. Trump loves fake news and brain rot, I was naive to think he would keep TikTok banned.
Executive orders cannot supersede or go against the law. The courts would quite rightly shut him down.
Yes, but the president is the head of the executive branch, which includes the DoJ. He can simply instruct them not to prosecute.
That does leave companies like Oracle, who TikTok uses to host their content, in a weird position where they could be fined by future administrations for continuing to provide them service now.
However, the law does give the president the ability to give them a one-time 90 day stay of execution. So, theoretically, they could repeal the law in the next 3 months.
Through this law, Trump will consolidate control over social media.
Facebook and Instagram, via Mark Zuckerberg, and X/Twitter via Elon Musk, are already in Trump's camp and are helping him.
This law gives Trump leverage over TikTok - their access to the US market will likely depend on serving Trump's interests. Like X and Meta (and other SV companies) operating in other countries, they will comply with local oppression. It's incredible that the Democrats keep handing victory after victory to their opponents.
(Trump also is gaining extreme influence over professional news media, including Fox News and the WSJ, of course, but also ABC News, possibly CBS News, the Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, the LA Times, and many more. It may be time to stop the lazy criticism of the NY Times and start taking them seriously; they could be the only island left in the storm, and will be subject to extreme attacks.)
So to put it bluntly, sweet talking a president-elect can overturn a Supreme Court decision? Interesting political culture.
Hardly. A delay on the ban isn't tantamount to undoing the Supreme Court's decision.
It's good to be precise with terminology and facts, especially in legal matters.
explain how he (a private citizen) can give a 90 day extension on a deadline that is passed with criteria that can not be certified and had to have been already given to congress? Please be precise with terminology and facts in these legal matters.
He's not just any private citizen, he's the president elect who will be inaugurated in a day. I'm sure his word carries way more weight than mine.
I'm not privy to the specific words that were exchanged, so it's hard to be precise. But I imagine it was some form of Trump saying "by tomorrow, I will give you a 90-day extension. I have a gentleman's agreement with the current government that if you do not stop your services in the 24 hours between now and my inauguration, you won't face any issues, so please carry on and we will clean this mess up later".
If you want a private citizen analogy, it's similar to someone saying they won't press charges despite a third-party being in flagrant illegal behavior. In this case, it's the US government saying they won't press charges. Both Biden and Trump have said as much, if my understanding of the case is correct, and one can assume they have discussed this with the appropriate branches of government.
Trump does not have the authority to give a 90 day extension by the language in the law from my understanding. There was a provision for a single use 90 day extension that would require the president to certify 3 things (which currently has not been met and can not be met within days) and have that delivered to congress prior to the ban taking affect. The law gives no mechanism to provide an extension after the ban according to republican legislators.
He must simply _claim_ that the 3 requirements have been met according to his own interpretation of the facts on the ground. It doesn't mean that his interpretation must be correct; He has the discretion to provide the extension per the law.
If someone challenges his interpretation of the 3 requirements in court, then presumably he'd have to explain why he believed that to be the case[1], but he does not have to prove this certainty ex ante in order for the 90-day extension to be valid.
--------
[1]: IANAL but whether he can successfully prove it or not is also ultimately irrelevant given the SCOTUS recent interpretation of presidential power. If he's found "guilty" of making a bad interpretation of the certainty of the 3 requirements, what is really going to be his punishment? There's really nothing you can do against a sitting president with regards to the exercise of their executive power...
He does not need to simply _claim_, he must certify. And one of those is:
“there are in place the relevant binding legal agreements to enable execution of such qualified divestiture during the period of such extension."
This is a binary thing. No such legal agreement seems to exist. You also ignored the other parts of my comment about him missing the deadline in the law to apply the extension.
Johnson himself said they will enforce the law. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/speaker-johnson-2-...
"Certify" does not mean the same as prove with evidence. I don't think there's a specific threshold that has to be met there other than the parties agreeing it has been certified. It can even come down to as much as "trust me bro" from the president.
The definition of certify is literally "attest or confirm in a formal statement"
Besides, there's no process through which Congress would question or investigate whether the president really can or cannot certify whatever he claims about this matter.
[flagged]
The bill does not give the private citizen the authority to do this.
The president can, and he promises he will take said action.
This operation seems a bargain for buying Tiktok, nothing more. The main contradiction is preventing competition and being a monopoly. The government is trying to prevent more competition and create more confort zones for monopolies. They don't care about free speech. Finally, they are part of this business.
Large corporations blackmailing countries seems to be becoming more common. There was probably some of it going on throughout history (oil companies?, pharma?) but recently we've seen AT&T, Pornhub, TikTok, Google, Meta and others threaten to or actually stop services in areas that try to regulate them. There has been no legal reaction to this so far, rather companies "voluntarily" leave. Might we see large corporations seized in the future for blackmail?
Private companies are not obligated to offer services, and in the US the government cannot compel private companies to do so (except rare circumstances). "We will stop offering services if X does not happen" is not coercive, it's an ultimatum. Companies should not be expected to operate in a market hostile to them.
What about privatized utilities then? What prevents e.g. electricity or phone companies from shutting down when they don't like some rules? It's a little more nuanced than "all or nothing".
Good point. Nationalise essential services
Losing TikTok for a few hours or a day is perhaps going to make TikTok users more angry at the government than TikTok.
Losing electricity or phone service for a day is going to make people more angry at the utility or phone company, regardless of why the shutdown has happened.
And if a utility threatened to shut down service instead of complying with a new government regulation, you can bet the government would immediately jail anyone involved in that decision.
Covered under "except rare circumstances". Regulations for utilities, telecommunications, transportation, and financial services are the exception and not the rule.
But TikTok is an entertainment, not utility, company
Because it's endlessly profitable and very low risk to run a utility, the company's board is... unlikely to ever decide to do a stunt. For what payoff?
In cases like AT&T where they provide telecommunications infrastructure for much of the country, threatening a shutdown is coercive.
Maybe it's time we have a global government that can have more power than global corporations?
I'm torn on this, though, because it's not really the companies blackmailing the countries. It's the companies telling their users, "hey, your country is doing this, and if you don't want them to do this, make some political noise".
Sure, if that message is dishonest or manipulative, that's dangerous, but TikTok telling their US users that they're going to lose access to TikTok if they don't "do something" seems like a pretty reasonable use of free speech.
But at the same time, I don't like that companies have the clout to influence politics to the degree they do. But they have far more (and IMO often better) levers they can pull than what TikTok has done here, and I think those levers (campaign contributions, for one) are much more dangerous to democracy than stuff like this.
(For the record, I am loosely in favor of a TikTok divestiture or ban, though not for the reasons touted by the US government.)
Have we reached the point where we use gatorade to water our crops yet?
Worse. We have plastics in our blood from drinking gatorade.
The TikTok debate has always been about the balance between national security and free speech.
We found a compromise. TikTok will remain, all of its national security risks will remain. Also, the law that tramples free speech is upheld by the court, but will be blantently ignored and unenforced.
Everybody loses. This outcome is worse than anyone could have conceived.
- "Everybody loses. This outcome is worse than anyone could have conceived."
The outcome is *exactly* as anyone with a modicum of sense expected.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"—often paraphrased (sensibly!) as "deserve neither and *will lose both*." As you say: we've lost both—who could have predicted that? Yeah; well.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
There's nothing really novel about the instant situation. It's a classic, on repeat.
Not free speech. Amplification of speech and to an extent freedom of association. Speech is not being criminalized -- you can say the exact same things on a different forum. And the entity being constrained is a foreign actor [edit] with likely state security apparatus ties.
Free speech is satisfied in every country, then, because you can sit at home alone and scream whatever you want at your wall without consequences.
To respond to a comment which has now been deleted:
I don't care about the First Amendment specifically. The US constitution is not magical divinely inspired scripture. I care about the underlying principles of freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and freedom of association, regardless of how well or poorly those are reflected by a specific written law.
You can literally go to any other competing platform and shout the same thing from the rooftops.
No, you can't. TikTok was the only mainstream platform where pro-Palestinian content was allowed to go viral.
Allowed or encouraged?
This is the problem.
We can't be certain that a foreign actor couldn't destabilize our faith in our government by pushing pro-palestinian content.
A small push on a platform can snowball since creators take the stances that don't get them cancelled or want to mimic the popular opinion
I'm a 50+ average Joe who only watches Australian state media (ABC) and I've seen plenty of content that I find shocking from both Israel and Hamas and I came away with sympathy for the Palestinians caught in the middle.
Does that count as pro-Palestinian?
Lol where do you even get something so easily disproven like this? I care for neither Israel nor Palestine, but I see more or less equal coverage of both sides (not so much my side, funnily enough) on every platform.
Reddit is both anti-Israel and anti-Palestine depending on the sub. News channels will be one or the other depending on the slant and there's plenty on both sides. Most of instagram is people from both sides shouting at each other about how the other gets more representation/are more evil. Same with facebook. I don't use Twitter or any Twitter clones, but I assume Mastodon has a Palestinian slant while Twitter probably has a slight Israeli slant (shitposting aside). Even on HackerNews you'll see both stances often. I guess 4chan would have my stance, since they hate Israel because antisemitism but also hate Arabs.
Do people just make shit up like this for a laugh? I really don't get it, yet see it so often espoused.
> No, you can't. TikTok was the only mainstream platform where pro-Palestinian content was allowed to go viral.
Reddit shows pro-palestinian/anti-israel propaganda in the front page on a daily basis.
Also, the fact that Israel's invasion of Palestinian territories was an anti-Biden propaganda point that was boosted pretty hard doesn't exactly prove that the likes of China aren't pushing propaganda to destabilize the US. There was clearly a coordinated effort to force-fed the idea that Biden was pro-genocide and a warmonger, and Trump was the only possible candidate to push peace in Ukraine and Palestine.
If your loud agreement with a lie is disseminated far more widely than your loud agreement with a truth, does it feel like you have free speech?
> And the entity being constrained is a foreign actor
Genuine question from a non-American: does the 1st amendment only apply to US citizens?
The US constitution does not apply to citizens - it applies to the government.
Citizens in the US are implicitly allowed to do whatever they like, subject to laws that the government enacts. The constitution describes those areas where the government is allowed to pass laws. All other areas are off limits to the government, and left for the people to do as they like. To emphasize the point, the amendments specify certain areas that the government is extra-especially-not-allowed to create any laws about, like speech.
The extent to which this is observed today is quite dubious. There are lots of laws that the US government passes which have little to do with anything the constitution allows them to do - but they kinda hand-wave around that and gesture toward something, like the "commerce clause" or whatnot as justification.
But in theory - for any law passed - it is unconstitutional unless you can say exactly where in the constitution it is explicitly allowed.
* Having written all that, I will add that "government" above means the US Federal government, not all the other ones. State, local, have a lot of latitude to make whatever laws they want, unless a federal law specifically prohibits it.
> * Having written all that, I will add that "government" above means the US Federal government, not all the other ones. State, local, have a lot of latitude to make whatever laws they want, unless a federal law specifically prohibits it.
This is not entirely correct. In general many elements of the Constitution are incorporated and apply at all levels of government. It even outranks state constitutions where the two conflict.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_R...
In other words, states have a lot of latitude to make whatever laws they want, unless a federal law specifically prohibits it?
No, in other words, states and local governments are also bound by the Constitution in many of the the same ways that the federal government is.
The major difference is the Tenth Amendment, which sets the states apart by specifying that any powers not "delegated to" the federal government are reserved exclusively for the states. (In practice courts have found many "implied powers" that are not explicitly enumerated).
Federal laws are distinct from the Constitution.
No, those aren't other words for the GP's statement.
The Constitution, its Amendments, and decisions of the Supreme Court are not 'federal laws'.
It's not just US citizens, but per the supreme court "foreign organizations operating abroad possess no rights under the U. S. Constitution". In USAID v. Alliance for Open Society International specifically with regards to the first amendment.
---
However TikTok US here is a domestic organization operating domestically merely controlled by a foreign organization operating abroad, which complicates matters. It has rights.
Courts and laws don't need to stop their analysis at "is it a corporation registered in the US." It is a foreign-controlled organization, therefore it is treated as a foreign organization. If you have ever dealt with the defense contracting apparatus, you will know this is how it works.
By its wording, no, because it applies to "Congress". 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.
A later amendment is held to have "incorporated" this prohibition against the state governments as well, though that amendment doesn't actually specify anything in particular. ("No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.")
It is frequently argued that some act of the government violates the free speech rights of foreigners living abroad, which is to say that whatever it was the government did fell into the class of behaviors prohibited by the first amendment. People tend to find that argument weird; I don't know what its batting average is.
Summing up, nothing extends rights to foreigners, but since the first amendment is a prohibition on the government rather than a grant of rights to certain protected people, foreigners arguably enjoy equal protection.
The First Amendment enjoins only the US government.
So, usually in a representative democracy (republic or not), the judiciary power is supposed to check and limit the other two (to avoid a tyranny of the majority). You can have that done in two way: with "case law", the only way in some countries (like the UK): basically if a law is enforced against a minority, it will be enforced against the majority. Other countries added a consitution. Its use is to limit the executive and legislative power of the government: the legislative power is supposed to prevent the law/executive order from existing or being executed, and base that decision on the constitution.
TL:DR: no, it doesn't even apply to US citizen, only to US government.
PS: "tyranny of the majority" for some is a definition fascism, i disagree, to me it isn't even proto-fascism, it lack a weird mythos about internal enemies and a few other mythos. It's closer bonapartism, or cesarism at worst. To be clear i think it is a precondition to have fascism (I.E as long as your case law/consitution is enforced for everybody the same way, you aren't a fascist state).
The 1st Amendment applies to US citizens' freedom to read/receive communications from non-US citizens (or i.e. read books by non-American authors). That's not under dispute: the current SCOTUS ruling both acknowledges, and sidesteps, that.
Emphasis on US citizens
Even if it did, that doesn't matter here, since it's American TikTok users whose speech is being suppressed.
> Speech is not being criminalized -- you can say the exact same things on a different forum.
Yes, it's being suppressed. Criminalization is just one of the many coercive ways to censor something, but states have many tools in the box...
> Speech is not being criminalized -- you can say the exact same things on a different forum.
s/criminalized/supressed/ and message still holds true. You can still say the exact same things on a different forum.
It only holds true if you ignore the substance of the right, the message holds true even if no one can hear you in that other forum!
That may be why freedom of the press is also guaranteed.
Code is speech. By saying you can't distribute a particular app in the United States you're restricting speech.
"Code is speech" is absurdly reductionist in most cases.
Yes, the government censoring Tiktok's source code on Github would be a freedom of speech violation, but that's not what this is about, is it? See also: Tornado Cash. Publishing code facilitating money laundering is fine (you'll find the code still on Github!); running said code to facilitate money laundering isn't.
Or to go with an even more extreme example: Writing code for a self-aiming and firing gun is speech [1], running said code on a gun in your driveway isn't.
The fact that we are still debating such basics of the First Amendment here is baffling. This is almost as trivial as the other well-known limitations in my view (shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater etc.)
[1] At least at the moment, and as far as I know; I think we might see this type of speech being restricted in the same way that some facts about the construction of nuclear weapons are "innate state secrets".
I think it is largely about this.
American companies (Google and Apple primarily) have been told by the government that they cannot distribute binaries running certain code to Americans. That seems like the real 1st amendment issue to me and I was quite surprised to learn that ByteDance only claimed that their own 1st amendment rights were being infringed on (which personally I find to be flimsier).
EDIT: Tornado cash was taken down from GitHub though, so you don't have a point here
The code isn’t the main issue here, it’s the online platform. The apps were only banned as a means to access the platform, not fir the code they contain. The code would be largely useless without the platform infrastructure and data storage behind it.
Huh? It's up as a public archive on tornadocash/tornado-core as we speak.
> American companies (Google and Apple primarily) have been told by the government that they cannot distribute binaries running certain code to Americans.
Yes, in the same way that American companies and individuals are routinely prohibited by the government from distributing other binaries to Americans, most notably anything that circumvents DRMs as regulated by the DMCA.
I really don't think the people that drafted the First Amendment had apps in mind when they thought of "speech", and would probably consider them something more like machinery (a printing press, a radio (not a radio station!) etc.) Interpreting Tiktok as a type of newspaper (which are widely protected even in democracies without an equivalent to the First Amendment) is much less of a leap of faith compared to considering an iOS executable speech.
Interesting, I didn't follow the tornado cash case super closely, but I do recall it being taken off GitHub for a short time.
So I would also argue that restricting DRM bypassing software is a violation of the 1st amendment and, more importantly, that it's a bad thing to restrict.
We'll never know what they would have thought, but I'll add that actual plans for machinery are definitely speech. We certainly do restrict these plans, with ITAR most notably, and I think it's reasonable to draw that line somewhere.
Note that I never said banning TikTok was as bad idea, just that it restricted speech by way of limiting distribution (which oddly looks unconsidered in the supreme court case), which it absolutely does. I'm uncomfortable with this level of power being granted to the government, but given that TikTok is obviously a spying/malware delivery tool by a foreign borderline hostile government I think it's probably warranted.
I think not being somewhat disturbed by the United States government restricting distribution of an application is a bit weird TBH. That's a huge power to have and can definitely be abused, especially if it's made easier to do so in the future.
Does this apply for malware? Trojans? Websites that host child pornography?
Or does it just apply to the brainrotting addiction machine that shoves 800 videos a minute at teenagers?
Note that I didn't say I thought the ban was unwarranted
The liberty in that example being raising enough taxes to properly fund our government so people can just go about their lives.
You can no more riase taxes to properly fund government than you can fill a bucket with no bottom.
One only need to look at the Harris campaign to see that the political class in the us is fundamentally innumerate as well as incapable of making a cost benefit analysis.
One only needs look at any administration after 1980.
https://www.thebalancemoney.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306#t...
The only presidential administration that produced a non-deficit budget was Bill Clinton's second term (~97-00).
Probably because Ross Perot mostly self-funded a third party campaign centered around the national debt and had received 8% of the vote (and 19% in the previous election).
You are missing the point. Benjamin Franklin's quote is about taxation (well at least some people argue):
https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famou...
People quote it in the wrong context.
There's a metaculus prediction of whether TikTok will be lawfully banned on 1/20, and they were 99.9% confident it would be in effect. (https://www.metaculus.com/questions/31247/tiktok-ban-in-effe...)
I personally picked 40% because I couldn't image a change of this sort being consistent with today's political reality.
That said, the fine print of that prediction can be interpreted that the ban is "in effect" even if it not enforced and has no legal liability. I doubt all the predictors were hanging their hat on that fine print when they predicted, though.
I've never understood that quote. Is it ok to give up essential liberty to gain a large, permanent safety? If so, how large and how permanent does it have to be to qualify?
I'm also a little unclear on which liberties are essential, versus those that are merely nice to have. We all give up the liberty of driving on the wrong side of the road, and nobody seems to mind.
I also find it comical that banning TikTok is the red line for folks when the NSA and other government agencies have been acting with impunity when it comes to harvesting data for decades now.
People don't care about most things because there are a practically infinite number of things one could care about.
But when you ban something 9 figures of people happily use, with some small chunk of that even being people making a living off of it, people will care about that because it directly and visibly affects them.
Bread and circus.
If I were an US citizen this would be the most worrying aspect to me.
Are the congressmen so incompetent that they didn't see this coming? This backfired horribly for them in multiple ways... unless this was somehow part of a master plan my simple mind can't comprehend?
Did it somehow not backfire and I'm just being led to believe so?
It’s literally pay to play with the new administration which is why it doesn’t feel coherent. He’s being courted by Meta to ban and TikTok to not ban.
The elite have always known the value of media and propaganda. TikTok could easily sway electorate decision making in the same way as Meta, X, and YouTube. The US oligarchs have no control over a sizable social media platform. The data security and privacy concerns are theater. The very same logic we use for TikTok applies to our own apps and social media. The only distinction is the false premise they have our interests in mind.
Are congressmen this incompetent? Yes. Are they bought by adversaries? Yes. Are they just humans who are as equally manipulated as you? Yes.
Did Trump get more money? Yes. Plan success.
[flagged]
when the NSA and other government agencies
Because, and I hate to say it, they're our snooping government agencies. I'd rather it be them that have access to all my data than the CCP apparatus.
The assumption (whether right or wrong) is that the NSA and other government agencies are at least doing it to keep Americans safe. And I think there's an assumption (again, whether right or wrong) in the general public that the NSA doesn't harvest the data of Americans themselves – or if they are harvesting the data of Americans, then they're Americans who are up to no good.
I would say moreso it’s that the NSA is at least on some level beholden to the will of the U.S electorate.
Foreign governments not so much.
That's a great point, I'd agree with that.
The issue isn’t data harvesting, and it’s unclear to me why people getting this wrong.
The issue is a foreign government having access to that data, to installed software on millions of phones, and foreign control of the primary information source for tens of millions of Americans.
You're analogizing the freedom to access the internet to driving on the wrong side of the road?
The point of the analogy wasn't to say those two things are the same. It was reductio ad absurdum, a totally valid proof technique in math and logic.
If person A says "X implies Y", then person B points out that X would also imply obvious nonsense Z, it doesn't mean that B is saying Y and Z are the same, or even that Y isn't true. They're just pointing out that X is too general to possibly be true.
The context here was Indian raids. Some rich land owner wanted to pay a one time fee. Benjamin Franklin was saying a 1 time fee wasn't enough - and it would only offer temporary safety rather than ongoing safety higher taxes would offer.
This essential liberty was freedom from being killed. Pretty fucking essential.
That's quite interesting. I'd expect a lot of people to say "the freedom to keep my money" is absolutely essential.
We give up that right in exchange for the permanent safety that a government is supposed to grant. Life is presumably more fundamental than money, but if it's the only truly essential liberty, there is a lot of room to give up others.
On the broadest strokes it makes sense. We gave up the liberty of truly owning the land so the government can build houses on them. From there we more or less are rented the land and almost everyone pays a tax for it.
Homeowners have some power. But if the government really needs to (modern example includes building a new railway), They can elect to forcibly pay you and seize it (eminent domain).
>We all give up the liberty of driving on the wrong side of the road, and nobody seems to mind.
Auto transportation was never a right to begin with. As inconvenient as it is, you are free to walk wherever you want without trespassing. Even across a road. But there's a line when you start to simply endanger others by say, walking on a road at 5 mph.
The free speech argument is ridiculous to me. The content wasn’t at issue; the ownership of the platform was.
You can legally the same content anywhere else, and Tik Tok would not be under fire if it were not owned by one of a handful of countries.
>The content wasn’t at issue
You sure about that one? (https://www.axios.com/local/salt-lake-city/2024/05/06/senato...)
Obviously the transfer of ownership was always about the content, and implicitly the fact that if a Chinese company owns it, the US has no control over it. Opinion making in the US is always implicitly enforced, not explicitly.
There's a great bit of an old interview with Noam Chomsky talking to an American reporter in which the reporter asks Chomsky: "You think I'm lying to you, pushing a US agenda?" and he responds: "No I think you're perfectly honest, but if you held any other beliefs than you do you wouldn't be sitting in that chair talking to me"
this is the platform version of that concept.
Frankly, I’m not taking seriously an Axios article.
The content wasn’t not outlawed; the platform was not outlawed.
Some aspect of the platform’s ownership has been outlawedd. That’s pretty different.
You didn't even engage with what I said. You dismiss statements of a US senator because of the paper that reports them?
Please address the actual argument, namely that in the US, when you hand platforms to people like Zuckerberg, you don't need to do any actual censoring because American business leaders change their political opinions in line with the sitting administration the way other people change T-Shirts. That is the point of the sale, anybody who is not utterly gullible can see it from a mile away.
On a Chinese owned TikTok Americans get information presented to them, whether intentionally or authentically, that the US powers that be do not like. There is no other security argument, data was already managed by Oracle in the US, the app was technically separated from its Chinese equivalent Douyin.
I engaged directly with what you said. Namely,
>Obviously the transfer of ownership was always about the content
I’m struggling to see why you say I didn’t.
> you don't need to do any actual censoring because American business leaders change their political opinions in line with the sitting administration
I think this is blatantly not true. Instagram, reddit, and others host a TON of anti-current-administration content.
Now, I’d like to discuss your assertion that there is no other security argument with a series of questions. I do not believe even a casual observer can uniformly answer “no” to the following;
Do you think it is likely that CCP has access to the data obtained by Tik Tok on US phones?
Do you think the US government warnings and security audit results were based on real concerns and findings?
Do you think it is a national security risk for millions of Americans to run CCP controlled code on their phones?
Do you think CCP is able to control the Tik Tok recommendation algorithms to promote their interests, possibly at the expense of American interests?
> I do not believe even a casual observer can uniformly answer “no” to the following;
The only one I wouldn't uniformly answer "no" to is the last one as there's no real evidence for the first two and that one is at least in principle possible but what's important is that private American citizens running entertainment apps on their personal phones isn't a "national security issue".
Running TikTok on government phones in Langley probably is so banning an app like this from government devices is fair enough, but the interest of any individual American is that they have free access to services, domestic or foreign, even if it's literal propaganda because they're the ones who are supposed to make that judgement. Hell even if it's Red Star OS from North Korea and they want to run it on their personal computer, they should be able to.
American interest isn't a synonym for interest of the state department, because if that's the case you're living in a security state (ironically like China) and not a free country.
You didn't respond to the point at all and just repeated your original point.
I responded directly to this
> Obviously the transfer of ownership was always about the content
Perhaps I should have quoted it so that it was clear.
I just took the liberty to delete TikTok and remove it from my life regardless if it comes back.
Thats funny, I took a look at publicly available harms from various social media apps and deleted Meta apps.
¿Por Qué No Los Dos?
Why stop at two? X seems to just be crazy person x says crazy thing y, so no problem adding that to my dns blacklist, fb and insta are as you say, just as obvious as tiktok. SEO results are dominated by AI vomit blogs, nothing to see there so searech engines are useless. LLMs seem to be mostly ok for finding things right now, I'm sure they will figure out how to mess that up soon enough though. YouTube is really useful for figuring out how to fix my <insert thing broken in my house>. But other than that is just the prototype the other stuff was based on. For news I look at news sources that cost money, wsj, economist etc. because then there is at least a chance that I myself am not the product. For finding music I ask local musicians who they like and follow those referrals a few deep. For seeing funny pet antics I look at my pets. To learn more about tech I come here and follow links.
Unlike TikTok, X is an American social media platform. By default, It is protected under free speech rights. TikTok is Chinese and doesn't get to play that card. End of story.
That doesn't keep them off my dns blacklist though. Seems like whatever card tiktok played was good enough to get tomorrow's administration to change course.
If the Democrats field a candidate that is willing to debase themselves with a stupid dance that goes viral, I feel there may be a change of heart. Assuming Trump doesn't manage to run for a third term.
[flagged]
That quote was about making the state stronger and able to demand more from citizends.
I think that potential EU legislation can and should take this as a cautionary tale.
The EU has the advantage that their politicians don't all own gigantic shares in any social media companies (because the EU doesn't have any), so they are afforded the rare luxury of actually voting for the good of the people. That's why the EU has decent data privacy laws.
The TikTok ban would've been far less problematic if they had created legislation for all companies that curtailed data trading and increased user privacy. But that was never the goal.
How so?
I was thinking:
1. Banning media based on alleged (or real) foreign interference is a very thin line
2. Banning and "unbanning" media based on vague accusations can be exploited for self-serving economical or political interests, which long-term hurts any kind of credibility of media as a whole. And, like it or not: we depend on media. We're not living in self-sufficient communes, at least most of us don't.
3. What made TikTok an issue in the first place: foreign interference (see 1) and problematic content, the policy causes for this probably include insufficient moderation and lack of court accountability. Then there's the question of algorithmic bias: I think this is not a simple question, e.g. is Instagram Reels technically the same or if not, what are the most important differences between their recommendation algorithms?
Banning foreign tech can be massively unpopular and give a huge tailwind to populists who promise to unban it.
Except that no one voted to give up this liberty nor purchase this "safety". The oligarchs determined that they wanted to purchase power and "elected" to take our liberty.
That quote has to do with taxation.
and is relevant for more than original intent.
censorship, and similar constraints on free speech, just hide the problems of society so you are unable to act on possible threats as a policymaker.
Different outcome if Harris wins the election though.
Is it possible that TikTok solved their problem by purchasing $6 billion worth of Trump’s meme coin?
He's making tens of millions of Americans (especially including those who may not have otherwise been political) quite fond of him, bringing back a platform that has definitely been a net positive for him overall, undoing one of his predecessors 'achievements', and so on.
He came out against a ban on TikTok long ago (after initially being in support) and made it clear he'd work to reverse it the second the ban bill started gaining momentum.
Did he not start this entire process during his own presidency? It’s spectacle for the masses and real tv scripts being played out in the White House.
So he can make a call and cancel a border security bill, but can't make the same call to cancel the TikTok portion of the spending bill before it passed?
That could simply be a side benefit and not worth Trump making a "deal" to rescue TikTok from an existential threat. Icing on the cake.
B I N G O
> Is it possible that TikTok solved their problem by purchasing $6 billion worth of Trump’s meme coin?
Yep
Soldiers were already sharing videos of aircraft carriers on Rednote which hasn't gone through the whole shenanigans of paying Larry Ellison to host it on Oracle Cloud and so on. The national security risk is the US military apparently not being able to convince its own soldiers to be thoughtful about cybersecurity.
This is why Blackberry used to sell phones without cameras and microphone switches, and enterprise-centric OS images. Crazy that regular iOS/Android phones leaking data 24/7 to a million 'partners' are freely allowed at military locations. Pictures and video uploaded to social media include EXIF data with geolocation!
How does it matter where those videos were shared? Material is either classified or unclassified, it doesn't matter if the WarThunder forums (for example) are moderated by US nationals or not.
It's not about where the videos are posted, it's about having apps that collect exact GPS position of smartphones that soldiers carry while the position of the ships they are on is classified. The fact that there's videos is just the "proof" that they have installed such apps that exfiltrate things like their location, for example.
Famously, soldiers wanted to use strava in secret military bases: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/28/fitness-tracki...
If you want to secure sailors' phones you are going to have to do a lot more, and at the same time much less, than ban or transfer the ownership of one single app that happens to be used by over a hundred million civilians.
GasBuddy (and Life360) just sold that same location data to brokers, which Allstate bought and used to adjust premiums. Practically every app that is given access to location info is selling it, and it's widely available to anyone with the money to buy.
Maybe we should have some sort of General Data Protection Regulation law instead of hand-wringing about social media.
GasBuddy, at least, said that they could (read: would) sell the location data that they collected after opt-in. It was part of the agreement.
I can't imagine a world where it would be illegal for two parties to agree to sell the location data that one of them generates.
That’s the world we live in today. Under many countries’ privacy laws, it’s not legal to sell PII to a third party that you collected for a specific other purpose (e.g., fulfilling the primary purpose of the app). The problem is that they do it anyways.
What problem?
If I agree to let FantasyCorp sell my location data, and then they follow through with our agreement and actually sell it, then there's no problem here that I can see.
Why are soldiers allowed to bring GPS-enable consumer smartphones along with them on top-secret deployments in the first place?
It’s not top secret deployments, it’s any deployments. All deployments need to maintain a level of operational security. Also if you expect a bunch of people in the 18-29 age range to go without internet for 9 months to 2 years, you’re kidding yourself. The tradeoff is between operational security and morale and if you’re in military leadership, you really don’t want unhappy troops on your hands.
I mean, I do completely expect deployed military personnel to adhere to rules and limitations that are much more rigorous than those they'd experience in civilian life.
I'd be astonished if I learned that soldiers on duty were totally free to do as they please the expense of operational security simply because that's what people in their broad demographic category are accustomed to.
I'd be equally astonished if I found that military recruitment was based on enlisting cross-sectional samples of demographic categories, without regard for the capacities and attitudes of the specific individuals seeking to join. I know for a fact that people are rejected for enlistment for all sorts of reasons.
And I'm sure that the military can find ways of enabling deployed personnel to use the internet without sacrificing security or oversight -- for example by requiring them to use secured military-issue computers and smartphones, or by having an inspection or vetting process for hardware and software when soldiers want to use their own devices.
I hope you also acknowledge the absurdity of suggesting that the government should apply essentially the same restrictions to the whole of society that the military couldn't apply within its own sphere of control.
> And I'm sure that the military can find ways of enabling deployed personnel to use the internet without sacrificing security or oversight -- for example by requiring them to use secured military-issue computers and smartphones, or by having an inspection or vetting process for hardware and software when soldiers want to use their own devices.
Of this we are in 100% agreement. It’s totally doable, but I am observing that today it is not a solved problem in the US military.
> I hope you also acknowledge the absurdity of suggesting that the government should apply essentially the same restrictions to the whole of society that the military couldn't apply within its own sphere of control.
I’m a little confused about the wording of this but I am reading this as saying that the military should be able to apply its own standards that are stricter than what civilians are accustomed to. I agree, and it does. But I’m suggesting that it doesn’t happen in a vacuum and that enforcement is never perfect. A blanket ban on personal devices (I’m positive this has been tried before) would both be unpopular and difficult to enforce. It would be a mistake to discount the cost of poor morale. And it would be a mistake to ignore the outsized effect that poor morale has on middle management — the ones who are responsible for enforcing said rules.
I hope it’s clear that my commentary is entirely descriptive and not prescriptive. Full disclosure: I’m former US military enlisted and also currently working in a space adjacent to improving operational security.
You're constructing a straw man without being curious about the things you yourself are missing.
Or in HNism, you're "Why don't they just..." without considering the reasons those solutions might be more challenging than they first appear.
I suggest you read parent comment about balance and tradeoffs inherent in forward deployment again.
> You're constructing a straw man without being curious about the things you yourself are missing.
Could you point out the straw man in question? I feel like everything I posted above is a direct response to arguments I gleaned from your previous comment, and certainly didn't intentionally attribute any argument to you that I didn't think you were actually making.
> I suggest you read parent comment about balance and tradeoffs inherent in forward deployment again.
I've reread it a couple of times, and I'm afraid I'm not seeing any hidden propositions in it that I missed the first time around. Could you be more explicit about what you're getting at?
My comment about finding ways to enable internet access in a more controlled way was specifically targeting your argument about the security vs. morale tradeoff, and my point about the absurdity of trying to make that tradeoff for society as a whole in a scenario where you imply the military can't make it for its own operations still seems to apply here.
> Could you point out the straw man in question?
>> I'd be astonished if I learned that soldiers on duty were totally free to do as they please the expense of operational security
The post you were replying to didn't suggest anything about total freedom. You're exaggerating their words to make your argument easier.
>> I'd be equally astonished if I found that military recruitment was based on enlisting cross-sectional samples of demographic categories
Given initial enlistment age ranges between 17 and 30/40 [0], you get cohorts from specific generations.
Kids who are 17 now were born ~2008, which is just starting to be kids with smartphones and mobile devices their entire lives.
No cross-sectioning required: just upper and lower age limits.
>> And I'm sure that the military can find ways of enabling deployed personnel to use the internet without sacrificing security or oversight
I'm going to assume you're honestly ignorant of military networks and field device management at scale.
The military runs segregated networks. Secure networks require approved devices; those devices are extremely locked down. There are often also public internet networks for MWR reasons. Unmanaged devices can be used on those networks. Furthermore, in most non-naval deployments, terrestrial cellular data networks are also accessible.
>> for example by requiring them to use secured military-issue computers and smartphones, or by having an inspection or vetting process for hardware and software when soldiers want to use their own devices.
Military IT is already overloaded managing the vast number of secure devices and networks, so having them manage consumer devices in any way is a non-starter.
For scale context, the DoD PKI includes ~4 million active CAC cards. [1]
Unmanaged consumer devices + CAC are also often used for less-privileged interaction with the military (e.g. HR functions).
> My comment about finding ways to enable internet access in a more controlled way was specifically targeting your argument about the security vs. morale tradeoff
And the responses that you're getting are that these are non-trivial problems for real-world reasons.
Furthermore, you seem to have a lack of understanding about how much it sucks to be stuck in a forward base, and how important maintaining morale is to command authority and force effectiveness.
PS: Also, look at user names. I'm not the author of the original comment you replied to.
Because consumer smartphones are a cheap and logistics-light way to improve morale on deployments.
It's not easy to put a McDonald's in the middle of the desert.
I'm sure there are many other cheap and easy ways to improve morale on deployments, but that many of those options are eschewed and/or only offered with oversight because they would otherwise risk operational security.
I'm not sure what to make of the argument that the military is unable to find any alternative to consumer smartphones without even RMM implemented as a means of providing for troop morale, therefore the government should regulate social media for the entirety of society as a means to ensure the security of military maneuvers. This just sounds nuts to me.
I'm going to try to put this in as few words as possible.
>> Why are soldiers allowed to bring GPS-enable consumer smartphones along with them on top-secret deployments in the first place?
That was your original question.
It wasn't 'Should we ban TikTok to enhance military security?'
When people answered your original question with relevant points, you reached back to banning TikTok.
This entire conversation is about the TikTok ban. My question about why deployed troops are allowed to use social media apps on consumer devices was in response to preceding comments insinuating that banning TikTok is justifiable in light of its potential to damage operational security if military personnel are using it in the field, and was targeted at understanding the implied premise that the problem couldn't be solved by much more proximate, narrowly tailored approaches.
You probably should have phrased your question differently, then.
It sounded like you just didn't understand why soldiers are allowed to bring GPS-enable consumer smartphones along with them on deployments.
Are ship locations classified? I doubt China has difficulty keeping track. They have satellites too.
Generally, no. Specifically, yes.
https://news.usni.org/category/fleet-tracker
The more valuable signal from app data would likely be op tempo and what phase of a deployment / mission a ship is in.
Aside from inferred reasons for changes in patterns of behavior, one going emcon and suddenly dropping all users off an app means something.
Also, modern satellites are great, but even carrier battle groups are really small in the Pacific.
App usage not only leaks location, but number of troops; something which is not readily detectable by satellite.
Wouldn’t the crew of a ship be pretty constant though, for this example?
The crew would be relatively constant, but ships also carry attachments that are based on the types of missions they are going to complete. So the actual number of passengers would vary.
The Onion Router was invented by the Navy to make ship location tracking hard with visibility of some of the network, so it's classified at times. More importantly, just because you have satellites doesn't mean that it's easy to pick all of that out all the time or to be entirely certain of which ship/which mission, etc. Making it harder is better even if it can't be made impossible outside of subs.
They almost certainly are while on deployment, despite it being really obvious where a ship is.
Oceans are vast, sometimes there are clouds and storms.
Clouds and storms don’t really help you with a SAR satellite.
Plus these apps track you everywhere so the Chinese have your GPS and you're on the aircraft carrier. No need for fancy satellites they can just have that data and track the military and other government employees 24/7. I guarantee you no American company can track Chinese military or Chinese employees 24/7 wherever they're at this is a one-way deal it's not good for the US.
> The national security risk is the US military apparently not being able to convince its own soldiers to be thoughtful about cybersecurity.
That's not really a new problem. The problem is as old as time, even before the internet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_lips_sink_ships
When I was deployed in 2011 we didn't carry cell phones because:
1. Jammers will render your antenna unusable or potentially damage your device.
2. The country that controls the infrastructure now has the inside scoop on who you are, what you're doing, and where you are. Even if they country is an ally, it only takes a few individuals to start mass exfiltration.
TikTok was turning into infrastructure for social dialogue except that it had a new capability compared to the cell phones of 2011: it could be manipulated at scale, and quickly with the combination of algorithms and outrage culture.
By that measure they should ban the war thunder forum before tiktok
It's hopeless to expect every member of the military to be thoughtful about cybersecurity. If they'll openly share nuclear secrets & base protocols publicly, anything is fair game.
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2021/05/28/us-soldiers-expos...
This isn’t the only risk. There is also the problem of radicalising people. This has been a big problem in Europe.
> The TikTok debate has always been about the balance between national security and free speech
And now about how the sitting president can profit from brokering it
There's something in this argument about national security, that if taken to its logical conclusion, would result in a world most people would consider upside-down:
If social media owned by foreign companies is a national security threat, then wouldn't that essentially make FB, X, YouTube a threat to like every other nation? Why not throw wikipedia in too? So now any nation can legitimately see any other source or collector of information as a national security threat and ban it at will? Taken to the logical conclusion, every nation should be enveloped by its own digital borders.
To me, it's the popular sentiment alone, for example people feeling sad and upset TikTok's gone and feeling happy that it's back, that's preventing this dismal future, otherwise governments would block apps on a whim. And this I'd say is a win.
This isn't about free speech. Tiktok's statement actually provides all of the necessary context. China pays influencers. The tiktok ban is not about what you are allowed to say, but who is allowed to pay you to say it. This is a very different question.
Can someone please explain how the law tramples free speech? Isn’t it completely legal to shut down a stadium or arena?
Additionally, why have we all forgotten that China does not allow any of our social media companies within their borders?
If we’re in the business of free trade, there’s no reason to let them operate a social media company in the US until they’ve opened their market to us.
It's an absolute win for the content creators who relied on TikTok for their livelihoods and the small businesses who relied on it for marketing. And for Gen Z, for whom content creation is one of the few viable ways to earn a good income now that tech grad hiring has completely collapsed.
It’s kind-of not. A ban would have given them all the opportunity to go wherever their audience went. The demand for their content wouldn’t simply disappear, it’d just be displaced to some other platform. And said other platform would almost certainly be less capricious and better for creators than TikTok.
> This outcome is worse than anyone could have conceived.
This is the maximally stupid outcome, so I suppose we should have seen it coming. I guess the conclusion is going to involve Trump taking an ownership stake in TikTok, possibly by swapping it for $TRUMP cryptocurrency or Truth Social shares something.
I think people are not quite ready for the level of klept we’re about to see.
On the contrary, we've even following the Pelosy trading scheme for quite a while.
This would go way above insider trading for mere millions.
Try billions. Pelosy alone is worth around half a billion.
If Trump walks away from all this as a single-digits billionaire, I'll consider this all to have been business as usual.
I'll go ahead and take the doomsaying with a grain of salt and expect, roughly, the exact same thing as last time.
Spare me the, "but this time it's different" without any good reason to expect it.
I genuinely hope you’re right.
The klept will probably escalate until a fellow billionaire gets hit. It's going to get really weird.
We can blame the state of New York for this, who convicted Trump of falsifying business records and then handed him a sentence of .. nothing.
> then handed him a sentence of .. nothing.
Nothing yet: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czr72m57e1jo
Which is why he is never going to voluntarily step down, and has made it clear he is never going to voluntarily step down.
There would literally be an instant revolution by 50% of the US upon such an act. Let's please avoid the inflammatory rhetoric.
Have you not listened to what he has clearly said? Including plans to pardon folks for Jan 6th?
Don’t worry, I’m sure there will be some kind of ‘emergency’ this time.
There was no ‘instant revolution’ on Jan 6th. Near as I can tell, if that capital police officer hadn’t shot the woman climbing the barricade…
But then I watched it live on CSPAN, so I got to see it for myself instead of being able to be told afterwards that I didn’t see what I saw.
This despite the brilliant defense argument of “that wasn’t fraud because everyone should have known I was lying”…which was also the Fox News defense…and is presumably how the executive branch officially works as of tomorrow.
> The klept will probably escalate until a fellow billionaire gets hit.
The klept will not spare the billionaires. There’s a reason Meta’s entire public posture has changed since Nov 6, there’s a reason the WaPo didn’t publish an endorsement. This isn’t a class thing - Trump is not a billionaire defending his fellow billionaires, he’s a mob boss in charge of the state.
He's a jester in a royal court peopled by billionaires.
What should be the penalty for mislabeling a payment to a pornstar in the records of your own family owned company?
Nothing unless you’re running for public office. The rules are understandably different when you’re beholden to the people. Personally I’m ok with this distinction. Politicians should have to give up some rights that private citizens have and be held to a higher bar to guard against the tendency towards corruption that comes with greater influence and power.
He wasn’t running for public office at the time.
And maybe we should have a law that punishes politicians for paying money to cover up affairs. But we don't have that. Trump's prosecution was, instead, a triple bank shot combining three different vaguely written laws in a combination that makes the Double Irish with Dutch Sandwich look straightforward.[1]
As CNN's head legal analyst Elie Honig explained: "The charges against Trump are obscure, and nearly entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever."
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-was-convicted-...
Yes he was. The payment in question happened after he launched his campaign -- in late October of 2016.
[EDIT to respond a bit to the now-expanded parent, which was only a single sentence when I replied]: I do totally agree that the hush money prosecution was a bit of a stretch, and wouldn't have happened if Trump wasn't famous. You're just wrong about it applying to a time when he wasn't running for office.
Except the charges related to business records dated February 14-December 5, 2017.
My recollection is that the prosecution was a combination of the mis-labeling of the payments, and the mis-labeling being in service of concealing a (federal) crime. Said different crime being the original hush money payment, which happened during the campaign. I.e. if he hadn't done something illegal while running for public office, there'd be nothing to charge him with.
Now, it'd be better if he simply got prosecuted for the initial crime. Absolutely agree there. But I'm not sure that "I can avoid prosecution for campaign misdeeds by committing them and then waiting to pay people back until after the campaign" would be a great precedent.
Hush money payments are not illegal, even for candidates. Congress has an $18 million slush fund for settling claims of sexual harassment: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00/20240613/117426/HHRG.... Those all have NDAs.
The judge summarized the case for the jury as follows:
> The allegations reflect in substance, that Donald Trump falsified business records to conceal an agreement with others to unlawfully influence the 2016 presidential election. Specifically, it is alleged that Donald Trump made or caused false business records to hide the true nature of payments made to Michael Cohen, by characterizing them as payment for legal services rendered pursuant to a retainer agreement. The People allege that in fact, the payments were intended to reimburse Michael Cohen for money he paid to Stephanie Clifford, also known as Stormy Daniels, in the weeks before the presidential election to prevent her from publicly revealing details about a past sexual encounter with Donald Trump.
That summary implies that paying off Stormy Daniels "to prevent her from publicly revealing details" about the affair was the unlawful act. But under what law? And why wasn't he just charged with that law directly?
The judge actually summarized it in vastly more detail than you say there. Take a look at the jury instructions if you want to see exactly what the theory was: https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People%20v.%2... (starting around page 29, or again around page 44)
Basically, the crime alleged was violating a NY election law saying that you can't try to influence an election through "unlawful means". They provided a sampling of said unlawful means: violating federal campaign contribution limits, falsifying other business records, and violating state tax laws about how the reimbursement to Cohen was handled. The jurors didn't have to unanimously agree about which of those things they think he actually did.
The reasons to not charge him for those separately would seem to be respectively: 1. that's the feds job, 2. statute of limitations expired for the non-felony falsifications during his presidency when he couldn't be charged with anything, and 3. Cohen directly committed the tax crime so all Trump's guilty of is conspiracy to commit a really niche bit of tax misrepresentation that didn't actually cost anything.
The unambiguous bit is that he definitely falsified business records, and so the squabble is over whether he's guilty of a misdemeanor or a felony. It was apparently persuasive to the jury that he did the felony version.
> Basically, the crime alleged was violating a NY election law saying that you can't try to influence an election through "unlawful means".
That just gets you back to the temporal problem we started with. As you say, the only "unambiguous bit" from the jury's implicit fact-finding "is that he definitely falsified business records." But he did that after he won the election. How can you influence an election through unlawful conduct that happened after the election was resolved?
Insofar as the case was framed as election manipulation, you need some conduct prior to the election. Which is why, as you observe, the prosecutor had to add a third layer of uncharged alleged crimes:
> Basically, the crime alleged was violating a NY election law saying that you can't try to influence an election through "unlawful means". They provided a sampling of said unlawful means... The jurors didn't have to unanimously agree about which of those things they think he actually did.
Putting aside that each of the predicate crimes is deeply flawed (e.g. federal prosecutors investigated and declined to bring the campaign finance charge), you can't rest your triple-layer cake felony theory on a base of uncharged predicate crimes and tell the jury they don't have to agree as to the predicate crimes: https://www.justsecurity.org/96654/trump-unanimous-verdict. This is exactly the sort of thing judges are supposed to keep from being submitted to the jury.
It's personally embarrassing that lawyers at my former firm helped architect this travesty. If this harebrained legal theory had been used to convict a sex trafficker or murderer, lawyers at that firm would be falling over themselves to represent the defendant on appeal pro bono.
>Also, the law that tramples free speech
I'm not sure how so many people misunderstand the difference between "free speech" and "app controlled by hostile foreign government".
The people speaking on TikTok have not lost their right to free speech, they still are free to use a multitude of other channels that amplify their speech. No speech was blocked, only the app controlled by a hostile foreign government was blocked, and there are no provisions in a any legal framework that says we can't stop a hostile foreign government from controlling what people in this country see.
Everybody loses? The fact that TikTok remains available to millions of users is a significant benefit, especially for those who rely on it for creative expression, community building, and small-business promotion.
I would say yes, everybody. TikTok is very bad for our society. It has had profound negative effects on people's ability to pay attention to things. I don't know that I'd say the solution is legalistic in nature, but the continued existence of that platform is a cancer on humanity.
[flagged]
No-where in their comment did they mention that alternatives were fine. The fact that reasonable suspicions against TT are met with a gish gallop of unrelated arguments EVERY TIME just strengthens my opinion that it just creates zombies.
He means net loss to the status quo in reference to the entire fiasco. I had TikTok before… I still have TikTok… what rights were trampled in the process of bringing about zero change to me using tiktok?
Tiktok now exists at the whim of the sitting president, whoever that may be. This means that the USA is one small step closer to a dictatorship.
That’s only true if Tik Tok remains operating in violation of the law.
This has nothing to do with tiktok and everything to do with shifting power in the US political system towards the executive.
That's true. Unfortunately, it is also highly addictive, esp. for kids and teens.
The us opium wars:
Where the fights isn't over selling opium to the us masses, but about who gets the profits from the sales.
Here, have my upvote.
I might not share your views but it is important to defend this side of the debate to get the full picture.
It’s easy to reduce TikTok to its negatives and forget that ton of people do get value from it. Obviously for content makers but even for watchers, entertainment and sense of community do have values.
I strongly dislike vertical video and find channel-flipping physically uncomfortable, and my life would probably be a little bit better if I didn't hear that around me all the time, but I will staunchly defend what I believe to be a violation of the first amendment.
I'm not sure why people seem to have more narrowly defined their idea of freedom of speech to be "the freedom to shout futilely into the void," when it's a two-way street. The government telling booksellers they can't sell a book to people isn't just a violation of the author's rights, but the right of other people to seek and acquire that book. (Hence the clauses in the amendment about anssociation and abridgment of press.)
The whole situation is very Fahrenheit 451. Which is kind of ironic, since Bradbury would have probably hated TikTok and assumed it would be the television-flavored precipice leading to books being destroyed.
Captain Beatty would be proud of all of the would-be firemen itching to torch everything they don't like, oblivious to the simple corollary that someone else doesn't like what they like.
It's interesting how most commenters seem to forget about TikTok users. Every interest is taken into account, China, USA, intelligence services, TikTok "competition". Users somehow never enter the picture for most people in any other way than as gullible idiots getting exploited by the aforementioned parties.
In this model, users are the consumers and therefore aren't under consideration for malfeasance by suppliers.
Are they irrelevant?
Well, they’re TikTok users. They only have a five-minute attention span, so they’ll forget about any consequences pretty quickly.
Because they aren't TikTok users, simple as that. If the Trump admin was going to ban Reddit for being partially Chinese owned, they'd be up in arms.
Aren't we all, to a large extent?
I mean, yeah, I would be slightly annoyed to lose ${social network}, but in truth, my life would be hardly impacted.
This seems not to be an opinion that other people hold, but I never saw social media as “free speech” given that some third party can decides which parts of what you say get promoted.
If you sent letters to people via a middleman who decided which of those to forward onwards, you’d see that as censorship. I appreciate that that’s an over-simplified example - it’s meant to be a reductio ad absurdum. But control of the algorithm effectively regulates free speech, IMO.
Also (for clarity) the fact that China happens to be involved is not relevant to my point!
… the law that tramples free speech is upheld by the court
This law does not trample free speech. Your view of what free speech means as it pertains to U.S. law is wrong.
This is not an outcome. The legal process is but still well underway. In the United States, we abide by the rule of law.[1] That's really what separates us from China.
No there's going to be some obvious winners. Trump is going to force a 50% sale to a US based JV. That JV will be run by / benefit some of his biggest goons.
So Trump & his circle win !
What also bothers me is there's a simple solution to all this. Just pass comprehensive consumer data protection laws and regulations all companies operating in the US are required to follow. But you don't see anyone proposing that for some reason...
I just don’t get how free speech translates as accessibility to post on a commercial platform.
This is exactly what all Europeans watching US politics expected. No more, no less.
> balance between national security and free speech.
This is an absurd framing. Free speech cannot implicate national security. If a social media platform controlled by a foreign government can manipulate the people so easily then you have a much larger and ignored problem.
> all of its national security risks
Which are zero. What you actually experience a risk from is the shabby way Google, Microsoft and Apple have put their platforms together. Designed to earn them money while utterly destroying your privacy.
> This outcome is worse
You're already in trouble. This outcome is a symptom of a much larger problem. The conversation around this is completely detached from reality.
Everyone lives and dies by the KING now.
It was never about that balance. It was always about populism.
“National security” is such a bs term for US govt to avoid transparency. It comes from the post 9/11 era of FISA courts, PATRIOT act to justify wide net domestic surveillance and wiretapping.
To me, the whole banning of TT is political theater aimed to divide the US while existing tech oligarchs consolidate power and money.
Just look at the message TT broadcasted. Blatant pandering of incoming administration.
I agree. This is a forced consolidation that will only strengthen American tech oligarchs and the new administration. It's also coup on the culture of the younger generations similar to what happened to Twitter.
"TikTok CEO attending Trump inauguration" - https://thehill.com/policy/technology/5089151-tiktok-ceo-don...
Chase Hughes:
"Manipulation Playbook: The 20 Indicators of Reality Control"
The answer is to not use TikTok.
It's worse than that. The platform is now beholden to the president for its survival.
If you're wondering how Russia slipped from a flawed democracy into an aurocracy, it was because Yeltsin fixed the 1996 election, by holding an axe over the head of the press. He made it very clear that anybody who wants to keep their broadcast licenses will need to shill for him.
It's how a drunken autocrat with an 8% approval rating, credited for both hyperinflation and mass unemployment, who launched a coup (that killed a few hundred people and caused a constitutional crisis) ended up getting re-elected.
And then at the eleventh hour, after firing his cabinet, again, he declares Putin his successor and resigns over a $10,000 bribery scandal.
>Everybody loses.
Huh? Trump singlehandedly bringing TikTok back for tens of millions of malleable voters. Sounds like a pretty huge victory for him!
This 4 years gonna be good. Trump #1 was amateur time, this time they come prepared to bring havoc.
Plus Trump got all major social media in his pocket.
Trump wins, everyone loses.
Get used to it.
[dead]
What outcome are you talking about comrade? Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
[flagged]
He’s now publicly a huge hero for saving TikTok and everyone forgot he was the one that wanted it banned in the first place. Fabricating new problems so he can solve them “heroically” is the basic MO of any narcissist or authoritarian despot- and is worth a lot more to him than any under the table cash.
Expect a lot more “big wins” in the coming weeks- where he solves problems to massive fanfare that never existed or that he created- with empty “solutions” that also didn’t really happen or take no effort.
Changing positions on bills because they're unpopular seems like a good thing no? Nor does it seem like a particularly ideological position to have, Republican or Democrat. I'm actually very surprised that Biden/Harris seemed so positive for the bill. Biden and the Democrats could have easily used this themselves, Biden himself was a lame duck President and could have vetoed the bill with minimal consequences. The fact that people are getting mad at Trump for taking a gamble to placate angry public sentiment makes me think that folks have lost the political plot: democratic politicians need to support initiatives and ideas that are popular among people.
I don't disagree- and think reversing this position is a good thing.
I do however, also believe that good leaders are people with their own principles and ideas- and are willing to do what is right even if it isn't popular, when necessary. However, a huge percentage of our political leaders on both the left and right seem to have a 'dark triad' personality with narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy- and no ideals besides getting more power and admiration, that switch everything they claim to stand for on a dime like a kid trying on play outfits. I'd like to see people notice and not accept that type of 'leadership.'
I participate in some local and state level politics. You're not going to get those kind of people in politics. Every even remotely contentious legislation will get you tarred and feathered by your opponents. Opposition will use any tactic to bring you down, focusing on something silly you said 20 years ago, taking words out of context, etc, etc. The only kinds of people who can deal with that kind of political environment are the kinds of folks you see in politics.
It's the same reason you see certain introverted personality types overselected for in backend engineering teams: only a certain type of person enjoys working on something that is inscrutable to most people even users of the service they help support.
===
> I do however, also believe that good leaders are people with their own principles and ideas- and are willing to do what is right even if it isn't popular, when necessary.
It's a slippery slope from this to oligopolistic rule. Obviously the US democracy is not direct and there's an understanding that politicians balance their principles against popularity but I also think the US is of a mood that Congress is run by disconnected elites right now. Now is the time to err to populism.
I think you're essentially saying that people that have any reasonable level of integrity, ethics, or ideals - basically anyone you could trust to watch your dog when you're out of town (i.e. not the the US representative that stole money from a disabled Veteran's dying service dog)- would never willingly get involved in modern politics... which is a pretty disappointing view, but might be true.
I would say we've certainly had politicians and leaders without 'dark triad' personalities, but the most sincere ones in my lifetime were often also the least successful.
I don't think standing up for your ideals is incompatible with democracy, if you make it clear from the outset what your ideals are, and that you intend to stand by them.
However, I do think people with real ideals and vision do become inspiring leaders, and we could really use that right now. I'll admit this mostly happens at a cultural level, and probably works best outside of a political office- MLK for example.
I mostly agree, but nothing is worth more to Trump than cash.
Narcissists are so consumed with projecting an image or facade, they can’t and don’t want or care about anything else. Real money is certainly a good way of looking rich and powerful- but not always the only way. Faking wealth comes with a lot more stress with the terrifying risk of being found out- but it is clear Trump has still used that strategy a lot, and gone to great lengths to hide the fact that his real wealth (although significant) is less than it appears.
Appearing wealthy is especially attractive with narcissism since it is the most banal, obvious, and universally understood signal of success and greatness- but the money itself isn't the goal, and having wealth in secret - as may be necessary if it is under the table - without adding to the appearance of being wealthy would be uninteresting.
> Fabricating new problems so he can solve them “heroically” is the basic MO of any narcissist or authoritarian despot
I thought Joe Biden signed the law?
He did and replaced the original executive order from Trump with his own and signed the PAFACA into law last year which effectively supports the TikTok ban.
Biden didn't stop it because he also supported the ban as well, which is even worse.
So TikTok would have been totally banned if either Biden or Harris won the election.
Biden and Harris's arguments against Trump fell flat when they had no explanation for why they continued almost everything awful he started, while also still claiming it was awful. "I was going to send her a Maga hat."
[flagged]
Sorry to disappoint you, but that isn't my style- I won't be doing either. I'm particularly interested in having Americans become generally aware of narcissism and emotional manipulation- so they can spot it and have some 'cultural antibodies' against it, and stop being duped by people like this from all political persuasions. We've never had a better opportunity to finally do this, now having a president that is an almost exaggerated cartoonist caricature of a narcissist, that switches stories and philosophies from hour to hour depending on who is listening at the moment.
[flagged]
Oh, I'm upset and traumatized indeed, and even getting professional help for it, but over someone other than this guy. Anytime one of a dozen narcissistic celebrities comes up I mention the same thing, but I can't think of a single politician or celebrity I care enough about to even dislike. As Nietzsche said, one must have reverence for their enemies, and none of them make the grade.
Maybe I just need to talk about it, but I'd like to think I learned something that might help someone else.
It counts as something only if you called out Obama as vigorously. I don’t see any evidence of that in your timeline.
Next time you read all of my comments, read the context also and you won't miss important stuff like that ;-)
Honest question- whatever you like about whatever this politician says, do you believe it's sincere? If not, do you feel like your views and ideals deserve representation from people that sincerely share them and would actually make some person sacrifices to make them happen?
It's absolutely crazy to me that people like you assume if you question anything on 'their side' you must be 'on the other side' - as if all of human perspectives reduced to a single bit of information. I mean, if they really were even on their own side they'd be more critical of it.
I have no grand opinion about Trump. He is as good as any other politician, though he might be marginally better from the prior that he is not a career politician and from the posterior conditioned by the fact that the bi-partisan establishment and the corporate media hate him. These are too strong a signal to ignore.
What irks me is the cheap virtue signalling by the laptop class which has been told to hate him since 2016. They had no opinion of the man - who is a literal Hitler and who was 70 years old in 2016 - before that. I despise such fakery.
I also despise fakery, but there’s a lot more overall fakery going on here from all sides than you seem to be noticing- and understanding the dynamics of narcissism and emotional manipulation makes it more obvious. People aware of this stuff are impressed by Trumps skill in creating and maintaining false narratives.
They didn't dislike him before 2016 because he was one of them, he went to their parties, donated their favorite people lots of money, and did TV interviews repeating all of their talking points.
Trump is absolutely nothing like Hitler- Hitler was a completely sincere true believer in his cause, solidified his views clearly before he had any fame or power and stuck to them consistently, and was himself willing to die for the cause of blaming all problems on people different than him. Trump switches stories and allegiances like an 8 year old girl trying on princess outfits until one 'clicks' and gets attention- and doesn't care if the one he ends up with is left right or center- he tried them all.
Both your "cheap virtue signalling by the laptop class" and Trump have an identical underlying strategy and postmodern world view that things like integrity, principles, and ideals are for suckers, and the only thing that matters is constructing a narrative that gives you the most power and attention right now: e.g. fakery.
Both are even using the same basic absurd narrative that some evil outgroup that deserves to be dehumanized is causing all of your problems, and supporting authoritarianism with them in power will solve it- just different outgroups but both chosen strategically by the same process.
There hasn't been any president during my lifetime that didn't have narcissistic personality traits and strategies, but I am not 100% sure all of them definitely had full blown NPD, I'm not a psychiatrist. It's a disability than harms the person affected more than anyone else- people with it are very alone as they make no real friendships or connections with people, and are not capable of improving their life through self reflection and self criticism. They can be very successful but won't ever enjoy it- they will still just be terrified and anxious about their facade collapsing. It is a disorder where fakery is the very core of every action.
If you think money is what is on the table here you lack imagination. It's the "Trump knob" in TikTok's ranking algorithm that is the real thing of value here.
No actual deal is necessary here. It's obvious to everyone involved what the deal is: TikTok ensures that its content is friendly to Trump, TikTok stays unbanned.
Read my second paragraph. Money is obviously just an example.
You said TikTok content stays friendly to trump. Isn’t that exactly what I said?: Some deal was cut.
Somebody purchased $6 billion of Trump’s meme coin.
Exactly this. Trump is consolidating all of the propaganda distribution systems. Play ball and your distribution system is safe.
The ACLU is thus helping Trump consolidating all of the propaganda distribution systems?
https://action.aclu.org/send-message/tell-congress-no-tiktok... https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/banning-tiktok-i...
Despite both ending up with TikTok staying up in the US, having the ban be unconstitutional or not exist at all is different from having the ban in place and a deal to avoid it. What the ACLU was fighting for would have removed leverage from the government/president.
Technically, and unfortunately, yes. They are a single-issue organization, and that single issue takes precedence over any other consideration. I doubt many of them who are involved are happy about him being able to use this to consolidate, but there are always external effects when you have a single major priority (especially if it's a good one).
>They are a single-issue organization, and that single issue takes precedence over any other consideration.
Increasingly not, but still sometimes yes.
The ACLU has backed the Klan and Nazis before when it's to protect civil rights. That's kinda their mission.
Every government lawyer in the country was investigating Trump since 2015 and the best they could find was he paid off a pornstar. You can’t accuse someone of being on the take for nearly a decade without eventually putting up or shutting up.
> the best they could find was he paid off a pornstar
I guess you've been too busy to pay attention to Jack Smith's Florida cases, and to the January 6 committee's hearings and findings.
None of the predicate events of those cases had happened yet during the four years during which Trump was called a criminal daily by the media.
And no, I didn’t follow those cases, because I had closely followed all the accusations of tax evasion, receiving payments from Russia, etc., during the prior four years and those has amounted to nothing. As they say, “fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, well you can’t fool me again.”
I haven't read the Mueller Report, but from media reports I had the distinct impression that Trump would have been indicted had he not been the sitting president. But I suppose it says something that Garland and Jack Smith didn't indict either after Trump left office.
A lot of what Trump did was not really a crime, but is behavior that we don't want in a president.
It is apparently not a crime to meet with a Russian spy in your house, and to have a discussion about exchanging relaxed foreign relations for dirt on your political opponent. It's also not a crime for the campaign to share campaign data with a Russian FSB agent as the FSB carried out a psyops campaign against American citizens for which they are now indicted. Totally legal to lie about those activities to the FBI and Congress as well. Completely legal to use the fruits of the FSB hacking campaign to your political advantage, and it's also legal to publicly call for the FSB to continue hacking your opponent.
There just aren't laws against these activities and no one can actually prosecute them (if you break the law to become president and win, you just replace the people who would prosecute you with loyalists, so you can't get prosecuted for breaking the law while campaigning unless you lose), so everything Trump did with Russia in 2016 is now acceptable political activity.
It's now normalized that a candidate for president should, no, must lean on foreign governments to circumvent domestic campaign laws to gain as much leverage over their opponent as possible. For example, the 2028 Democratic candidate could make a deal with North Korea to hack the Trump campaign (he's already said he's running again) in exchange for relaxed sanctions, and that would be fine according to the norms of our time.
I do not follow all of Trump's lawsuits...but this was just over a week ago.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5078962-trump-s...
That’s my point. He was convicted of labeling a payment to a pornstar the wrong thing in the business records of his family owned company, to hide an affair. It was a nothing-burger compared to everything he’s been accused of.
That is quite possibly the worst conclusion you could take out of the Trump investigations.
It’s the obvious conclusion. My former boss left his job as head of litigation at a top Wall Street law firm to help the NY AG go after Trump. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/23/nyregion/trump-ny-fraud-i...
Trump did business in New York City for decades, and the Stormy Daniels payoff was the best prosecutors could come up with.
Free speech?
Can you talk about the Tiananmen Square massacre on TikTok and show the few videos of people who were disappeared?
Are they accessible in the country that owns TikTok?
If I want to run what someone else has determined as "malware" on my computer, as far as I'm concerned, I should have the absolute right to do it. Same for spyware. Why? Because I don't want the government to make the determination for what is right or wrong for me on my own property. If the US government wants to block apps on their property, then they can go ahead and do that. But the moment it extends to my own property, it's quite ridiculous to think people are going to bend over backwards and comply with what's good for you. Especially in the context of some vague national security threat, why am I supposed to be subversive to the CIA?
How can you complain about the CCP banning foreign social media and censoring when you have your own government willing to do the same thing -- in the name of Protecting the Democracy?
It's not about privacy or data or whatever the facade is. The crime that we are committing is none other than allowing ourselves to be fed information that could threaten the United States. So, therefore, even according to the SCOTUS, if Congress plasters the magical words "national security" in their laws, then the Constitution takes a backseat and we too can be like China/Russia/Iran. Will we start banning VPNs next--which circumvent our new found love for censorship? I'd not be surprised.
> Can you talk about the Tiananmen Square massacre on TikTok and show the few videos of people who were disappeared?
Yes, see www.tiktok.com/channel/tiananmen-square . Or read https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/tiktok-us-ban-congress... . Or just go search for it.
That is hilarious! Did you even look at the Tiananmen Square channel before posting it? Or do you think that's what happened?
Can you be more specific about what you mean? The search summary for that page says:
> The Tiananmen Square Tank Man is an iconic image that emerged from the protests and subsequent military crackdown that occurred in Beijing, China, in 1989. The protests, primarily led by students demanding political reforms and greater freedoms, took place in Tiananmen Square, a prominent public space in the heart of the city.
I'm not a TikTok user, it was down earlier but clicking now I see the famous tank man video, an article about Chinese censorship of AI, etc. Do you get something different?
Totally fair point, my results could be different. To me, the salient point of Tiananmen Square is the massacre (and wider spread protests). That aspect has been suppressed. I see video clips talking about how the content is available, but no content. I also see many clips denying that anything happened.
"The law banning TikTok, which was scheduled to go into effect Sunday, allows the president to grant a 90-day extension before the ban is enforced, provided certain criteria are met"
Sounds like they're operating within the law
From the ruling:
"The Act permits the President to grant a one-time extension of no more than 90 days with respect to the prohibitions’ 270-day effective date if the President makes certain certifications to Congress regarding progress toward a qualified divestiture."
Sounds like he needs to work with Congress on at least a basic level for this to be within the law, not just make his own decision and declare all is good. And there is the small detail that he is not President, at least not today.
TikTok has already received multiple "interest to acquire" letters, including the one from Perplexity that would keep all existing investors fully intact.
Having that along with a republican majority in both the congress and the senate this isn't going to be difficult for Trump to fulfill the requirements of the law.
That is not enough to satisfy all 3 certification requirements as required by this law.
Do you get the impression that the incoming administration cares about the law?
As long as there is a fig leaf/smokescreen, and TikTok makes the right noises and contributions, they’ll be fine.
If anything, Keeping them technically in violation of the law is the leverage the administration will want to keep so they can squeeze TikTok whenever they want.
The law never required that they shut down, so in a tautological sense they are.
However, with regards to the absurd justification. The president (still Biden) hasn't granted any extensions, nor is the president even able to grant an extension without
> certif[ing] to Congress that-
> "(A) a path to executing a qualified divestiture has been identified with respect to such application;
> "(B) evidence of significant progress toward executing such qualified divestiture has been produced with respect to such application; and
> "(C) there are in place the relevant binding legal agreements to enable execution of such qualified divestiture during the period of such extension.
There is no evidence that Trump will be able to lawfully do any of those, and he has to do all, after he becomes president again.
> "(A) a path to executing a qualified divestiture has been identified with respect to such application;
> There is no evidence that Trump will be able to lawfully do any of those once he becomes president,
He can buy or be gifted a partial ownership stake?
"Qualified divestiture" means "no longer being controlled by a foreign adversary."
Minority or even majority ownership change isn’t enough as long as the CCP still has control.
ByteDance has been rather vocal that they aren't interested in divesting like that. He could be, there is no evidence he will be, and it's not something he can cause to happen.
Isn't selective enforcement in general within any law in the United States? There are plenty of laws that get broken all the time and it's up to police & prosecutors/AGs to decide which cases they actually want to enforce.
He has to kinda gesture towards in-progress plans to comply with the law to grant that exception, but that's not a huge hurdle.
This satisfies my curiosity about why TikTok didn't try to push app users to the website, which is not so easy to ban. They were always hoping to cozy up to Trump by offering him the opportunity to "save" TikTok.
It's only for 90 days though, unless Trump decides to completely ignore his duty to enforce the law (a distinct possibility).
Couldn't the web version still pretty essily be enforceable via ISPs, etc.
My reading of the law does not require ISPs to block customers from accessing TikTok. US-based CDNs would be unable to provide hosting, but that just makes it less efficient, not inaccessible.
That's very sad news.
Anyone that didn't see this coming is so naive- Trump only cares about optics. Look at the message when opening tiktok "Thanks to President Trump"... there is no way he didn't say "look, you HAVE TO PUT MY NAME OUT THERE or you are being banned".
But yet morons will be like "trump saved tiktok!!!"
TT playing both the public and politicians for their gain. Well played.
Biden admin wasn’t going to enforce ban but TT soft shutdown yesterday with message pandering to incoming admin (broadcasted to hundred millions of users).
High suspicion of political theater.
I wish ppl would see through this and realize this is yet another distraction to divide us via culture war.
So America really is for sale, and there are no exceptions.
Trump is definitely for sale.
"It’s a strong stand for the First Amendment and against arbitrary censorship."
That hit's different from Chinese company. lol
Words don't mean anything, they are just tools to win PR battles.
Couldn't agree more
Oh man. So much fuzz over a site that shares video snippets. Is it just me? I feel like I am witnessing some kind of end of US society.
Fear disseminated by politicians and social media (pick whatever we are supposed to be afraid of this week.) Paired with an addictive desire to be relieved and distracted from this fear, in part from the same politicians/social media.
>I feel like I am witnessing some kind of end of US society.
Have you been paying attention since covid? It's just terminal now.
Between this and the Gaza ceasefire the outgoing administration is laying up political wins for Trump before he even takes office. An embarrassment for an administration that has completely failed to play the political game properly for years. And Biden was such a savvy operator before.
The US-shilling in this thread is unbelievable. It’s almost as if half of these people have never heard of who Snowden was and don’t believe the US has ever spied on foreign nationals :headslap;
> We thank President Trump for providing the necessary clarity and assurance to our service providers that they will face no penalties providing TikTok to over 170 million Americans
These are literally just promises from Trump that these companies are relying on, not an actual change to the law, just a promise that he won't enforce it against them? Sounds like an utterly insane business decision that they'll regret as soon as they fall out with him. Each to their own I suppose.
> The app was still unavailable for download from Apple’s and Google’s app stores.
I guess I wonder if that's going to change specifically. They strike me as the two companies that would be most insane to take Trump at his word here.
It’s not an insane business decision, but the easiest way to garner support for your preferred candidate. Anyone who is 24/7 on TikTok (there are a lot of them) will now say how Trump saved the app. And kinda, technically, they’re not wrong (if you ignore the history).
Sure, but Trump will have the threat to enforce this law hanging over any of these companies for his entire term. That’s a terrible position to put yourself in. I just can’t believe any of these companies are stupid enough to trust him.
The language surrounding this which basically heaps praise on Trump makes it seem like it was a condition he gave, that he must be given clear unambiguous credit, so he can go around saying he saved it, even though he was the one who signed an executive order in 2020 to ban it[0]. Anything to manipulate the American people’s perception of him. It feels like we’re living in Russia or North Korea with the stuff that goes on these days. Truly scary watching an oligarchy take shape realtime.
[0] https://www.npr.org/2020/08/06/900019185/trump-signs-executi...
My read is that the US government originally wanted to try to force TikTok to restructure its relationship with China so it wouldn't be under control of the party, either by leaving the country or more likely selling to a US-friendly owner. This was the argument when Trump toyed with the idea during his first mandate.
Occam's Razor suggests this was due to both a matter of national security from the perspective of the intelligence community and pressure from US companies who have struggled to outcompete TikTok. Basically an "everybody wins" move for the powers that be.[1]
China understandably didn't want to lose its influence, and ByteDance didn't want to give up this incredibly valuable asset, so they said "We'll call your bluff and fight you on the basis of the freedom of speech".
The US government then moved to get a law signed that carves out a very specific way to force ByteDance's hand. I'm sure there were lots of lawyers involved and maybe some back channel with the SCOTUS to make sure this was done in a constitutional manner so that it would survive a suit from TikTok which was all but guaranteed.[2]
That plan worked, so now ByteDance/TikTok/CCP are again forced to sell, except they come to this round of negotiations in a much worse position than they were originally. This makes it better for the many, many buyers that have come out of the woodwork and made public and private bids for the asset.
But these buyers don't want the actual value of TikTok to drop to zero, so they must also be pressuring president-elect Trump to reinstate the app so that it can continue to be used by Americans and therefore remain valuable, so that when they actually get their money's worth when it inevitably changes hands.
Trump isn't restoring TikTok so that it can continue to operate as in the "status quo ante bellum negotii". He's restoring it so that {insert buyer} can claim the spoils in a few weeks.
---
[1]: We can debate whether "everybody wins" includes the US population, but I think they do, because Chinese influence over US culture is strictly worse than US influence over US culture, seeing as incentives are by definition irreconcilable and therefore always worse if under control of the CCP.
[2]: It stands to reason that all of the US government and the top echelons of business and finance is operating in concert here to drive the outcome they want, which is to remove the influence of the CCP over young American minds and to benefit from forcing the asset to be controlled by a US entity.
I had to scroll past too many "free speech" takes to finally get to this well-thought analysis of the saga.
It has nothing to do with free speech. The US was always going to wind up owning TikTok and influencing speech on the platform. The key issue was price, which is affected by leverage. The strict top-down, centralized control ideals behind CCP/ByteDance/TikTok (they're all the same) were once again outdone by the aforementioned "powers that be".
<< That plan worked, so now ByteDance/TikTok/CCP are again forced to sell, except they come to this round of negotiations in a much worse position than they were originally.
I appreciate the analysis even if I disagree with it.
<< many buyers that have come out of the woodwork and made public and private bids for the asset.
It is mildly funny given that China is not selling it. It was defacto made a real geopolitical issue with 170m US users as pawns. They may well be buyers, but China is not in a position of weakness here. If anything, the past 48h showed that users can simply say 'fuck it' out of spite.
In short, from game theory perspective, even if they decided to sell, they can now extract heavy concessions. Yeah, US won so hard on this one.
As I may have mentioned in another post, individual players may have gained some ground, but that is it. US lost a lot in this exchange alone.
US came out way ahead here. They gain full control of TikTok. They have a precedent now to ban apps from hostile power. They gained even more respect from countries that hate China/russia/iran, such as Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, India, etc. they now project power over countries that were trying to play both sides of US and China, such as Singapore, Malaysia. And of course, Chinese government took this takedown with a whimper, signaling it is really powerless against US
<< They gain full control of TikTok.
Well, did they? So far it is not that clear.
<< They have a precedent now to ban apps from hostile power.
Is that a good thing? If so, why?
<< They gained even more respect from countries
Heh, you honestly may want to reconsider this statement. It is not respect, when China openly effectively says 'nah' to sale and shutters the app instead..
<< Chinese government took this takedown with a whimper
Huh? Dude... where did you see a whimper. Allow me to revisit events.
1. Congress passes a law effectively banning TikTok 2. TikTok sues over free speech and loses appeal with SCOTUS 3. Rather than selling, it shuts down the app 4. Users go everywhere, but ( apparently ) US apps 5. Incoming administration gives assurances it won't actually enforce anything for now
I accept there are ways of looking at things, but this is something else.
Users didn't go anywhere. 500-700k of users downloading some app to protest because it's cool is hardly pressuring the government.
You know what? Lets agree to disagree. I am sure we will see the exciting conclusion of this saga 90 days from now.
The extension is for 90 days. If they don't sell, they are worth very little after those three months elapse. It's a life line and a fire sale.
Everyone already knew TikTok was valuable. This isn't new information. They have no concessions to extract here.
Users haven't said anything out of spite. Some people signing up for some other services was not what drove Trump to announce this executive action.
I am willing to put cash money in escrow on this bet, because I do not think it is about the money at this point; not anymore.
> Some people signing up for some other services was not what drove Trump to announce this executive action.
To me, there is a strong appearance of quid pro quo between ByteDance and Trump. In that case, there doesn't need to be a sale. Trump likely will require a simulation of restructuring which enables him to declare ByteDance in compliance, and the whole things goes away.
> But these buyers don't want the actual value of TikTok to drop to zero
Quick reminder: TikTok is available for most of the planet (except China), so a US ban does not make the actual value of TikTok to drop to zero.
It makes a sell-off very unlikely, but I doubt it's going to happen no matter what.
It's quite puzzling why ByteDance didn't bring up the idea of making a TikTok US in the same way TikTok CN (a.k.a. Douyin) works.
Great analysis! This comment should be the top post
What makes you think Trump will require anything meaningful of TikTok? What’s important is what TikTok can do for him, not anything related to national security or ownership concerns.
> What makes you think Trump will require anything meaningful of TikTok?
I'm not sure I follow as I didn't say Trump will require anything and I don't know what "meaningful" means in this sentence.
> What’s important is what TikTok can do for him, not anything related to national security or ownership concerns.
You're neglecting what the _sale_ of TikTok can do for him, which is to curry an immense amount of favor with Big Tech, Wall Street and the intelligence community, and possibly one or several unnamed players in this negotiation.
> I'm not sure I follow as I didn't say Trump will require anything and I don't know what "meaningful" means in this sentence.
I thought you said that Trump would require TikTok to be sold. Did I misread? I was asking why you think Trump will require anything meaningful of TikTok. More specifically, why do you think Trump would require TikTok to sell?
> You're neglecting what the _sale_ of TikTok can do for him, which is to curry an immense amount of favor with Big Tech, Wall Street and the intelligence community, and possibly one or several unnamed players in this negotiation.
Is that any more valuable than the things which TikTok can give him?
1) Cash (purchase Trump's meme coin, stock grant, etc.)
2) Prominence on TikTok
For those saying there’s no executive order yet or that Trump is not president yet, the point is that they received confirmation that there will be an executive order, meaning they can rely on a 90 day extension of non-enforcement.
So while there is some irony with Trump having previously supported the ban, the practical reality is that he and Susquehanna and the Republicans all are winning big on this one, from a political/financial lens.
[meta] why is this the only comment I can't vote on?
The issue is Trump doesn’t have legal authority to issue an executive order delaying the ban, executive orders “execute” the law, delaying would be the opposite of the law, a law that was held up 9–0 as constitutional by the Supreme Court face palm
There is some precedent for doing this. State-level cannabis legalization rests on non-enforcement at the federal level, at which it remains scheduled.
Sure, but there’s no executive order saying we promise not to enforce it (I assume?), that would be counter to the law even if the absence of enforcement is a legal grey area
Either way it feels like there are games being played, and the country is watching because tik tok is so heavily used by so many people
As far as I can tell, what happened is this law was passed in the heat of the moment (Gaza war), but it turned out to be massively unpopular and ineffective at shoring up US support for the outgoing administration's foreign policy, and even after its moment had passed the combination of the arguments raised by the lawyers for ByteDance and the phrasing of the very unique, very specific bill got it through the Supreme Court, so now everyone's been stuck with trying to figure out how to get rid of it.
And notice how Marlboro didn’t start selling cannabis everywhere? Apple and Google(and their legal teams) have to decide if not following the law on the nonbinding word of a 77yr old man’s promise. The law itself allows companies to be held liable up to 5 years after each infraction.
He can just buy a sufficient stake to count as a "divestiture" under the law.
I was dumbfounded too, but NBC explains in this same article:
> "The law banning TikTok [...] allows the president to grant a 90-day extension before the ban is enforced, provided certain criteria are met."
Those criteria have not been met and we are passed the deadline in which that extension could be applied.
Yes he does. Form the article:
> The law banning TikTok, which was scheduled to go into effect Sunday, allows the president to grant a 90-day extension before the ban is enforced, provided certain criteria are met.
and
> After the Supreme Court greenlit the law on Friday, the Biden administration issued a statement saying it would not enforce the ban, leaving that responsibility to Trump.
The criteria is; they must have a plan to sell.
The chance for the 90 day extension under the law goes away before Trump takes office. He can’t legally give them a 90 day extension.
That’s following the law. It doesn’t require an executive order. But the law requires proving to congress that the conditions for an extension are met
This isn't about politics, just noting the facts and the hypocrisy...
The Trump administration (back in 2020) were the ones that set this in motion.
"Executive Order on Addressing the Threat Posed by TikTok"
August 6, 2020
https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/ex...
Trump wants 50% US ownership in a joint venture for Tiktok. Shouldn't be a problem since 60% of bytedance ownership is already non-China (probably a lot of it already US investors - General Atlantic/SIG)
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1138556168486...
The ownership of the company is irrelevant, it's who has control of the algorithm and where the data flows. If Tiktok US licenses the algorithm from China (which seems likely) then none of the national security issues are addressed.
Doesn’t matter what he thinks. Executive cannot override legislative action.
The Supreme Court can always say that it can.
The law always allowed for divesting to US owners. It didn't specify who.
Executive Order
All this and it was only 40% Chinese-owned???
You seem to think percentage of ownership works the same way in China as in the West. That’s an understandable mistake
With the algorithm 100% Chinese-operated
Chinese government has a golden shares deal with Bytedance granting their 1% ownership the ability to nominate a board seat.
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/tiktok-ban-b...
That 1% golden share is in Douyin, the Chinese subsidiary of ByteDance, not ByteDance or Tiktok.
Sad
Dang. Comments seem to be accumulating on this thread faster than they can be moderated. I'm not trying to call anyone names, but there seem to be A LOT of different political opinions and more than a few conspiracy theories. But who knows... maybe the conspiracy theorists are right... Just wanted to say thanks to the community for not being as flamey as one might expect for a comments section on the internet.
The CCP has a propaganda and spying tool in the hands of 170M Americans. Yet the new Administration is more interested in playing politics than taking necessary steps to secure us against our primary adversary.
It's not just Trump though. Neither the Republicans nor Democrats are taking the China threat seriously enough. The CCP must be destroyed.
We've been saying for quite some time that large multi-national companies have more power than entire democracies. I guess now we have proof.
Republicans will see this as a political stunt that glorifies Donald Trump
Democrats will see this as a political stunt that glorifies Donald Trump.
China will see this as proof they have some control over the US citizenry.
Tiktok has been working for the last 40 minutes for me after going dark last night.
Some thoughts from Donald Trump: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1138556168486...
Incredible.
Isn't ByteDance already owned 60% by international (mostly American) investors?
https://usds.tiktok.com/who-owns-tiktoks-parent-company-byte...
You need to drill deeper to figure out who really holds the money bag. Not to say I know anything, but this page doesn't really say much.
But again, I don't really care about the nationality of the elites.
Have a look at the golden shares part of that, 1% gets you a lot.
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/tiktok-ban-b...
Per the article, those shares are not in TikTok:
> The ByteDance unit that sold golden shares to China's government holds the licenses of Toutiao and Douyin to operate under local law.
So those shares don't mean much as far as TikTok's operations are concerned.
what about all the american apps that have no service in china
Interested. What about them?
I think the criticism is that China can buy a seat at our table through flattery, and likely other favours , but we can’t? So we’re potentially corrupted / compromised, and they aren’t.
Another opportunistic nothing burger victory and reason for further tech billionaire fealty. Sigh.
Do you mean the ban, or the removal of the ban? I'm confused. Because I'm pretty sure the ban is at least in part supported by Zuck, and that's why he gave $300M+ to elect a vegetable in 2020, and that's why Meta is spending more than ever on lobbying: https://readsludge.com/2024/04/23/meta-shatters-lobbying-rec...
Dr. T's reversal was at least partly due to the influence of David Yass, who owns a chunk of ByteDance and saved the TruthSocial IPO, making Trump's holding actually worth something. So he owes Yass bigly.
Presumably other wealthy friends stand to win. Steve Mnuchin wanted to buy it.
Word is Musk is offering to buy a controlling stake as well. The whole thing is a racket though: ByteDance is already 60% owned by global institutional investors, including firms such as Blackrock, Susquehanna International Group, Carlyle Group, and General Atlantic. Another 20% are owned by employees, and another 20% by co-founders. Given this, I'm not sure how ByteDance could "sell TikTok" to an US investor - they don't own 50% of it themselves.
Jeff Yass?
Do you think I'd look it up instead of going by my aging mushy memory?
I don't believe in conspiracy theories, I tend to believe most can be boiled down to power and/or stupidity. Which is what I see going on here, but if I were to attach a conspiracy theory to it- this was always the plan and now a portion of the voter base has been flipped. Well played by the Thiel, Musk, Zuck circle jerk.
Trump just issued a personal statement. Not even as president.
It is still a Law.
TikTok is still banned, the Supreme Court upheld it.
Trump's proposed executive order just gives TikTok more time "so that a deal could be made." Honestly I don't understand how TikTok is able to restore service now before the executive order or even the inaugaration has occured.
There was no legal requirement they block service at all, only that other companies stop doing business with them (i.e. App Stores stop distributing, etc.)
Pretty sure Oracle had to turn off the servers. I feel like Oracle is now not complying with the law. Apple and Google appear to be as of writing this.
Securities fraud suit incoming I suppose. Shareholders will sue Oracle for not disclosing the risk and exposing company to the fine
This. It is not back in stores.
It’s back so couldn’t have been that hard.
Foreign countries are already banned from owning TV stations in the United States so this is certainly not a speech issue. I dont think its clear that Trump can really save TikTok without passing a law through congress though.
Alright. Hundreds or thousands of Chinese trackers on every military base in the world. Perfect.
The US military independently banned Tiktok on all personnel devices half a decade ago.
How do they enforce the ban?
by dishonorably discharging :)
That's good. So it should be banned on military bases, why not elsewhere?
I'm not clear how Trump's assurances mean much in the face of a law passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court. I guess we're already in an autocracy controlled by a person not even formally in power yet?
Strange to see the ACLU and Trump having common cause.
https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/banning-tiktok-i... https://action.aclu.org/send-message/tell-congress-no-tiktok...
TikTok is coming back online after Trump pledged to restore it https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/19/tech/tiktok-ban/index.htm...
The ACLU tends to take pretty hard line civil liberty positions, including defending hateful folks if their civil liberties are impinged. They’re not strictly a progressive organization.
They don't really hold hard-line positions anymore. The ACLU would no longer defend the speech of a neo-nazi, for example.
Classic "Bootleggers and Baptists" situation [0], where both parties are in favor for self-serving reasons.
What does the ACLU not understand..
The law does not ban TikTok.. it requires divestment from a foreign adversary..
Said foreign adversary refuses to divest, thus the company is shutting itself down
Not worth it going back to TT. Will just stay on RedNote
Just a quick reminder: Tik Tok (a service by a Chinese company) is still blocked in China.
But what about national security?? LMAO, political populism for the manipulable idiots.
when the state if the nation is so bad that you have homeless everywhere, healthcare, housing and education are something you have to fight for, prisons are a business, suddenly another perspective seems more alluring, a modern Nordic socialism? putting a brake to unhinged late stage capitalism? or on the darker side, a promise of better conditions in 'some ways'...this is no national security risk, people are getting simply fed up with appalling state of the nation.
The whole thing is starting to look like a circus.
excuse my ignorance..
AFAI-remember years ago Trump was "fired" out of presidency before end of mandate, AND banned in biggest social networks.
Now he is playing president before officially entering a mandate, AND around that those same social networks bosses are cringeing - just in case?
That's two things, one that the exact boundaries of period of the mandate doesn't seem to matter, and second, the social-media BS-dancing thing..
so who's in charge ?
[flagged]
As I expected China wins no matter what
This was basically a 12 year old's plan for making Trump seem like a "champion" - and it somehow seems to be working, even in this comment section (assuming half the comments aren't just bots which I wouldn't discount personally).
And then people in this thread apparently unironically don't see why banning foreign propaganda is a bad thing lol
It's quite fascinating to see a nation's televised descent into absurd cronyism and corruption like this. You've got the prez-elect singlehandedly overturning laws that have just been passed a mere 24 hours ago, making shitcoin scams and getting rich off it, aligning all the psychotic techbros into his corner because they fear what kind of insane bullshit he's gonna pull off on them...
> „China's using Tik Tok to subvert "democracy,"
This is grotesque. Israel is massively influencing US foreign and domestic policy via AIPAC and other lobby groups. AIPAC pays US politicians significant amounts of money, practically buys them. And they are not even registered as foreign entities, something JFK wanted to enforce before he was assassinated.
So who is really manipulating US policy.
And this is the exact group that put pressure on US universities to suppress free speech and on US policy makers to sent Israel weapons worth billions to kill thousands of Palestinian civilians.
Now start your downvotes.
How does an executive order just pause a law passed by Congress? Does Trump think he really has that kind of authority?
>The law banning TikTok, which was scheduled to go into effect Sunday, allows the president to grant a 90-day extension before the ban is enforced, provided certain criteria are met.
Recent weeks frankly not a good show by US Judiciary.
The series of Trump indictments all fizzling out, because judges didn't want to indict an on coming president.
And on this particular matter, Supreme Court 'unsigned' opinion felt confused even though it is termed unanimous.
At places it seemed to complain of the paucity of time/scope to consider all parts of the matter more seriously, and at the end even expressed ambivalence about what is going to happen next even.
Frankly bit of shoddy-ness/confused signalling from Judiciary and Supreme Court.
Perhaps it would have been better to just delay the matter by issuing an interim extension and reconsider the issue taking into account the views of the new administration.
This was no urgent matter that a few days delay would have mattered.
We're watching the downfall live on stream. They were wrong, the revolution will not be televised is right, the fascist uprising happened in your social media instead.
People seem to misunderstand this metaphor. It’s not about what type of tech the revolution is broadcasted on, it’s about the fact that you’ll be sitting there watching the revolution from the comfort of wherever you are. You will not be doing anything to actually be apart of the revolution, making the revolution more for your entertainment than your detriment/benefit.
It's not really a revolution, moreso a slow downfall into mediocrity, irrationalism and hatred, wrapped in stars and stripes.
As long as this is the only place the fascist upraising happens… better than being forced out of your job, making all other political parties illegal, being beaten by mobs patrolling the streets while the police looks the other way, canceling elections ad vitam eternam on national security grounds, I mean stuff that proper fascists used to do back in the days.
In the mean time, if I wanted 30 seconds clips of cat videos I’m sure I could use a VPN. Let’s ban it. Teach people censorship is utter BS like every Chinese person knows by now. Sadly my attention span is slightly longer than 30s so I’m not even gonna bother
There was no executive order. Turning off Tiktok yesterday was a highly successful political stunt.
Everyone got played by what is effectively joint CCP/Trump propaganda and they’re cheering about it. Bleak, bleak, bleak.
Especially given that Trump initiated the push to ban TikTok in the first place.
Until he didn’t because a major donor to him has a 15% stake in it. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/14/trump-tiktok-billio...
spin working overtime
Bingo, bango, boingo. Just another way to help manipulate people into thinking Trump saved the day, once again. TikTok played the propaganda just right.
It's funny to imagine how, very deeply ironically, it turned out to be a national security risk after all.
- The Occupy Wall Street movement.
- A COINTELPRO-inspired diversion undermines the cause: during demonstrations, individuals wishing to speak must wait in line, while women, minorities, and other groups are prioritized.
- This method becomes widespread in media narratives over the next 15 years, fueling focus on these topics and deepening societal divisions while bankers slip under the radar.
- Initially driven by billionaires, the movement is soon co-opted by financial firms, corporations, and government entities.
- Ultimately, Trump is reinstated, while Zuckerberg, Gates, Bezos, and, to some extent, Altman align with Thiel and Musk, reversing their previous stances with a dramatic 180° shift.
The oligarchy endures.
There is, it's a few days old, and it's a non-enforcement from the Biden administration, according to the man himself and his staffers, he intends to let it be the next administration's problem. Whatever the next administration does when it takes power is yet to be seen.
The restrict act was written really strangely, and I assume Oracle required some assurance from someone to not just delete Bytedance's accounts and resources.
That wasn't an executive order, as far as I'm aware it was just a statement. It had no legal value, which was why TikTok asked for more assurance.
The fine to each company (Apple, Google, Oracle, TikTok) was in the order of around $5bn each if they kept the lights on, so I would be hesitant to keep it running too without something in writing.
If TikTok was concerned that Biden’s statement wouldn’t be honored, they wouldn’t have turned service back on today while Biden is still president. They’ve had months to work out some sort of deal with Trump, this whole show they’ve put on the past couple days is propaganda.
I have to agree with this. If they'd waited until Monday it would have been different, but legally nothing changed overnight except more puffery.
Right. The Legal teams at Apple and Google will follow the existing law as written.
No EO from Trump will change that.
The title was changed, it used to be "Trump's executive order..." something.
"Biden just signed a potential TikTok ban into law. Here’s what happens next" https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/23/tech/congress-tiktok-ban-what...
"Biden Signs a Bill That Could Ban TikTok. Now Comes the Hard Part." https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/23/technology/bytedance-tikt...
"Biden signed a bill to force a sale of TikTok or ban it. What’s next?" https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/24/biden-signs-tiktok-...
"Biden signs a bill that could ban TikTok — after the 2024 election" https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/congress-biden-bil...
So not an executive order, but signing a bill that passed with a veto proof majority, and then saying he won't enforce it.
And to prove how much of a stunt this was from TikTok, they turned their services back on less than 24 hours later even though nothing had changed.
What does being veto-proof have to do with it? No president has to sign a bill just because Congress can override him if he doesn't. His signature is literally an endorsement.
> His signature is literally an endorsement
Yes, but we're not arguing about whether Biden agreed with the bill, but that turning it off was a stunt on TikTok's part.
Someone said there was an executive order, but there was not. He said he wouldn't enforce it, obviously signaling that it's up to the incoming administration.
The fact that TikTok turned off for only 12 hours makes it pretty obvious they wanted to have a good relationship with Trump by giving him some positive PR. Which is ironic considering banning it was primarily pushed by Trump to begin with, but people have obviously forgotten that.
Whether you support trump or not, the level of patronage that corporations seem to think is needed is disturbing. I've never seen companies stoking a presidents ego so publicly.
If there comes a day in the future where the header of every major website starts says "Long Live Donald Trump", we will all be worse off for it.
I've been extremely surprised how eagerly people have accepted this as a new normal. I can't imagine it's in the long term interest of billionaires to be labeled as oligarchs by half the country.
This is Trump playing chess. ByteDance, Greenland, The Gulf of Mexico, Panama Canal- All this, and he's not even President yet. It's all part of a bigger picture and a bigger plan with sizable levers. Some love this, others find it terrifying.
Utterly pathetic like that whole "new" country and it's government.
Well Dem and Biden already sealed their fate as the party that ban Bytedance universe (TikTok + Capcut), while Dear Leader Trump restored the services :).
Let's see what the zoomers and millenials will say for next elections
Amazing stunt: The establishment tried to limit freedom of speech and Trump saved the day. Probably a pre-agreed sequence of events.
Never mind that it was him who initially trued to ban it.
Nevertheless a positive development.
There was never a freedom of speech argument here, unless maybe you are china. There are endless similar platforms available to individuals to express themselves on. Ones that aren't owned and controlled by China... America's biggest technological rival.
<< Ones that aren't owned and controlled by China... America's biggest technological rival.
And, you forgot to add, do not allow expression of thoughts that are not culturally accepted in US.
There are people who think similar platforms exist and people who have used TikTok, unfortunately.
What do you mean? YouTube Shorts and Instagram Reels are very similar.
If there’s a genuine interest I’m happy to explain. Reels and shorts are severely different, even from a purely technical and feature-focused standpoint. They lack lack the ability to pause (I think YouTube allows it but reels no) or save to device, and (reels) lacks the wide music catalog that TikTok has. Neither product has a comprehensive video editing platform like TikTok does. Both lack the ability to push timely content and maintain freshness. Reels is fundamentally based on the social graph for recommendations, with some additional signals for things like hashtags. TikTok learns from content itself and recommends based on content. TikTok has a good mix of discovery content as well (I think it’s approximately 10% discovery? Meaning, pushing you things it has no signal on to see if you like it or not, rather than only showing you things you like). Sharing and interacting are incredibly smooth and easy. The ability to stitch videos and do face to face replies, or easily do a video reply to a comment, encourage more face to face two-way conversation.
Aside from the technical features and algorithmic superiority, the community on TikTok is completely different. Have you seen the comment sections on the apps you mention? TikTok has created a beautiful community, and it’s a community that cannot be reached on the other two apps, regardless of their feature set.
You think TikTok is beneficial or even neutral?
I think China is not a role model for freedoms, no one should follow their steps. Censorship is not going to solve your problems and you won’t become China in terms of industry by by banning apps. You will become China sans industry.
China's trade policies, unreciprocated, guarantees that all internet companies will be Chinese eventually, it's just a matter of when.
Simply, yes.
Yes, simply because there are mass number of people making a living there. Be a realist
This is such a fallacious, misdirecting argument. The speech itself was not targeted by the ban. It was the ownership. If the speech stayed the same then regulators would have been happy.
I don't think that's an accurate read. Everyone was playing chicken and the US won. TikTok will be up for sale again, except this time with way less leverage in negotiating a sale.
... I can't even. How did US win? OP effectively nailed all the facets in which it is overall the worst of all worlds. Few individual political players have won, but it certainly was not US or us.
The US won because TikTok will sell.
"The US won because <wild uncited guess about the future>."
Trump didn't overturn the Supreme Court's decision. He only gave TikTok a 90-day lifeline. They need a solution to be allowed to operate. Either they will have to cut ties with the CCP and operate truly independently—and provide assurances for that—or they will sell to someone and make billions.
I know which of the two I'd pick, but yeah, I guess you can say they might also restructure out of the CCP's control, which I think is unlikely because China then just gets paid $0.
Another alternative would be for lawmakers in this new congress to change the law they just passed but given the Republican majority is very narrow and there is plenty of support for the ban across the isle, I find it hard to believe they will be able to do so. But sure, that's also a possible scenario.
<< They need a solution to be allowed to operate.
You are assuming a lot in that one sentence seemingly without realizing it.
This is a disgusting betrayal of America and a violation of our process, given Congress passed a law and it was then unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court. Unless Trump can show that Bytedance met the three conditions that permit an extension, this will backfire and alienate a portion of his base.
It’s a cult of personality. By definition it’s him they support and who informs their thinking. He can’t alienate his supporters, because they don’t have any framework to fall back on.
After they pumped $20B into Trump’s meme coin.
Nothing is real anymore.
While jerking off Trump. We all know what's happening behind closed doors.
So laws don't matter now. That's a great trend to start on day 1.
Trump has clearly neutered both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court. Welcome to a unitary government, with one god-emperor and no checks nor balances. It's going to be a wild two (few?) years.
Correction: it appears there is a 90-day presidential delay written into the law, so we're not quite at god-emperor status yet...
If what you’re saying is true, why would there be a term limit at all?
Hence "few". Two if there are real elections in 2026, and the dems retake a majority. "few" if there aren't, or they don't -- in that case maybe 3-4 if term limits hold, or "who knows?" if as you say term limits don't apply, or Trump manages to put someone in place after him.
There is a cult following though, so even if the dems do well in 2026, I still think it's going to be hard to make sure the law is followed.
I also don't really see the Democratic party making any proper steps to do well in 2026. Maybe they won't have to do anything but let's see.
I'm curious to know how all of those pearl clutchers who got super mad about Twitter removing dick pics of Hunter Biden are doing.
The level of naiveté in this discussion is absolutely astonishing to me. People are seeming to forget that dysfunctional states (totalitarian, facist, the like) all are sprung from one common thread: control of the mind through propaganda. We already have evidence that the CCP or otherwise is manipulating Tiktok's algorithm to influence American minds [1]. This was one study, by one relatively small and underpowered organization. That's to say, there's probably a lot that we've yet to unearth about how the algorithm is manipulated; or how the CCP is planning to manipulate it to further their agenda at the expense of an American one.
It's simply unbelievable to me that a sophisticated community like HN is against a ban in the context of all of the meddling our biggest rival, China, has done in our country to our direct disadvantage. Russia and China's main M.O. has been to divide us; to sow discontent. And they've been pretty successful. Who knows if Trump would have been elected without the Russian election interference. Trump has been a divisive figure who has reveled in destroying social order and he has done so successfully; the amount of hate and distrust for one's opposing political party is at an all-time high in the US, and it shows. This is to say that China and Russia have already been very successful in their attempts. In China Xi likes to say that "The East is rising, the West is falling". This is completely his M.O. and part of his plan.
And now Trump, aware of all of this, is attempting to bring Tiktok back. Knowing everything he knows about it's use and potential future use of a propaganda machine. And knowing full-well that this is good for the East, and bad for domestic civil peace of mind and social order. And in the most Trumpian way possible, he doesn't care. And he's doing it for the most selfish reason possible--to feed his hero complex. Full. Fucking. Stop. This is such a glaring advertisement that he will do whatever he can to put his interests and reputation first over our country's and it's absolutely sickening.
And the fact that there is actual debate and discussion around this issue on HN is just such a shocker. Again, this community should know better about how dangerous propaganda is, amplified by the fact that it's propaganda from our most rapacious, unethical and conniving enemy. An enemy that is planning wars of conquest, who's starving and torturing parts of its population. You want that enemy deciding what your kid spends an hour a day watching on their phone, while you're not paying attention? Yeah, good luck with that.
https://networkcontagion.us/reports/the-ccps-digital-charm-o...
>propaganda
This word is incongruent with your use of this word:
>enemy
Especially in light of the fact that you consistently fail to identify which identity is doing this:
>An enemy that is planning wars of conquest, who's starving and torturing parts of its population.
Pop-quiz: which nations have been consistently at war since March, 2003? Which nations have established 1,000 torture dungeons around the globe? Which nations have portions of their populations, by design, living in desperate poverty, feeding a for-profit prison-industrial complex, every single day, with fresh meat?
The ability to identify propaganda is not as important as the ability to identify duplicity. One cannot have the former without the latter.
THANK YOU!
you articulated it perfectly
the issue is not that tiktok harvests user data, not free speech, not that China is refuses to let US counterparts operate in China - the issue is, TikTok is an insidious propaganda machine that influences our your people, and entire generation, to abandon their values and replace them with views favorable to the CCP
daily, hourly, and each minute young people interact with TikTok, they're influenced by a foreign adversary.
it's telling them Ukraine is the actual aggressor, that Putin is "based", that China is a paradise, that the West is falling, that China has a valid claim on all the maritime disputes, among other things that are non-truths
i owe the rise of antisemitism among young people to TikTok. young people who otherwise do not hold a negative opinion towards Israel suddenly became anti-Israel and hold hatred towards Jews
i have experienced the above first-hand. my account doesn't interact with any current affairs, yet I am bombarded with anti-Israel narratives. there are thousands - yes, thousands - of antisemitic comments and replies under each video. and young people read them and think it's normal - that it's normal to think this way and say such things at loud
i reported hundreds of such comments. all my reports, according to TikTok, did not violate their "community standards". instead, my replies to those comments were removed for violating their "community standards"
(to the people who'll say it's not true, i have data to back it up, and i can send a link to a huggingface repo that contains the dataset)
it is clear pro-CCP and CCP-aligned views are promoted while others are supressed.
i live in a country with tensions with China, and my TikTok FYP page is flooded with pro-CCP narratives and narratives that suggest my country is weak and hopeless
TikTok is a national security issue. it's not enough the TikTok divests from China. it must be banned for the sake of the next century.
Yes! Thank you for helping me affirm internally that I'm not crazy.
I agree all of these other arguments that people are fixating on are complete red herrings. The 'fairness' of letting them operate their companies here and not letting us operate there—totally non consequential argument and a red herring. The free speech thing is a blatant red herring and the Supreme Court agreed in a unanimous decision. If America is the sinking ship, then these arguments are the deck chairs.
Totally agree on the antisemitism points—the way that the platform is manipulating it's algorithm to shape opinions is very nefarious in that it's subtle and becomes difficult to prove directly. But researchers look deeper and deeper, they've been able to find evidentiary smoking guns. I would posit that there are many clues hiding in plain sight that have not been looked into yet.
Anyways, I would have expected a lot more discussion around the points that you and I bring up (points of actual consequence) rather than what I'm currently seeing on HN.
The Guardian and many other newspapers appear to be controlled by the CCP as well:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/dec/23/israel...
The UN is controlled by the CCP:
there's truth to your two statements. if not the CCP, then another foreign adversary.
The Guardian is notorious for being biased against Israel, along with other news organizations like the New York Times and even the BBC.
The UN and other organizations like Amnesty International are openly biased against Israel.
there are good people working in those organizations. and i genuinely believe people who work there want to do good in the world.
but there's no denying that those organizations they work for are compromised.
Right... so everyone is biased against Israel?
But you simply cannot be taken seriously when you claim that openly pro-Israel establishments like the NYT and BBC are biased against Israel - it's just utterly ludicrous, and demonstrably false.
> young people who otherwise do not hold a negative opinion towards Israel suddenly became anti-Israel
You're not seriously blaming TikTok for anti-Israel sentiment?! Couldn't possibly have anything to do with the genocide being carried out by the apartheid state of Israel?
i looked at your profile and just doing a ctrl + f on pages 1 and 2, there's 82 mentions of the word "Israel"
why are you so obsessed with the State of Israel? and i thought i was a superfan of Israel
do you seriously believe Israel is behind the TikTok ban (as you claimed in your other comment)?
and do you seriously believe there are Hasbara in HN? most people in HN are anti-Israel
> why are you so obsessed with the State of Israel?
Because my government has suffered from Israeli interference, and because my government is supporting the apartheid state of Israel's genocide of the Palestinian people - providing weapons, financial aid, political aid and manufacturing consent for genocide.
Because Israel is carrying out a modern day holocaust, all while constantly lying and fabricating evidence. Because I've seen/heard/read with my own eyes and ears the insane horrors the IDF is inflicting on the Palestinian people - just such incredible, unfathomable evil. I can never unsee what I've seen.
Because Zionists and their Hasbara lackeys spread hatred, racism and Islamophobia, and have smeared opponents with false claims of antisemitism.
> do you seriously believe there are Hasbara in HN?
Yes, there are all over all forms of social media [0] [1]. It would be stretching credulity to believe they weren't active here.
> most people in HN are anti-Israel
Haha, laughably false! This is the same kind of tired deflection that Hasbara use all the time.
[0] https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/the-art-of-deception-how-i... [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-2369589...
Hear, hear.
> this community should know better about how dangerous propaganda is
Bear in mind that a large part of this community is employed by the same companies that built the tools used to spread propaganda and disinformation. It wouldn't be in their interest to disclose that they're part of the problem, so it's easier to ignore that the problem even exists.
People seem to discount the way they are influenced by the media they are served. I’m seeing a lot of comments about “free agency” and how “people make up their own minds” rather than 1 to 1 believing what they read. This argument just ignores human nature. We evolved to catch onto ideas, good and bad, and be able to rationalize them in ways that often ignore the true outside state of the world. In this light we should strongly critique those who are the purveyors of information. Although I have many criticisms of even those who are serving information domestically, the idea that we’re going to trust a malicious foreign actor with molding the shape of our minds is just nonsensical.
[flagged]
Go post your useless unsubstantive comments on Reddit. HN is not the place for you.
I would argue HN is not the place for you.
> And the fact that there is actual debate and discussion around this issue on HN is just such a shocker.
Thats what makes HN special, the community questions, discusses and debates. It doesnt just jump to an emotional response as it seems like you have done. If you cant engage in a debate or discussion around something you dont agree with, the HN is not the place to be.
With all of my commentary, this is the point that you're fixated on? I'm clearly not saying that I don't agree with the fact that there's disagreement here, I'm just surprised about the nature of the disagreement. The HN crowd is sophisticated, and to see that they're supportive of reinstating Tiktok on the grounds of 'free speech' or what have you seems like a reductionist oversimplification to me. To argue that we should allow Tiktok because of free speech, in the global context of how it's being used as a data mining and mind-manipulation machine seems like a total non starter to me. And I would expect more community members to weigh that more seriously given how seriously they take security; given the context of how much time the community spends splitting hairs about the future of encryption, forever boycotting Arc for exposing a cookie, etc.
the comment that wong replied to was unsubstantial. wong should not have responded the way they did but samr71 comment was in fact posting reddit level diatribe without engaging in good faith after wong clearly put time and effort into their post.
Time and effort does not a substantial point make.
The post was so shockingly hyperbolic I'm surprised they didn't mention the Chinese were also sapping and impurifying our precious bodily fluids.
What should I even say? It was a borderline schizo sinophobic diatribe asserted without evidence.
The last part would have added something to the conversation over your initial post. You are actually under no obligation to post at all, the downvote arrow is right there.
Earnestly though, you can always take your post, toss it into a llm and ask it to make it sound kind or helpful. Or give it the HN comment guidelines and ask it if your comment runs afoul or ways to make it more helpful. It’s up to you to find a way to add meaningfully to the discourse or just be prepared to be downvoted. Assume good faith is the best way to start.
Feels like they published this statement a day early as Trump is not yet president. Whoops.
What statement? This entire article recognizes that Trump is not president yet.
My comment was originally in another thread that was a statement from Tiktok on Twitter. It looks like this thread was merged with another one so my comment might not make sense now.
Big 1984 energy coming from this story.
“It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grammes a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be REDUCED to twenty grammes a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.”
Human society is collapsing.
The stuff playing out on right now was science fiction when 1984 was written.
This whole charade has had me laughing since yesterday.
The Caesars of Rome often played these public games to make themselves look magnanimous, while at the same time consolidating power and control.
Sadly, Orwell was not hugely imaginative, he was just aware of things that happened in the Soviet Union.
It's worth remembering that Orwell was a socialist, a leftist, and was anti authoritarian not anti communist. (Which isn't opposed to your comment, the Soviet Union was authoritarian.)
It just gets brought up so often that because he was anti Soviet, he must be anti communist, which wasn't the case.
He was always socialist, but ended up as anti-communist after the Spanish civil war, during which while fighting for the Marxist POUM he had to flee a Stalinist purge.
(Americans love to flatten all left parties into "communist", ignoring the rich history of ideological differences and occasionally violent purges)
Huge fan of Orwell myself.
Anti communist or anti Stalinist? Or even anti Marxist-Leninist?
Homage is a complicated book to place because it's been interpreted so baby different ways across eras. But it's hard to imagine someone going and fighting for POUM and praising them post facto would ultimately be anti communist across all flavors of communism.
See: his memoir "Homage to Catalonia," wherein he worked with the Communist Party of Great Britain to get him into Spain during the Spanish Civil War, where he fought with the POUM, a Spanish anti-Stalinist communist party (though he would admit that this was mostly by chance, and he himself was more aligned with the anarchists).
He would say later, "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it." (https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...)
[flagged]
So human society has been collapsing since Roman times?
That's a particularly uncharitable take.
If we assume good intent, what OP was getting at is that we had that form of governance, it failed, we then slowly marched towards democracy, and now it looks like a backslide.
Many certainly collapsed, Romans including.
Distractions as usual for the minions.
[dead]
[dead]
It blows my mind how easily people are swayed and how ByteDance is playing everyone like a fiddle. I need to walk into the ocean because this life ain't for me.
After being a non-stop news and politics junkie the last 15+ years, I've gone beyond cold turkey.
I stopped reading all political, U.S., and even world news the day after the election. Zero. Dropped reddit politics. I don't know who are Trump's cabinet picks. I assume Hulk Hogan and Kid Rock will be on the cabinet, but I don't know and don't care.
On Nov 7 when I saw that not only did Trump win, but he won decisively, and I saw this is what the country wants, I decided that since I can't get rid of Trump's bullshit, I actually have full power to keep that bullshit from entering my personal reality. Whatever daily outrage and anger I would have felt since Nov 7, I don't have. My mind is relatively clear, and --surprise, surprise-- my life is unaffected.
I plan to keep this up for 4 years. I assume at some point, I'll go to get a flu shot and be told vaccines are illegal. And if I notice suddenly a bunch of ads for iodine pills, I'll withdraw as much cash I can and get canned food and water and gasoline. I'll deal with it then.
And in 2 years and 4 years I will go to the voting booth. But I'm powerless until then, except for what I allow into my life.
I'm debating trying to do this. I've seen it recommended by other people who I think are smart. Honestly, I tuned out most of the 2010s after being a political news junkie in the 2000s, and it was probably good for me. I couldn't sleep or concentrate on work for a couple days after this election.
> And in 2 years and 4 years I will go to the voting booth. But I'm powerless until then
What's really depressing is that I'm already happy with my representation in congress, and they'll probably win again comfortably in 2026 and 2028, but they're powerless too.
I've wanted to do this since 2016. It was November of 2015 when I first thought, "How long could I go not knowing if Hillary won or lost?" Eight years later, I've put it into effect, and my mind is so much clearer for it.
My whole life I've believed that "it's important to be informed." I now challenge that. I mean: yes, obviously before the next election I will read up on the candidates and propositions. But apart from that, me being informed has zero effect on the world.
Another forum that I frequent is bogleheads.org (about investing and personal finance), and one of the rules is that discussing politics and proposed legislation is off-limits. But obviously when a new law (e.g. on taxes) is actually passed then discussion of how we're personally affected becomes appropriate and necessary.
That might be a good model for generally striking an appropriate balance: be informed about new major legislation (or executive orders, court decisions, etc.) when they happen, but skip all the day-to-day drama about who said what on the House or Senate floor, or in an interview, or on X in between such things. I've seen it suggested many times that the Wikipedia current events portal is all that one should look at, and it would probably accomplish this.
I’ve not followed the news for about 7 years now. A niche benefit of WFH is that I don’t have to accidentally hear coworkers talking about it either.
Is there any way to still read all the political and world news while keeping your self from over-entertaining or internalizing it?
As I had the same feeling as you, I subscribed to a quarterly news magazine called delayed gratification. I feel it's a good balance between keeping up-to-date, while not letting the news interfere with my daily life and emotions.
Even 5 seconds of Trump is enough to cause rage. I'm powerless to change what he says and does, but I'm only empowered to keep it away from me.
My friend's house (and entire town) burned down, so I'm following that news. But even 2 minutes of reading Trump + Republicans saying the fires happened because the LAPD chief is a gay woman, and I had enough for the month.
I think reducing the amount of news one consumes at least slightly improves things. Unfortunately, my wife and many of my loved ones are targets of Trump and his minions, so I can't totally tune things out, but consuming less news media at least makes for less internalization.
I’ll challenge you: what action are you and your wife+family going to be taking based on the news? If that approximates zero, then you are only just stressing yourself.
It depends on who you are. If you're a straight white guy then completely zoning out might be the right answer. If you are an immigrant then knowing that ICE is raiding Chicago on Tuesday is very important information.
Good for you.
I also feel the concern over who is President is largely overrated. It’s as perverse as deeply worrying about who the next CEO of one’s employer will be — even they aren’t that concerned!
Frankly, we should be more concerned about school board and sheriff elections but society is too broken for that to happen or be meaningful.
People act like they know Congressional/Presidental candidates as well as their own relatives yet they cant even name the local office candidates.
I think you're very naive if you think worrying about the President is equal to worrying about who the next CEO will be.
[flagged]
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
"Eschew flamebait."
[flagged]
>It's our app store.
Who is 'our' referring to?
Alphabet and Apple? Then its their app store.
TikTok has never been open source.
The security concerns about TikTok has merit but I'm surprised given the reputation of HN, nobody is connecting the dots to lobbying from Israel as a legitimate reason. In fact in all the past few threads about TikTok ban there is almost no mention of it. There have been numerous strides to push China as the sole reason but there is almost no real risk other than China knowing what you are into to show you more of the same content exactly how social medias are designed to work in America.
Tiktok views with #freepalestine tags eclipsed #istandwithisrael by nearly 200 to 1 (videos with pro-Israel views got low single digit millions while videos with pro-Palestine views got nearly 200 times that) and THIS is a better explanation for the panic and why essentially lobbying for the ban of TikTok using China isn't a conspiracy theory (especially since it was discussed by a few US media outlets) and that this really in an attempt to keep young people exposed to an uncensored and unfiltered platform which inevitably causes them to grow more sympathetic with Palestine.
It's censorship disguised as a national security threat for a totally unrelated motivator and once again, I'm disappointed more HN users especially those that have been on this website far longer than me were able to connect with all their wisdom they exude in other areas.
> there is almost no real risk other than China knowing what you are into to show you more of the same content
The risk here is China having the ability to sway and manipulate opinions of young minds in US over years by controlling what information they see on a daily basis. That is an extraordinary power which should not be underestimated.
The algorithm simply shows you more of what people end up seeing and footages that otherwise would never be aired or shared on mainstream media and other US platforms (even X) is what is causing young minds to shift.
I think you are misunderstanding the dangers of 'the algorithm'. It does not simply show you more in the same vein as what you have already watched, it is designed to provoke a reaction in you. To make you watch more content, or to post comments, engage in arguments and debates, all to keep you on the platform to make you watch more adverts.
The way it does this is to not show you more of what you have already seen, it is to identify what gets you worked up, and to exploit that by showing you progressively more and more extreme content. It highlights more provocative comments to you that are more likely to make you post an emotional response and engage in a long intense debate that causes more clicks and posts, and feeds more of your emotion back into 'the algorithm'. This is a dangerous spiral which can easily turn somebody who might have a weak opinion on something, into a mouth frothing raged keyboard warrior.
This is very powerful and dangerous, and it is purposely designed like this.
Allowing the Chinese government to have this power over young US minds? Thats what this is all about.
So...have you first hand read and deployed the code?
TikTok could be using blind algorithms as you hint at, but they could also bump content they wanted to.
I am convinced that if China put their best minds to it they could use TikTok to sway any election the way they wanted.
The data available to them about what reels swayed what people in what direction is immense.
I think many people are aware that Israel is the real reason behind the ban - the don't want the world to see how truly grotesque the apartheid state of Israel really is. I mean, some of what's happened is so utterly vile I'm not sure I'd have believed it if I hadn't seen/read/heard in on social media with my own eyes - especially when the MSM is so incredibly, overtly pro-Israel.
I think people who know about Israel's involvement in the ban don't mention it here on HN, because many Hasbara are here with the same tired lies, deflection, hatred, racism, and accusations of antisemitism.
All of this is really simple. Reasonable people know the CCP having full control of public opinion by having ultimate control of the algorithm that literally sets public opinion of everyone under 30… is problematic. When you consider that in a year or so they’re going to invade Taiwan and no doubt simultaneously get all of Gen Z and Alpha on their side with propaganda, this is horrible for anyone who doesn’t love dictatorships.
BUT, Trump wants Gen Z to like him and that’s all there is to it. So he’s just going to come in on a white horse and “Save TikTok” — handing President Xi a gift on a silver platter. Because he doesn’t actually give a fuck about anything besides being popular.
Congratulations to Trump to standing up for freedom and against all 9 Supreme Court justices that refused to enforce the First Amendment. People should be free to speak as much as they want on TikTok even though it's mostly useless chatter. In the Koramatsu decision of 1943, legalizing concentration camps for Japanese-Americans, there were 3 dissenting justices. I wish we had some this time.
Masterful PR move by Trump. Two ways to win, no way to lose: he gets control of the narrative there (if not TikTok itself, via one of his cronies), and he shows how totalitarian the "democrats" are.
> and he shows how totalitarian the "democrats" are.
and by that you are including the massive majority of republican legislators who also sit on intel committees also voted for it with resounding vigor?
Yes, they too would like to show how totalitarian the "democrats" are. Jokes aside, the buck stops with the guy who signs the bill into law. Too bad the guy signing the bill didn't even understand what he was signing this time due to his profound dementia.
So once again it took the incoming president-elect Trump and for Biden to lose to intervene and reverse this ban and give an extension to TikTok.
If Biden or Harris won the election, TikTok would have been completely banned with zero intervention at all as you have seen with how it went and Biden whilst still being president would have done nothing and it took Trump to stop it.
Seriously the Democrats made themselves look very bad with this situation.
The ban had bi-partisan support. Trump was initially for the ban and then changed his mind. On Aug. 6, 2020, Trump signed Executive Order 13942, which sought to ban TikTok in response to national security concerns. Courts struck it down.
He expressed his changed opinion in 2024. Was it because he met with Jeff Yass who holds 7% of ByteDance (which owns TikTok) and is a major Republican donor? Who knows.
But what is clear is that this is again morphing into a talking point against the Democrats even though all of this started with Trump initially.
Trump literally originated it back then.
Trump is not a president yet.
Trump singed an EO that was reversed. Only one president showed interest in a law. Only one president whipped votes for that law. Only one president signed the law.
You realize that is even worse for the Democrats? So why didn't Biden stop it? He had plenty of time to do so and he did not and signed it.
Congress writes laws and the president is supposed to implement and enforce them. It’s like Americans have completely forgotten about this part.
The TikTok ban was upheld by the Supreme Court only days ago. If Americans don’t want this law, they should elect a different Congress.
It passed the Senate by the safely veto-proof margin 79–18
That does not excuse signing a bill into law. If the president opposes a bill, he should veto it even if Congress will override the veto. To do otherwise is to be complicit. So to the extent that you think this bill is bad and shouldn't have been passed, Biden is to blame regardless of how strong the congressional majority was.
The ban had bi-partisan support. So why should Biden stop it if he agrees with it? A major adversary (China) owns a main communication network in the US while the US and other Western countries are not allowed to operate such networks within China. You don’t have to agree with this of course but it’s not unprecedented for the US to restrict the reach of foreign governments. In the past radio waves were restricted in a similar sense.
> So why should Biden stop it if he agrees with it?
That is my point. The Democrats made themselves look very bad with this situation and Biden did nothing and supported the bill anyway and just signed it.
In fact he replaced Trump's original EO with a worse one which includes still supporting the TikTok ban and Biden signed that last year which made it so that if the Democrats won the election, then TikTok would have been still completely banned with no reversal whatsoever.
In effect, those who voted for Biden or Harris also were voting for a TikTok ban, which that is beyond hilarious as everyone saw that he didn't halt the ban.
I don't understand why this makes Biden look bad if he was for this ban in the first place.