[HN Gopher] TikTok is now banned in Montana
___________________________________________________________________
TikTok is now banned in Montana
Author : tortilla
Score : 151 points
Date : 2023-05-17 23:17 UTC (23 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theverge.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theverge.com)
| unethical_ban wrote:
| This sets a bad precedent and is also futile.
| lazyeye wrote:
| Why is this not a simple trade issue?
|
| Why do we allow China to run their social media apps in the West
| whilst they block all foreign apps within their own borders?
|
| How is this remotely acceptable?
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| And the old people in Montana wonder why kids move out of
| Montana.
| eimrine wrote:
| Surveillance crisis or just a censourship?
| dang wrote:
| Please don't post the same thing twice! It makes merging
| threads a pain.
| zokula wrote:
| [dead]
| draw_down wrote:
| [dead]
| [deleted]
| 1-6 wrote:
| Some states are making desperate cries for help while federally,
| there is little being done. It's good to see the republic still
| functioning.
| DubiousPusher wrote:
| This is why the "legislating from the bench" criticism always
| fell flat for me. America's legislative branch has been
| deadlocked for 40 years. History abhors a power vacuum. When
| one exists, the neighboring institutions will bend and stretch
| to fill it, distorting themselves and the whole power structure
| in the process.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Desperate cries for help? What injury is Tiktok inflicting on
| Montana?
| kurthr wrote:
| [flagged]
| DanAtC wrote:
| Is there a precedent of app stores needing to enforce app
| restrictions on a state-by-state basis?
|
| What if Apple protests and just disables their store in MT? It
| would only impact at _most_ 500k people (population 1mm at 50%
| market share, not accounting for demographics)
|
| A huge number of angry Montanians who might vote their
| representatives out, but a rounding error for Apple.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| Why would Apple do this to help a foreign company? They have
| nothing to gain except a small amount of app store fees. And
| they'd piss off a ton of Republican and some Democrat
| lawmakers, not to mention the 80% of their customers who _don
| 't_ use TikTok.
|
| If Apple did do this to help a foreign company (or any
| company), it would probably fall afoul of the law:
| https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...
|
| > A firm's refusal to deal with any other person or company is
| lawful _so long as the refusal is not the product of an
| anticompetitive agreement with other firms_ or part of a
| predatory or exclusionary strategy to acquire or maintain a
| monopoly. (emphasis mine)
|
| IANAL, so I'm sure there are other laws I am not aware of that
| would squelch such a move.
| threeseed wrote:
| As countless developers have learnt over the decades: no app is
| bigger than Apple.
|
| They will never shut down their store because of TikTok.
|
| And some people might protest but everyone else will quietly
| switch to YouTube Shorts and Instagram Reels.
| Jemaclus wrote:
| While I agree with the "no app is bigger than Apple," I'm not
| sure the TikTok ban is specifically about TikTok. This opens
| the door to each state doing similar things for whatever they
| want -- imagine Alabama banning period-tracking apps or
| California banning Parler.
|
| I'm not convinced Apple or Google want to be in the business
| of state governments telling them what apps they can and
| can't sell. Although I do concede that they do this at the
| country level, so what's one more level of geo-restriction?
| -\\_(tsu)_/-
| 99_00 wrote:
| It's interesting that some oppose Musk running Twitter, it's
| moderation, policies, and alorithms because of his sympathies for
| a mainstream American political party.
|
| And at the same time carry water for TickTock who is legally
| obligated to cooperate with China's intelligence service in any
| way they require. Knowing that the Chinese regime runs genocidal
| slave labour rape camps and will extract and sell your organs for
| free speech and religious practices.
|
| I suspect that they don't realize that the CCP controlling the
| TickTock algorithms is more dangerous making the Q-anon shaman
| product manager for the algorithms at meta, Google, and Twitter.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > because of his sympathies for a mainstream American political
| party.
|
| That's not generally why.
|
| But I do agree to this extent -- if we're to be banning Tiktok,
| we should be banning all social media companies, foreign and
| domestic, that do the same as Tiktok does.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| Seems like a little bit of a strawman, they're all bad.
| 99_00 wrote:
| Maybe i am misunderstanding. Are you saying that a CCP
| controlled social media company is as bad to America as an
| Elon Musk controlled social media company?
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| different varieties/severity, neither good - arguably Musk
| is more directly harmful to Americans than Uyghur genocide,
| (which most Americans probably aren't even aware of) but
| it's not really an intelligent comparison and probably
| results in more distracting infighting than anything
| quantum_state wrote:
| Blatant violation of constitutional rights... what a shame!
| skrowl wrote:
| [dead]
| smoldesu wrote:
| Nah, this is entirely our mistake. Our devices took away our
| ability to choose what we install, and now certain individuals
| get strongarmed like this and we lose our say. The shame is
| that modern society went 10 whole years thinking this was a
| smart move because Twitter wasn't shit and the news wasn't
| scary enough yet.
| nahnahg wrote:
| [dead]
| wnevets wrote:
| Is this some that small government I've heard so much about it?
| hiatus wrote:
| Is this flamebait? What does this add to the discussion?
| advisedwang wrote:
| Everyone is talking about the app stores, but the wording of the
| bill also seems to impose a duty on TikTok itself not to serve to
| users in Montana. That seems like the biggest sledgehammer here.
| I wonder about it's legality.
| cma wrote:
| Isn't this a bill of attainder?
| Tangurena2 wrote:
| Yes. It lists one single product. It tries to wrap some
| semblance of legality by referring to 15 CFR 7.4 (a list of
| foreign "adversaries"). If they really cared about such
| legality, they'd have banned every app from every country in
| that list (most of which would be illegal in the US anyway).
|
| https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-15/subtitle-A/part-7/subp...
| hax0ron3 wrote:
| Ah censorship, something that much of the left and the right can
| agree on although they quibble about the details of exactly what
| and when to censor.
| [deleted]
| Razengan wrote:
| Oh fuck. Begun the censorship wars have.
|
| Will more countries ban Facebook/Twitter/Reddit etc?
| skrowl wrote:
| [dead]
| warning26 wrote:
| Let's hope so!
| ortusdux wrote:
| Link to SB0419 text -
| https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billpdf/SB0419.pdf
| bombcar wrote:
| Goes live Jan 1, 2024! YouTube is gonna take this in the Shorts
| ;)
| Only_Spam wrote:
| Why don't we make the analogy of TikTok to alcohol? Did people of
| Montana voted for this or did Montana politicians follow their
| donors' agenda? Is FB as dangerous or more dangerous as TikTok?
| Why target TikTok?
| Tangurena2 wrote:
| Lobbyists demanded it. Kentucky passed something similar
| earlier this year [0] - banning TikTok from state computer
| networks. An amendment exempted universities from the ban, but
| libraries are still blocked. It was signed by the governor on
| March 23 and went into effect that day[1].
|
| 0 - https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/23rs/sb20.html
|
| 1 - normally, state laws go into effect at the end of the year
| or end of legislative session (depending on the state
| constitution) unless there is an "emergency" in which case it
| goes into effect the day it becomes law.
| sergiotapia wrote:
| That's a shame because in a world of artificially inflated
| 10-minute youtube videos, I really enjoy tiktok's to the point
| short clips. If I want to see a review or a how-to or similar, I
| go to tiktok first because they are from normal dudes and not big
| channels that artificially pad their videos to 10 minutes for the
| ads.
| paulddraper wrote:
| Youtube Shorts
|
| If that's your thing
| coldcode wrote:
| And TikTok has no influencers, sure? At least on Youtube, you
| can see who is paying them to shill you. Every video online is
| potentially there to convince you to buy something, believe
| something, or motivate you to do something to make the creator
| money.
| nkjnlknlk wrote:
| I find the TikTok algorithm (perhaps not the platform) to be
| superior at giving me content I like/need and from creators
| that are (seemingly) authentic. I've seen far more diversity
| on TikTok than YouTube and due to there being no thumbnails
| or titles there is less clickbait.
|
| That being said, TikTok's search capability is kind of
| useless.
| groggo wrote:
| Seriously. I just like tiktok for scrolling through guitar
| or cooking videos. I'm sure there's plenty of stuff on
| youtube, but it's fun just to just scroll through a few
| quick videos when you have a free minute. Those creators
| don't have to be trying to sell me anything, they're just
| getting me on the platform, then tiktok can show normal ads
| every few videos.
| swayvil wrote:
| How do you ban an app?
|
| Random phone inspection?
| post_break wrote:
| Ask Apple to remove it from devices with billing info in that
| state. Fine Apple until they comply.
| bedast wrote:
| As noted in the article, it bans the app from the app stores,
| not individual devices. It doesn't penalize individuals for
| having and using the app.
| Nifty3929 wrote:
| [flagged]
| ghettoimp wrote:
| This is blatant misinformation.
|
| "Penalties in this section do not apply to users of tiktok"
|
| https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billpdf/SB0419.pdf
| galleywest200 wrote:
| The bill states only downloads are banned, so probably just
| remove it from the App Stores.
| DubiousPusher wrote:
| I imagine that they will go after the source. Basically Apple,
| Google, Samsung and Microsoft will have to hide the app in
| their respective stores for Montana users. That is, if there
| isn't an injunction before it even goes anywhere.
| cute_boi wrote:
| What happened to freedom of speech. I thought many politician,
| especially republicans cry for free speech.
| Tangurena2 wrote:
| They only "care" about it when it affects "conservatives".
| Anything that the "left wing" uses (or cares about) must be
| banned.
| renewedrebecca wrote:
| freedom of speech for _republicans_.
| nicenewtemp84 wrote:
| I don't think freedom of speech applies to foreign companies.
| krapp wrote:
| Freedom of speech is recognized as a universal human right
| throughout the world, and American political philosophy
| considers many rights mentioned in the Constitution as
| applying universally as well.
| nicenewtemp84 wrote:
| What are you talking about? Tons of European countries have
| zero concept of freedom of speech.
| nicenewtemp84 wrote:
| For those that don't believe me, go try to have a
| discussion as skeptic of accuracy of Jewish deaths during
| WW2. I'm not saying they're right, but there are several
| things you can flat out go to jail for in the several
| countries just for talking about.
| krapp wrote:
| I'm assuming your definition of free speech is the
| absolute variety. If so, no country, including the United
| States, has ever recognized freedom of speech as having
| no limits, making it a useless definition in the context
| of this conversation. There are always limits,
| everywhere.
|
| But it's obvious that European countries _have a concept_
| of freedom of speech, just one you personally don 't
| consider valid. But like the guy said, that's just, like,
| your opinion, man. That concept is defined in the
| Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international
| law, as well as the EU Charter, and probably whatever
| individual constitutions or bodies of law each country
| has. It was established before the US came up with the
| First Amendment, which was based on existing
| Enlightenment philosophy.
| aaomidi wrote:
| It's easy to argue this is restricting free speech for the
| American based users.
| vnchr wrote:
| I think there's some concern over manipulation of content and
| surveillance of users by a foreign adversary.
|
| The Wall Street Journal recently published this article that I
| think shines a light on some major areas of concern.
|
| "TikTok Feeds Teens a Diet of Darkness: Self-harm, sad-posting
| and disordered-eating videos abound on the popular app" [0]
|
| -- [0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/tiktok-feeds-teens-a-diet-
| of-da...
| space_fountain wrote:
| There was a whole genre of news reports about YouTube
| radicalizing people, but I don't recall people even really
| talking about banning it
| cute_boi wrote:
| I read news like this for Instagram etc.. but it doesn't seem
| to be banned.
| unfunco wrote:
| What does free speech have to do with this?
| welshwelsh wrote:
| Tik tok videos are speech, therefore banning tiktok is a
| violation of free speech
| himinlomax wrote:
| You are free to post the exact same content on any other
| platform. It's not the speech that's banned, it's the
| platform.
| nhinck2 wrote:
| A bit of silly analogy but if a megaphone recorded
| everything about the person speaking into it and forwarded
| it to a semi-adversarial state, would banning that
| megaphone be a violation of freespeech?
| radu_floricica wrote:
| Haven't read the bill, but I'll go on a limb and say it's
| not written to apply to all apps owned by semi-
| adversarial states.
| nhinck2 wrote:
| Of course, it's a hypothetical to tease out why people
| think it's a violation of free speech.
|
| A law this specific wouldn't even be valid I'm my
| country.
| Tangurena2 wrote:
| It is substantially the same as the one passed in my
| state. The first sentence of senate bill 419:
|
| > _AN ACT BANNING TIKTOK IN MONTANA; PROHIBITING A MOBILE
| APPLICATION STORE FROM OFFERING THE TIKTOK APPLICATION TO
| MONTANA USERS_
|
| https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billpdf/SB0419.pdf
| steviedotboston wrote:
| Why should a state my Montana be leading the way on this?
| Congress should have banned TikTok years ago. Anyways, good for
| them.
| mcast wrote:
| How would this even be technically enforced? It seems TikTok
| would have no reason to pay for any fines from the state.
| pizzaknife wrote:
| cloudfront could do it. imagine the partnership opportunities
| stale2002 wrote:
| The bill is targeting app store providers.
|
| So, the way that it is enforced, is if the major app stores, do
| not remove TikTok, then they get fined a bunch of money.
|
| > It seems TikTok would have no reason to pay for any fines
| from the state.
|
| Well, ignoring the fact that this applies to app stores,
| companies can't just ignore court orders.
|
| If they do, then their bank accounts could be frozen. US banks
| aren't going to ignore US court orders. Bank of America, or
| whoever, is going to give that money to the government, when it
| is ordered to do so.
|
| I guess if Apple, and Google, want to shut down their US
| operations, then that would allow them to avoid the fines.
|
| But, I expect they won't do that, and will simply remove those
| apps from their app store, for Montana residents.
| stevefan1999 wrote:
| And people would just use VPN to dodge this anyway just like how
| people from Louisiana dodged PornHub ban.
| bastardoperator wrote:
| Queue the citizens of Montana leading the charge in "vpn"
| searches on Google. Good luck Utah!
| insomagent wrote:
| What do I need to know, as somebody who doesn't live in the USA?
| Minor49er wrote:
| Everything that you need to know is conveniently provided
| within the article
| Andaith wrote:
| "and demands mobile app stores make the app unavailable for
| Montana residents."
|
| Oh so now they've made an enemy of Google & Apples legal teams?
| Because those two aren't going to want to set a precedent for all
| sorts of bans across random jurisdictions.
| [deleted]
| citizenkeen wrote:
| They already do? Plenty of apps are banned in various
| countries, if I recall correctly.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| These are states... should there be city level bans too?
| Where does it end. Now they need 50 different app stores just
| for the US customers? Does DC get its own? How should we
| handle IS territories... I think Apple and a Google have
| plenty reason to fight this.
| didntknowya wrote:
| It's usually the publishers who choose what countries they
| appear in rather than the store itself.
| flangola7 wrote:
| There's many country level bans by the store and have been
| for years.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| But no sub-national level bans, that are enforced, at
| least from what I've heard.
| dboreham wrote:
| Installed the app last night. It would be interesting to see
| their DAU graph for the state!
|
| Something worthwhile noting here is that the usual "politicians
| don't understand the technology" sentiment doesn't apply here
| because our governor at least knows how to code Perl, and ran a
| software company.
| bioemerl wrote:
| Why would you install that app on your personal phone? Even in
| some misplaced sense of rebellion, you're basically inviting
| spyware into your life.
| asynchronous wrote:
| Gonna back this up, from the security research I've read the
| app *uploads* over 2gb of data once installed over the course
| of one month, without any interaction at all from the user.
| groggo wrote:
| What is the data? Doesn't iOS limit access to anything
| outside of the app? It has to ask to access contacts,
| photos, location. If you just use it to scroll through
| stupid videos, what does it even have access to?
| asynchronous wrote:
| IIRC the traffic is encrypted, all TCP/IP packets but
| going to bytedance servers. Without interacting with the
| app I have no idea what it could be sending but scary to
| speculate.
| groggo wrote:
| please speculate. I just don't understand what it would
| even have access to. Are you worried about it exploiting
| iOS bugs? Otherwise it should only have explicit access
| to what I grant, right? No audio, video, files, photos,
| contacts, location.
| paulddraper wrote:
| > Are you worried about it exploiting iOS bugs?
|
| Yes, or gathering information not blocked.
|
| For example, you don't need iOS permission to get general
| location information (IP address), or device fingerprint.
| asynchronous wrote:
| Right, in theory iOS should sandbox it. But all the other
| functionality that's exposed is probably getting sent
| over (think ip address, connection settings, iOS OS
| fingerprint). My guess is most of that data is just a
| keep-alive c2 style connection with ByteDance. Heaven
| forbid the CCP develops some iOS zero days and then has a
| list of every single iOS device that would be vulnerable
| to it.
| xster wrote:
| are you referencing something specific?
| AbrahamParangi wrote:
| If anything, people who understand technology are _more_ wary
| about social media and other digital addictions.
| mock-possum wrote:
| I don't like TikTok
|
| But I don't like this
| mateo411 wrote:
| I think TikTok could easily make over $10000 a day from its
| Montana Audience. Although this law likely violates the 1st
| amendment, perhaps the best course of action is to either ignore
| Montana or just cut them a check.
| bsears wrote:
| per violation per day could probably be interpreted as per user
| mateo411 wrote:
| If it's per user, than that won't be economical for TikTok.
| chris-orgmenta wrote:
| "Is there a good reason to ban TikTok?... the answer is still
| "nobody knows."
|
| I believe the second sentence answers the first, but not in the
| way the author intended. I'm not fundamentally insisting that we
| legally declare all data compromised until proven otherwise, but
| there is reasonable risk here that we cannot assuage.
|
| As for whether SB 419 can be upheld: Eh. ~50 states, one of which
| is being used as a test here. Fine, that's one of the great
| benefits of the state+fed system. This is probing and forcing
| people to have the conversation, and that alone feels like this
| is worth it. Of course I 'sacrifice' Montana residents with this
| statement, which I arguably have no right to do.
| klyrs wrote:
| > Of course I 'sacrifice' Montana residents with this
| statement, which I arguably have no right to do.
|
| Unless you're a legislator in Montana, you don't bear an iota
| of responsibility here.
| chris-orgmenta wrote:
| >you don't bear an iota of responsibility here.
|
| Hmm, I think I do - A) as any bystander to any injustice, B)
| If I have more knowledge on the industry than the average
| person.
| Tangurena2 wrote:
| Every Republican controlled state passed some sort of TikTok
| ban this year. TikTok has joined "transgender" and "abortion"
| as the current moral panics driving right wing discourse &
| legislation.
| MikusR wrote:
| Also Telegram
| aaomidi wrote:
| ?
|
| Are you imagining that telegram is owned by putin
| aaron695 wrote:
| [dead]
| [deleted]
| aio2 wrote:
| fuck
| client4 wrote:
| It's the beginning of States waking up and helping protect
| citizens privacy when it comes to technology. Sure this is a one-
| off directed at TikTok, but Montanan's have a constitutional
| right to privacy that's being violated daily by technology
| companies. Another great bill to check out is by State Senator
| Daniel Zolnikov regarding consumer data privacy. I'm optimistic
| for a future where I have a legally enforceable right to privacy.
| Specifically one where I can use modern technology without the
| depraved acceptance I'm giving up my digital privacy.
|
| http://laws.leg.mt.gov/legprd/law0210W$BSIV.ActionQuery?P_BI...
| [deleted]
| caf wrote:
| Bring on the Great Firewall of Montana!
| nahnahg wrote:
| [dead]
| avn2109 wrote:
| One underappreciated aspect of this is ban is that anyone who
| wants Tiktok will just go download it in Wyoming or Idaho etc, as
| it seems to be merely a ban on downloading the app, and not a ban
| on Tiktok traffic itself. So the ban will have near zero actual
| impact in practice (even if it somehow makes it into effect).
|
| Furthermore, it's unclear if the web app of Tiktok will be
| affected, or if it's only a ban on the mobile app.
|
| Source: Am Montanan
| TrainedMonkey wrote:
| Disagree with zero impact, it is a question of accessibility.
| Downloading an app is easy, going to another state to download
| an app is significantly harder. You are right that this does
| not stop determined people from downloading TikTok, but it
| definitely will slow down user growth in Montana... and open
| the door to further regulation in the future.
| justin66 wrote:
| > anyone who wants Tiktok will just go download it in Wyoming
| or Idaho etc
|
| Someone needs to setup a nonprofit that will transport a user's
| phone to a free state and setup TikTok for a modest fee. The
| nonprofit could use the money to reimburse the women and
| transgender people who now need to travel to free states for
| some of their health care.
| activiation wrote:
| > anyone who wants Tiktok will just go download it in Wyoming
| or Idaho
|
| Isn't it easier and cheaper to use a vpn?
| greenhearth wrote:
| The point of censorship is not really to ban something
| outright. It's to show that a thing can be banned, that this
| thing is not safe from just doing whatever it wants. It is
| mostly to assert a dominance over a socio-cultural domain and
| to establish an identity by negation. The initiators of the ban
| probably do not believe the banning will work either. The main
| point of the ban is the enforcement of the ban, not the ban
| itself. It is also done out of fear, to undermine a disrupting
| element of the established order, which Tik Tok certainly is. I
| mean, it's pretty much brain poison lol
| asynchronous wrote:
| The ban itself seems more geared at restricting Bytedance's
| ability to operate (and fine them) and less about preventing
| the people of Montana from using it, especially since there's
| no ISP or traffic restriction on it.
| jasmer wrote:
| It will have a big effect.
|
| Information funnels don't work by such hyper rational actions
| such as 'going to a different state to do something'.
|
| That won't happen.
|
| TT use will fall dramatically, and given the nature of 'tipping
| points and critical masses' - it will change things.
|
| The 'strategic' issue, is that this may be the US doing a bit
| of 'dipping toes in the water' in a small state, before taking
| broader action, which I think they will do.
| falcolas wrote:
| Last I heard, there was a "per use" fine for usage as well.
| Honestly, I haven't looked at this farce of a bill since it was
| first introduced.
|
| EDIT:
|
| S1: An entity violates this prohibition when any of the
| following occurs within the territorial jurisdiction of
| Montana:
|
| (a) the operation of tiktok by the company or users; or
|
| (b) the option to download the tiktok mobile application by a
| mobile application store.
| jameshart wrote:
| "An entity" is defined as either TikTok, or an app store.
| Individuals can not violate this statute.
| falcolas wrote:
| The entity is Apple/Google. But an end user using ticktok
| constitutes a violation for which Apple/Google is liable.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| > (a) the operation of tiktok by the company or users; or
|
| I don't see how _owners_ of iOS or Android phones can be
| in any way said to be _users_ of Apple or Google. At best
| this would apply to TikTok itself, or to companies which
| supply phones to employees.
| jameshart wrote:
| If 'the company' (unclear who that refers to. Bad
| statute-writing. Assume it means the same thing as entity
| but a court could interpret it however it chooses) or a
| 'user' (whoever that is) 'operates' the TikTok app in the
| territorial jurisdiction of Montana (insert your own
| interpretation of 'operate' and 'in') then _a violation
| occurs_ for which 'an entity' is liable.
|
| So if someone inside Montana launches the TikTok app on
| an iPhone either an App Store (presumably Apple's) or
| TikTok itself is liable for that violation.
| avn2109 wrote:
| The article claims "...will not impose any penalties on
| individuals using the app". A commenter elsewhere in this
| thread links to the law itself, which could presumably
| disambiguate, though I've not read it.
| falcolas wrote:
| They plan to go after Apple and Google, fining them for use
| and downloads.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| Does a state even have a right to do something like this?
|
| Somehow, I feel like if California tried to ban Fox News - it
| would not fly.
|
| This doesn't seem that different, though I personally find it
| amusing that it's coming from a conservative state.
|
| I do agree TikTok is toxic trash - but I'd say the same about
| Fox News - and it just doesn't seem like something a state
| has the ability to ban.
| falcolas wrote:
| As I understand it, no. Montana would have to be
| effectively regulating interstate trade since neither Apple
| nor Google have offices here. Plus, the whole "negotiate
| commerce and treaties with foreign entities" thing.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| The Supreme Court just upheld California rules about the
| sale of pork. Looking at it strictly from the interstate
| commerce view, this doesn't appear much different.
| hiatus wrote:
| Forget the pork, CA forces auto manufacturers to comply
| with their emissions standards, too.
| wombatpm wrote:
| So can apple turn off all iphones in Montana in
| retaliation. Bet it would be easier/cheaper to cut off
| those customers than implement any changes. Android phone
| makes could follow suit
| falcolas wrote:
| It'd be hard to identify a phone associated with a
| "Montana citizen". Not impossible, but I think that based
| on Apple and Google's comments on these laws that they
| haven't built the functionality in.
|
| GeoIP doesn't work because carriers (especially in
| Montana) tend to assign IPs from surrounding states as
| much as they do local cities. When I'm on the cell
| network, I'm regularly identified as coming out of
| Denver. Phone number area codes are equally useless,
| since half the folks I know here in Montana have area
| codes from outside states. GPS would be the best bet,
| though I feel like even that would have some major
| caveats (the use would have to be decoupled from the
| location services controls/displays, something they don't
| do for even their own apps right now).
|
| Also, people rely on cellphones for emergency services. A
| manufacturer shutting down phones would probably expose
| them to some serious liabilities.
| [deleted]
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| It's predictable that it's coming from a conservative
| state. That they are broadly against using state power to
| ban things is part of their identity and marketing but not
| reality. Especially when it can be construed as a social-
| moral problem.
| claytongulick wrote:
| Or, in other words, all "conservatives" don't necessarily
| agree on or believe the same things, and this varies by
| person and by region.
|
| Like any political group, there's a wide variety of
| ideas. Religious right folks get lumped together with
| constitutional libertarians, but have very, very
| different ideas on the proper limits of legislation and
| government power.
|
| And yes, there are both idiots and brilliant thinkers in
| the Republican party (which !== 'conservative'). There
| are very good ideas, and abominably stupid ones.
|
| Much like any group of humans.
| Volundr wrote:
| I think there is still value in pointing out that the
| Republican party line of individual liberties and small
| government is nothing but marketing jingle. When it comes
| down to brass tacks they are as quick to use the
| government to crack down on an individuals choices as the
| other guys.
| claytongulick wrote:
| You mean a political party has talking points that they
| don't always live up to?
|
| Next you'll tell me that there have been presidents that
| haven't lived up to their campaign promises...
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| I'm not speaking about the validity of their ideas or the
| cohesion of their group identity. Just pointing out that
| their reputation as being universally against top-down
| bans is not based on their actions when given the
| capacity to enact top-down bans.
| asynchronous wrote:
| Yeah nothing like banning people from going to
| restaurants without a state issued vaccine pass (we
| didn't forget)
| jameshart wrote:
| I got my vaccine certificate from CVS. the state had very
| little to do with it.
| bmarquez wrote:
| The State of California automatically issued digital
| vaccine certificates. Basically QR codes that could be
| read by a business with the appropriate hardware.
|
| https://myvaccinerecord.cdph.ca.gov/
| nkjnlknlk wrote:
| Which part is not real? The vaccinations? Their effect on
| spread? Their effect on symptoms?
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| I didn't claim no other groups use state power to ban
| things. I'm pointing out that the idea that conservatives
| are uniquely and generally opposed to it is fantasy.
| asynchronous wrote:
| On that we can wholeheartedly agree.
| erehweb wrote:
| Maybe, maybe not. The courts will decide. To those saying
| it's obviously unconstitutional, remember that the
| constitution is whatever five people on the Supreme Court
| says it is.
| [deleted]
| HillRat wrote:
| Unless they changed up the bill since I looked at it,
| you've got a bill of attainder with serious Constitutional
| issues, including First Amendment, due process, and dormant
| Commerce Clause problems. It's very hard for me to see a
| federal court letting this stand, even at a time where
| every day brings another "federal court lets bad law stand"
| story.
| AbrahamParangi wrote:
| These addiction apps rely on the activation energy to keep
| slurping on the dopamine straw be ~0.
|
| I bet if you forced a 10 second boot time to the app you would
| reduce usage by 40%.
| Taylor_OD wrote:
| Also am Montanan and Wyoming or Idaho are far away for some of
| us. I don't know many people who would drive multiple hours to
| get an app. But sure, anyone who wants it badly enough will be
| able to get it. It doesnt seem like the point is a total all
| out ban though. It's a deterrent for the general public who
| will default to not downloading now rather than defaulting to
| downloading.
| seanw444 wrote:
| Or you could just not even need to go to another state. People
| will learn to use a VPN.
| aio2 wrote:
| [flagged]
| throwaway5959 wrote:
| How is this constitutional?
| Spivak wrote:
| Wait for the lawsuit from the ACLU + collation to drop. It
| likely isn't.
|
| It's technically a secret that they're going to sue but
| everyone already knows at this point so it's fine.
| jfengel wrote:
| "Constitutional" is what five members of the Supreme Court say
| it is. I'm sure they can come up with reasoning either way.
|
| I suspect most neutral observers would say it's
| unconstitutional. But what they think does not matter.
| hunglee2 wrote:
| Controlling what people think is key to stable society. Great to
| see the US learn from authoritarian regimes, a demonstration that
| two way exchange between different political systems can have
| positive outcomes
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| Can't wait for the injunction to hit in about 5 days.
| edsimpson wrote:
| Related, "Montana bans Telegram, WeChat, and Temu from government
| devices"
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/17/23727750/montana-bans-tel...
| COGlory wrote:
| Frustratingly, Gianforte has so far lived up to all my
| expectations for him. I love Montana, it's a great and beautiful
| place to live, but hilariously the California liberal migration
| invoked a huge immune response turning an otherwise purple state
| deep red and sending them off the deep end. Sucks to see this
| happen.
| JdeBP wrote:
| The Guardian: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35983009
|
| Associated Press: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35984728
|
| New York Times: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35983933
|
| Politico: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35984023
|
| The Verge: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35982447
|
| NBC News: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35982950
|
| CNN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35982386
|
| Wall Street Journal:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35981578
|
| And now Reuters too. (-:
| dang wrote:
| Thanks! I think we've merged them all hither.
| black_13 wrote:
| [dead]
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| I'm never going to give a single crap about TikTok specifically
| being in the loving arms of the CCP as long as everyone else is
| just collecting my data anyway to either bombard with ads or sell
| to government entities. China is way down on my list regarding
| potential hostile actors to my personal welfare.
| cwillu wrote:
| Need to add "here's what you need to know" to the automatic
| clickbait remover.
| Razengan wrote:
| I find "Here's...." such an infuriating thing. Like, what, did
| someone do "research" and see that it gets more clicks?
| Kye wrote:
| It's hard to find them these days, but some of the blogging
| about blogging/internet marketing crowd used to post data on
| headlines and what got clicks based on different sources like
| Facebook and Twitter.
|
| Examples from one of the larger still active blogs here: http
| s://duckduckgo.com/?q=titles+site%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fmoz.co...
|
| There were also lists of headline swipe files that provided
| lots of templates.
| dang wrote:
| Looks doable. I've added it to my list. Thanks!
|
| (Manually removed in the meantime)
| proactivesvcs wrote:
| I hadn't even noticed it was a feature. The fact that I am
| not immediately turned off by the headlines here makes my
| ignorance a surprise!
| dang wrote:
| It's one of those things that doesn't get noticed when it
| works well, which we hope is most of the time. That has an
| amusing side effect: the cases that people notice are the
| ones that they don't like--those stand out like sore thumbs
| --and this creates the feeling that the title edits are
| always annoying and wrong. Which is true, if you don't
| count any of the good cases!
|
| Thus most of the comments about HN's title editing system
| (software + mods) are about how awful and obviously
| terrible it is, and comments like yours here are rarities.
|
| In the end this is all priced in, so to speak, to HN's
| system. The main thing is that the front page be mostly
| free of misleading and/or linkbait titles and gimmicks. pg
| used to describe it like this: we want the front page of HN
| to look bookish. That is, it should look interesting to
| people who like to read, and look boring to people who
| don't.
| moneywoes wrote:
| Will this impact acquisition costs for d2c companies? Perhaps a
| sign of more stages to come?
| PraetorianGourd wrote:
| It is not now banned, it is scheduled to be banned in January
| 2024.
| millzlane wrote:
| Gives plenty of kids time to figure out how to use VPNs and
| spawns a whole state of hackers.
| usernew wrote:
| While a dupe, there are thousands of users reading this site
| sporadically - I've been on here over a decade and have never
| seen either previous discussion. The site's fresh out of 1990
| design is hostile towards navigation of anything beyond a few
| pages of comments. If people discussed this enough in the other 2
| threads, they can... gasp.. skip the discussion here.
|
| so let me kick it off then. What exactly does this mean? To
| illustrate my point, let's change the scenario. There's a small
| town north of Chicago called Skokie. 100k people. Lets say they
| pass a "law" to ban some app from Google's play store.
|
| People in Montana should perhaps take their phone, ask it what a
| computer is, listen to Siri's answer, then call 411 and ask them
| how to open a pdf. Then they should shovel some cow dung - as is
| daily life - and finally then they can pass some laws about cow
| dung.
|
| And now this, from the Australia lawmakers. Australia, the
| Montana of the planet.
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VB3uQHa14g
| falcolas wrote:
| My only consolation in this shitstorm is that it's been expanded
| to include "all social media applications that collect and
| provide users' personal information or data to a foreign
| adversary, or a person or entity located within a country
| designated as a foreign adversary."
|
| So, yeah. I guess it's time to shut 'em all down.
|
| Now we just wait for the "I didn't mean American companies"
| retraction.
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| Yep, the "lets ban TikTok because they're foreign and might
| potentially misuse data." is a silly, shallow reaction that
| doesn't deal with the real problems and the known, not
| potential, issues. It seems like a distraction.
|
| Data misuse is real concern. But TikTok is not the main
| problem, it's industry-wide. A good Data Protection legislation
| that applies to all, and is applied to TikTok if they warrant
| it (and also to FaceBook, etc) and the next social media that
| starts up next year, would be much better. EU GDPR style.
|
| If none of these companies can live with that, then so be it,
| shut 'em all down.
| 99_00 wrote:
| [flagged]
| icecreamtoilet wrote:
| [flagged]
| brentm wrote:
| The article I read in WSJ last night said otherwise. It said
| that the lawmaker who introduced the bill wanted to modify it
| to include that language but it was too late in the process to
| do so. The lawmaker believed having the language would have
| made it more easier to avoid legal scrutiny.
| jameshart wrote:
| Where do you see that? As far as I can tell from the Montana
| legislature site, this motion to amend it along those lines
| failed:
| https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/AmdHtmH/SB0419.002.002.PDF
|
| The 'current bill text' is this:
| https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billhtml/SB0419.htm
|
| And what it covers is:
|
| Tiktok may not operate within the territorial jurisdiction of
| Montana. An entity violates this prohibition when any of the
| following occurs within the territorial jurisdiction of
| Montana:
|
| (a) the operation of tiktok by the company or users; or
|
| (b) the option to download the tiktok mobile application by a
| mobile application store.
| falcolas wrote:
| Greg Gianforte's own words, as recorded here:
|
| https://www.npr.org/2023/05/18/1176805559/montana-tiktok-ban
| jameshart wrote:
| Refers to a separate ban - just a gubernatorial directive -
| that bans TikTok from government devices:
|
| > Last December, Gianforte banned TikTok on state
| government electronic devices. On Wednesday, he added that
| the ban would expand to include "all social media
| applications that collect and provide users' personal
| information or data to a foreign adversary, or a person or
| entity located within a country designated as a foreign
| adversary."
| falcolas wrote:
| Hmm. It doesn't identify which ban, a good point.
| [deleted]
| JohnFen wrote:
| That such bans don't include domestic companies spying on
| people and providing that data to domestic entities says
| everything about how bankrupt this whole thing is.
| dkarl wrote:
| Mainstream conservatives/Republicans swung hard in the
| direction of supporting domestic spying and surveillance in
| the early 2000s and have never swung back. They hate the
| government but (with some justification) assume that law
| enforcement is on their side.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > They hate the government
|
| Judging by their positions and actions, they don't hate
| government at all. They love government. They just hate it
| when government doesn't enthusiastically support what they
| want.
| atdrummond wrote:
| Given how much distrust there is of DHS/FBI among Trump
| supporters/GOP base, I'm not sure this is true; especially
| with many neocons returning to the Democratic Party they
| came from originally.
|
| Elected GOP officials are a completely different beast from
| much of their own base.
| dkarl wrote:
| I'm making a generalization that doesn't include every
| single element of the right, but these days the rhetoric
| against federal law enforcement has no chance of getting
| turned into policy. Distrust of government is an integral
| part of conservative rhetoric, and incidents like Waco
| and Ruby Ridge remain a cherished part of their
| mythology, but there's a big difference between the
| 1990s, when they were demanding investigations and
| limitations on the FBI's power to surveil and act against
| American citizens, and anytime since 9/11, when they have
| wanted the FBI to have more power to surveil and act
| against American citizens, even under Democratic
| administrations.
|
| You wouldn't be able to get Republican support for
| reducing the power of federal law enforcement even if Joe
| Biden died and Kamala Harris became president. Maybe
| their paranoia would get sufficiently revived if they
| were facing a President-Elect AOC in 2024... but I'd
| rather not think about how they would behave under those
| circumstances.
| mortify wrote:
| It would be nice if the Democrats would tear this down, but
| they seem happy having the opportunity to spy domestically
| now that it's in place.
| AlexCoventry wrote:
| That the US is illegally spying on its own citizens is bad,
| but not as bad as allowing an explicitly hostile, autocratic
| foreign power to turn a massive propaganda and surveillance
| platform on US citizens.
|
| The US has many problems, but I'd still rather live in its
| admittedly somewhat rough approximation to transparent
| liberal democracy than under a completely and explicitly
| unaccountable regime like the Chinese Communist Party.
|
| It would be foolish to allow the CCP to abuse our liberal
| values in a way which undermines the security upon which
| liberal society depends.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > the US is illegally spying on its own citizens is bad,
| but not as bad as
|
| I disagree. I think they're both roughly equally as bad.
|
| > I'd still rather live in its admittedly somewhat rough
| approximation to transparent liberal democracy
|
| Me too! I'm not sure what the relevance of that is, though.
| AlexCoventry wrote:
| The relevance from my perspective is that I'm much more
| alarmed by spying and manipulation by a hostile foreign
| entity which explicitly places securing its own power
| above all else, than I am by spying and manipulation by
| agents of the US government, which is explicitly founded
| on principles of transparency and accountability to its
| citizens and has many institutional guardrails intended
| to serve those principles, even if those guardrails
| aren't fully effective. At least in the US there is the
| _ideological possibility_ of peacefully voting in
| representatives who would strengthen and improve those
| guardrails. That 's not something an agent of the CCP is
| even supposed or motivated to _think_ about.
| drekk wrote:
| The US has the grasp and reach to punish me based on things
| about my privately generated data. The CCP has the grasp
| but not the reach. They are entirely different threat
| models. Neither one is excusable, but the US spying on me
| is a lot more immediately applicable.
|
| Also I find it funny to the point of parody that China is
| the country under an unaccountable regime when they are
| signatories to the Hague System. The United States and
| Russian Federation are not, and the US goes so far as to
| have an affectionately nicknamed "Hague invasion clause".
|
| In my lifetime the US has invaded several countries and
| replaced their democracies with friendlier governments. I'm
| not sure how we get to stand on any moral high horse about
| "liberal values". I'm not sure how leaving Libya with open-
| air slave markets is reconciled under said values.
|
| I hope one day people can look at their own governments
| more critically than foreign ones, not least because our
| own government is at least on paper allowed to exist via
| consent of the governed.
| AlexCoventry wrote:
| I agree that these are all terrible things about the US
| which need to change, but at least we have the
| institutional tools to effect that change, if we can
| muster the political will. Any power the CCP establishes
| will be far more immutable and hostile to critique or
| adjustment.
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| > The CCP has the grasp but not the reach.
|
| CCP has extraterritorial police stations that regularly
| surveil the Chinese diaspora and have sent agents to
| assault individuals. It's particularly bad for expats
| with domestic families, expats are known to be challenged
| or coerced using the threat of harm to family members.
| It's especially bad for uighur and tibetan expats.
|
| Here's the thing. The US has certainly done bad shit. By
| and large it reckons with it and is subject to corrective
| action. And we see the effects of that: The current
| administration (so far) _and_ the previous administration
| have not started wars in any new countries. Libya was
| less bad than Iraq was less bad than Vietnam. The
| direction of us policy is _getting better_. The direction
| of Chinese foreign policy is _getting worse_ and their
| domestic policy is trending genocidal, and there is
| limited internal dialogue and thus less of a forcing
| function for amelioration (Hard to make that comparison
| since CR policies killed millions more than genocide,
| albeit indiscriminately)
|
| > I hope one day people can look at their own governments
| more critically
|
| Yes, I hope that one day too, Chinese citizens can look
| at their country in as critical a way as us citizens can.
| zanellato19 wrote:
| > By and large it reckons with it and is subject to
| corrective action.
|
| What kind of corrective action? The US has never faced
| any backlash for helping Brazil (my country) to maintain
| a dictatorship because of communism fears, for example.
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| Corrective action != Punishment. The US really doesn't
| seem to do as much of that stuff these days. It's very
| unpopular and not doing these things any longer is in
| bipartisan political discourse. Do you disagree?
| quest88 wrote:
| Please be clear what you're talking about. There's a
| difference between "service providing targeted advertising
| based off what it knows about you" and "service that sells
| data it has collected about you". The former wouldn't sell
| that data, because it's their most valuable asset.
| JohnFen wrote:
| Yes, those two things are different, but I don't think that
| difference really matters that much.
| falcolas wrote:
| I agree, this is a distinction without a difference,
| especially if your aim is to prevent influencing
| discussion and policies.
|
| An ad targeted at "young democrats" and sending targeted
| emails to "young democrats" has the same effect (one
| could argue that the ad would be more effective since
| it's less easily filtered out)
| exabrial wrote:
| good, please ban facebook next.
| mikece wrote:
| Tomorrow's story: "Residents of Montana discover VPNs and how to
| use them!"
|
| Between Utah and Montana the awareness and use of VPNs is rising
| among the non-security-conscious, and this is a good thing.
| threeseed wrote:
| VPNs don't help in this case.
|
| You would need to setup a new Apple ID/Google account with no
| credit card billing information.
|
| And then deal with all of the inconvenience that entails i.e.
| no more paid apps, need to cancel subscriptions etc.
| jliptzin wrote:
| The party of "small government" just continuing about their
| usual business...
| woooooo wrote:
| I saw a BBC story the other week bemoaning how state college
| students were circumventing firewalls of foreign media using
| VPNs.. the irony seemed to be lost on them.
| mmh0000 wrote:
| So, I avoided VPNs for years because they had no practical
| benefit. I live in Utah, and I would consider myself very
| technically adept. Previously, I didn't like "VPNs" because now
| I'm just routing all my traffic through another untrusted 3rd
| party. It's like choosing between two evils, would I prefer my
| ISP knows where I go, or some rando that I also have to pay?
| Worse, the "rando" (usually) requires a VPN app which could get
| up to all sorts of fuckery. So. yada yada yada.
|
| Well, then, two things happened back-to-back. The VPN provider
| Mullvad was unsuccessfully raided, and Utah passed hyper-
| totalitarian laws. On the recent PR news, I investigated
| Mullval, and... they're fantastic. You don't have to use their
| app; they support straight openvpn or wireguard and are Linux
| native. AND I can pay them in BTC, further obscuring myself.
|
| Because of Utah's law, the vast majority of my traffic is now
| directed over a VPN. I don't even really go to porn sites all
| that often. It's more the principle of it.
|
| The more the state pushes to limit and remove freedoms, the
| more I will do everything in my power to push the other way.
| It's the Hacker Mindset =D
| Jemaclus wrote:
| I generally have the same thought process (rather go through
| ISP than VPN) but one angle of this thought that I've
| struggled with is: what makes my ISP any less of a rando than
| the VPN that I choose? At least I have more choices with my
| VPN than with my ISP...
|
| ...but I still haven't bitten the bullet on a VPN yet.
| throwaway5959 wrote:
| What's your threshold for leaving the state?
| [deleted]
| ChikkaChiChi wrote:
| Has the government provided a state-approved application that
| replicates what the consumers want from TikTok? If not, people
| will find a way around this like they always do.
| tremere wrote:
| I don't know if this is the right call, since it opens up a can
| of worms. Since it might affect free speech as a constitutional
| right it might make it to the Supreme Court, which might be
| interesting.
| tiedieconderoga wrote:
| >The law specifies that no penalties apply to users of TikTok.
| But app store operators and TikTok itself could face fines of
| $10,000 per violation per day, with an individual violation
| defined as "each time that a user accesses TikTok, is offered the
| ability to access TikTok, or is offered the ability to download
| TikTok."
|
| Sounds like a money-printing machine.
| proxiful-wash wrote:
| It sounds like people are standing up to psychological
| manipulation? please everyone vote to end this in your state
| also.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Why not advocate for general phone privacy laws? Why can't
| apps that require geo data use location then discard it? Why
| can't users decide?
|
| Because these laws don't care about privacy if American
| companies and government reap the data.
|
| I think TikTok is malware, _and_ I think the reasons the US
| wants to ban it are self serving. Not how the RESTRICT act
| bans VPNs, for goodness sake.
|
| I am highly skeptical of government making a coherent privacy
| bill that isn't a backdoor to more domestic surveillance.
| krapp wrote:
| No. Although I'm a Texan, it'll probably happen anyway if it
| hasn't already and my vote doesn't matter. I don't want the
| government deciding what software I'm allowed to use and what
| forms of speech and entertainment I'm allowed to expose
| myself to.
|
| And I notice none of these conservatives are talking about
| banning Twitter anymore - which is far more psychologically
| manipulative than TikTok - now that one of their own has
| taken it over to push as much right-wing propaganda on it as
| possible, just to hassle the "woke hivemind."
|
| I'm fine with app stores making the decision on their own but
| I prefer to not throw the entire framework of free speech out
| the window just because stoking fear of the "red menace"
| still works in the US.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| Then ban the psychological manipulation. Not one company. And
| good luck defining that term legally without running afoul of
| the constitution.
| jameshart wrote:
| The actual legislation:
| https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billpdf/SB0419.pdf
|
| Seems facially unconstitutional. Will maybe force a proper court
| decision on whether the _Bills of Attainder_ clause applies to
| corporations.
|
| Why are legislators so focused on banning TikTok, rather than
| regulating _whatever it is that TikTok does_ that they don 't
| like?
|
| Don't like data about your constituents being in the possession
| of a company with ownership ties to the Chinese government or
| communist party? Do the work to describe what kind of 'ties' are
| the ones that worry you, what kind of entities are the ones you
| don't like, what kind of data you don't like being in their
| hands, and write a law that codifies that.
| mullingitover wrote:
| > Why are legislators so focused on banning TikTok, rather than
| regulating whatever it is that TikTok does that they don't
| like?
|
| Because a foreign company succeeded in the US. If Tiktok had
| simply done what the US wanted, and done a fire sale to a US
| company, Tiktok would be welcomed with open arms and there
| isn't a privacy violation the company could commit that would
| get it into real legal trouble. Tiktok would be deeply embedded
| in society and not having it would be like not having a
| telephone number.
|
| The Tiktok situation is what US companies face around the world
| when they enter a foreign market and dominate (see:
| Facebook/Google and GDPR, or Apple being forced to allow other
| app stores on the iPhone by the EU). Those countries suddenly
| discover they have _principles_ and vigorously enforce them.
| This is just the first time that the US has been walloped so
| badly in this game that it 's been forced to discover
| principles, too.
|
| Regulating what Tiktok does that they don't like is too hard,
| we might end up harming US companies that do the exact same
| things. So the lazy workaround is to make noise about the
| principles but then just target the company directly.
| edgyquant wrote:
| Countries have the right to ban foreign adversaries. US
| companies are a different problem with different solutions.
| jameshart wrote:
| Do _states_?
|
| (edit - oops, see correction below) There's nothing in this
| law that would unban TikTok if its ownership were transferred
| to a US corporation.
| jameshart wrote:
| Actually - correcting myself. There IS a clause that unbans
| TikTok on ownership transfer. I didn't read far enough
| down:
|
| > Section 4. Contingent voidness. [This act] is void if
| tiktok is acquired by or sold to a company that is not
| incorporated in any other country designated as a foreign
| adversary in 15 C.F.R. 7.4 at the time tiktok is sold or
| acquired.
|
| If TikTok is transferred to a company not owned by China
| the act goes away.
|
| So they could just do that, then reacquire the company and
| this law vanishes in a puff of logic.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| The law would still be on the books. Presumably it would
| become non-void, and immediately active, if a Chinese
| company repurchased TikTok from a non-Chinese company.
| Much like unconstitutional laws prohibiting abortion
| became immediately active again after the recent Supreme
| Court ruling.
| JdeBP wrote:
| Yes there is. It's right there in section 4.
| falcolas wrote:
| As I understand it, nope. States can't negotiate treaties
| on the US' behalf. Commerce and sanctions would fall under
| that as I understand it.
|
| States also can't regulate interstate trade, which I
| believe trying to penalize Apple and Google would
| constitute, since neither has a office in Montana.
| hiatus wrote:
| Why can California require auto manufacturers to comply
| with their emissions standards if it is in effect
| regulating interstate trade?
| webstrand wrote:
| Couldn't it target the shops and companies that sell
| devices with Apple/Google app stores on them, instead?
| hotpotamus wrote:
| What makes a company a "US Company"? Aren't the big social
| media companies all global with offices in the US and most
| other countries? I get that a lot were founded here, but I
| don't get the impression that they feel that they derive any
| particular allegiance to the US because of that. Isn't it to
| the shareholders?
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Montana isn't a country.
| logicchains wrote:
| >Countries have the right to ban foreign adversaries
|
| This is the same logic that China uses to ban all western
| apps. Fortunately in the west, countries don't have rights,
| people do, and citizens generally have the right to run
| whatever software they want on the hardware devices they own.
| Governments that violate such rights get challenged in court.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| Aren't there other foreign goods that you can't get in the
| United States?
| stale2002 wrote:
| > citizens generally have the right to run whatever
| software they want
|
| Fortunately this isn't a restriction on citizens.
|
| Instead, is a law regulating businesses.
|
| We have all sorts of laws, regulating businesses, all the
| time.
| markdeloura wrote:
| Agreed! But it's always so much easier to ban and get credit
| for "protecting Americans" than do the work and build a solid
| base for the future. We should hold our politicians to a higher
| standard.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Why are legislators so focused on banning TikTok, rather
| than regulating whatever it is that TikTok does that they don
| 't like_
|
| There are two issues with TikTok: privacy and national
| security. The latter is what this is about. (Related to _e.g._
| our foreign media ownership rules.)
|
| The federal legislation is trying to create an extensible
| system for forcing divestiture based on requirements you
| describe. This is more ham fisted.
| mlyle wrote:
| There's also the third issue, which is much more problematic
| to fix with regulation: short-form video is absolutely
| _killing_ youth attention span. I know students who will ask
| another student a question, and then lose focus and zone out
| within literally 3 seconds and not hear the answer. This was
| not nearly as prevalent a decade ago.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| And the 4th option - it's eating American companies lunch
| and apparently the free market party thinks it's now okay
| to take away things from its citizens based on
| scaremongering and innuendo.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _the third issue, which is much more problematic to fix
| with regulation: short-form video is absolutely killing
| youth attention span_
|
| We age gate tobacco, alcohol and even pornography. Is it
| impermeable? Of course not. Does it prevent Adam Mosseri
| from contemplating PornHub for Kids [1]? Yes.
|
| [1]
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/27/adam-
| mo...
| rafaelero wrote:
| Then ban all social media altogether.
| JohnFen wrote:
| But this ban clearly has nothing to do with that, because
| it's only about Tiktok and ignores all other short form
| video.
| mlyle wrote:
| Yes. It also has little to do with the other point the
| parent of my comment mentioned (privacy), as they said.
| lykahb wrote:
| I hope that this shifts the Overton window toward discussion
| about banning facebook, twitter and instagram. They play a major
| role in exacerbating the divisions in the society and the rising
| suicide rate. Those domestic platforms do a better job at
| undermining the national security than any foreign force could
| dream of.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| How do you reconcile this position with the First Amendment?
| lykahb wrote:
| The First Amendment guarantees freedom of expression by
| prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights
| of individuals to speak freely. It is open to interpretation,
| but banning social platforms that do not create their content
| is not the same as censoring the press.
|
| At the time the amendment was conceived, it was unimaginable
| to have a nation-wide entity that threatens the freedom of
| expression other than the government. So, it may actually be
| in spirit of the First Amendment to control the entities
| which promote and censor public discourse according to their
| opaque internal algorithms.
| [deleted]
| karaterobot wrote:
| There's nothing in the law, as far as I am aware, that
| requires an otherwise banned enterprise be allowed to operate
| because it also allows people to speak freely on the
| premises.
| urmish wrote:
| A platform that allows unhinged free speech would be more in
| line, but tech players wouldn't pursue it citing hate
| speech/advertisements and would outright ban it.
| jareklupinski wrote:
| From the Constitution:
|
| > 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.
|
| There is nothing there that explicitly grants private
| enterprises the right to store, sell, and manipulate your
| free speech.
| krapp wrote:
| >There is nothing there that explicitly grants private
| enterprises the right to store, sell, and manipulate your
| free speech.
|
| ... because the Constitution limits _the government._ It
| doesn 't grant rights to private enterprise or the people
| (of which private enterprise is a superset.)
|
| Note the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which _explicitly_
| state that the rights listed in the Constitution are not
| exhaustive, and that all such rights not enumerated in the
| Constitution are granted to the states and the people.
|
| So the right of private enterprise to store, sell and
| "manipulate your free speech" (which is just a bad faith
| framing of moderation as a violation of civil rights) is
| _implicit_ to the right of free speech itself, a right
| which is neither defined by, and which cannot be limited
| by, the First Amendment to begin with.
|
| Although yes, there are limits even within the US, those
| limits are usually very strictly scrutinized. Banning all
| major social media platforms because "They play a major
| role in exacerbating the divisions in the society and the
| rising suicide rate" on the basis that the Constitution
| doesn't explicitly say you can't is blatantly contrary to
| the spirit of the First Amendment and the whole philosophy
| of free speech in American law.
| paulddraper wrote:
| Note: Ninth Amendment isn't legally meaningful, just
| morally meaningful.
|
| The authors believed in natural God-given rights. They
| didn't want a certain rights being legally enforceable to
| give moral carte blanche to everything else.
|
| The legal applicability of the Ninth Amendment is similar
| to that the Preamble.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Note the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which explicitly
| state that the rights listed in the Constitution are not
| exhaustive, and that all such rights not enumerated in
| the Constitution are granted to the states and the
| people.
|
| That's wrong on the Ninth and Tenth: the Ninth Amendment
| says that enumerated _rights_ don't limit other rights of
| the people that exist (the purpose of this was that the
| Constitution wasn't a "blank slate" document, there was
| law existing before it which established rights, and
| Ninth Amendment was to make clear that the Constitution
| did not extinguish them, it doesn't give anything at all
| to states; the Tenth Amendment, which does address
| states, says all _powers_ (not rights) not granted to the
| federal government by the Constitution are reserved to
| the states or the people.
|
| > So the right of private enterprise to store, sell and
| "manipulate your free speech" (which is just a bad faith
| framing of moderation as a violation of civil rights) is
| implicit to the right of free speech itself
|
| No the right to conduct commerce that relies on doing
| this is not inherent in either the First Amendment nor is
| such conduct of commerce, insofar as it has an interstate
| character, protected from federal regulation by the 9th
| and 10th Amendments, because regulating interstate
| commerce is an explicit power of Congress.
| krapp wrote:
| I mean, even given how badly the Commerce Clause has been
| abused at this point, I'm incredulous that it should
| allow the government to ban social media platforms at
| will simply because bits travel through the series of
| tubes across state lines.
|
| Particularly since, if that were the case, porn would
| have been banned under that rationale ages ago. If free
| speech protects the likes of Larry Flynt and Vice it
| obviously protects Facebook and Twitter.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| The first amendment doesn't necessarily protect being-an-
| incredibly-invasive-and-creepy-stalker-with-an-eternal-memory
| (but "at scale", which apparently makes it OK somehow?)
|
| The business model is what would be at risk, not Facebook's
| free speech.
| viraptor wrote:
| Slightly off topic - I'm not sure I've heard the gov stating it
| plainly in the recent years: "the People's Republic of China is
| an adversary of the United States" (from the bill). Did I just
| miss it / glance over, or is this out of character for officially
| released gov documents?
| organsnyder wrote:
| The state of Montana doesn't speak for the federal government.
| tcfunk wrote:
| Federal gov employees also can't use tiktok on any device
| that is in the general vicinity of gov property.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Sure, but the federal government isn't trying to forbid the
| American public from deciding what private decisions to
| make.
| lotsoweiners wrote:
| Yeah. A lot of state and other local government are coming
| out with these policies as well. In Arizona we aren't
| allowed to have TikTok on any government issued devices or
| on any device that accesses government resources (so
| personal device that you use to access work gmail or
| outlook).
| woooooo wrote:
| I wonder how many Chinese-manufactured goods the state of
| Montana bought yesterday while issuing this statement.
| bioemerl wrote:
| Chinese subsidy and abuse of global trade systems is a big
| part of what makes them an adversary.
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| Things are changing. Today I went to buy a water bottle. Name
| brand, made in China: $8. Generic, made in USA: $4.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| The $5/dozen t-shirt has little possibility of collecting
| private data and sending it to the mother ship
| runarberg wrote:
| How does a hypothetical data collection warrant a ban,
| while a real illegal data collection associated with
| illegal voter manipulation and illegal campaign financing,
| like the Cambridge Analytica--a British company--scandal,
| doesn't?
| oh_sigh wrote:
| Well, Cambridge Analytica has been disbanded since 2018
| so there would be little use in banning it.
| [deleted]
| eric_h wrote:
| I suspect there's at least some "think of the children"
| motivation behind this, even if it's not explicit.
| throwuwu wrote:
| Trading with your adversaries is a good way to not start a
| war.
| jeswin wrote:
| A $250b/year trade deficit will weaken you over time while
| you might just be kicking the can down the road. The
| generation having to fight the war will have lesser chances
| of winning it.
|
| Trade (especially massively imbalanced trade) with a
| communist dictatorship is not a good idea.
| drekk wrote:
| "The United States is also a one-party state but, with
| typical American extravagance, they have two of them." -
| Julius Nyerere, first president of Tanzania
| dkarl wrote:
| It can cut both ways, though. If your primary source for a
| crucial resource is a country that could potentially
| benefit from harming you, that can be strategically
| intolerable and eventually lead to finding an excuse to
| start a war.
| 99_00 wrote:
| Can state how your wondering is relavant or what argument or
| point you are alluding to?
| xeromal wrote:
| I've you've never had to do business with people you don't
| like, color me impressed
| jobs_throwaway wrote:
| People you don't like =/= adversaries
| TrueGeek wrote:
| "the People's Republic of China is an adversary of the United
| States"
|
| - sent from my iPhone
| bioemerl wrote:
| They threaten regularly to go to war with us over Taiwan.
| People before WW1 thought war was impossible thanks to how
| the economy was so interconnected.
|
| Russia invaded Ukraine despite how tied they were to Europe
| economically.
|
| To suggest China can't be an adversary just because we
| trade is a blunder made many times in history, and it
| fails, time and time again. Don't fall for it.
| px43 wrote:
| No one is saying that China _can 't_ be an adversary.
| People are saying that maybe US politicians shouldn't be
| blatantly labeling them as an adversary just to score
| some sinophobic rageporn points with Fox News viewers.
| colpabar wrote:
| Don't worry - as soon as the american war machine gets
| the green light everyone else will become hawkish
| sinophobes too. Many such cases.
| orangecat wrote:
| _sinophobic rageporn_
|
| Yes, if the genocidal tyrants in Beijing were white we'd
| have no problem with them.
| linhns wrote:
| China is an adversary and has been for a long time for
| many countries. They don't say that for no good reason,
| and yes, it's not about sinophobia.
| bioemerl wrote:
| > No one is saying that China can't be an adversary.
|
| I think anyone who says they aren't is lying to
| themselves.
|
| This is a far bigger trend than just some fox News
| viewers. Opposition to China has become bilateral and is
| very well supported by most in America.
|
| You can only spend so long pretending to be a friend
| while also opposing the United States in basically every
| possible way until the United States wakes up and calls
| the quacking thing a duck. Seeing reality, we are burning
| bridges.
|
| TikTok is one of those bridges. The chip export bans are
| another. Expect them to continue until China's trade with
| America resembles our trade with the soviets in the 80s.
| woooooo wrote:
| They're mostly the same country they were 10 years ago.
| Compare the media coverage then and now -- they didn't
| change, we just ran out of war on terror and needed a new
| enemy.
| bioemerl wrote:
| > They're mostly the same country they were 10 years ago.
|
| Oh, I strongly agree with you there. This was obvious in
| 2013 as well.
|
| Xi and his arrogant actions on the world stage have been
| a big help in creating opposition though.
| mattwest wrote:
| Then don't compare the media coverage. Instead look at
| the actions of both countries. Read proposed legislation
| from US lawmakers going back almost two decades
| addressing the game theory between both nations. Read
| about the rampant IP theft that China has committed over
| the years, particularly in US-tax funded institutions.
| The US is simply planning ahead and severing ties which
| have kept us in a compromised position.
|
| Sure, maybe some people are warhawking but most of the
| concerned people are focused on trade dependence and
| worried that China will take over Tiawan's production as
| a last resort. Is that an unreasonable view? What happens
| if they do decide to do that? Just let them do it?
| taylodl wrote:
| > People before WW1 thought war was impossible thanks to
| how the economy was so interconnected
|
| That is _not_ why everybody thought war was impossible.
| The reason they thought war was impossible was the King
| of England, the Kaiser of Germany, and the Tsar of
| Russia, i.e. the major belligerents in WWI, were all
| cousins. They were Queen Victoria 's grandchildren. Those
| weren't the only grandchildren on the throne who ended up
| taking up arms and entering the war. Given how a total of
| seven of the belligerents were related, including the 3
| largest belligerents, nobody thought the family would go
| to war with one another.
|
| They thought wrong.
| goatlover wrote:
| Nukes are a reason why China won't go to war with the US,
| same as Russia. Unfortunately for Ukraine, they gave up
| their nukes.
| bioemerl wrote:
| Taiwan lacks nukes and China is rapidly building out it's
| nuclear umbrella. I believe they absolutely intend to try
| to use that same nuclear threat to enable their invasion
| of Taiwan without American intervention.
| credit_guy wrote:
| If China successfully invades Taiwan, using nukes or not,
| nothing and nobody will be able to stop Japan and South
| Korea from building their own nukes.
| krapp wrote:
| I'm certain both countries could get at least one working
| nuke within a day if they had to.
|
| Notwithstanding that Japan already "has" plenty of nukes,
| they just happen to be on American submarines.
| stale2002 wrote:
| Sounds like a problem.
|
| I guess we need more laws like this then to solve it, then.
| px43 wrote:
| I'd love to see what would happen if Walmart got banned in
| the same way.
| asynchronous wrote:
| That line caught me as well - seems Montana at least has a
| designated enemy even if federal offices don't state it that
| way. However the DoD in their recent zero trust framework
| document basically pointed all the fingers at China as well.
| lubesGordi wrote:
| Not enemy, adversary. A much softer claim and one I'm pretty
| sure has been taken for granted for a while.
| radpanda wrote:
| There are often a lot of weasel words used instead. In US
| Defense circles China has been described as a "pacing threat"
| over the past few years: https://www.defense.gov/News/News-
| Stories/Article/Article/26...
|
| I guess that's one way to describe the tense rivalry without
| completely calling your most important trade partner an
| "adversary".
| marianatom wrote:
| After narrowly lagging behind China in 2022, Mexico
| officially became the US's largest trading partner at the
| start of 2023, according to new US Census Bureau figures.
| https://www.gfmag.com/magazine/may-2023/mexico-overtakes-
| chi...
|
| China should fall pretty quickly behind Europe as well this
| year. China's economy has fallen off the cliff - 80% decrease
| in foreign orders, 20% official youth unemployment rate, 50%
| reduction in home prices, 80% decrease in government land
| sales
|
| China is no longer a partner to US, but a competitor and
| adversary. To Europe and Japan as well. China made that very
| clear when they announced unlimited friendship with Russia
| last year.
|
| It's Russia + China + Iran vs Europe + US + Japan + Taiwan +
| South Korea + Australia + Canada
| hax0ron3 wrote:
| >80% decrease in foreign orders, 20% official youth
| unemployment rate, 50% reduction in home prices, 80%
| decrease in government land sales
|
| I do not find these figures to be credible. They would an
| indicate a cataclysmic, wartime level sort of economic
| collapse that I see no evidence of.
|
| Since you post this kind of stuff all the time, I can't
| help but feel that you have an axe to grind. Not that I
| would blame you for hating the Chinese government, but
| still... are you sure that you are not being irrational
| about its prospects?
| knd775 wrote:
| > China made that very clear when they announced unlimited
| friendship with Russia last year.
|
| To be clear, this was before the war and China has since
| walked it back a bit.
| marianatom wrote:
| 4/23/23: China's cooperation with Europe and other
| nations is "endless" just as its ties with Russia are
| "unlimited", China's envoy to the European Union said
| https://www.reuters.com/world/chinas-cooperation-with-
| europe...
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| I get the feeling you intended this quote as a gotcha,
| but it actually appears to be a manifestation of how they
| "walked it back" considering that "China's cooperation
| with Europe and other nations is 'endless'".
| marianatom wrote:
| My quote was to prove China is still maintaining that
| ties with Russia are "unlimited". I don't care what lies
| China is telling Europe :)
| chmod600 wrote:
| How is China the most important? Measured in dollars, a brief
| search seems to show that we trade more with Canada?
|
| https://www.census.gov/foreign-
| trade/statistics/highlights/t...
| ianburrell wrote:
| China is biggest imports. Canada and Mexico are biggest
| total trade, although it is really close. Canada and Mexico
| are the biggest exports.
| radpanda wrote:
| In my mind it's where we get the most stuff that we
| couldn't get elsewhere. Sure, we can harvest more or less
| hardwood, or import more or less from Canada, Sure, if we
| have issues with Guatemala we can buy our t-shirts from
| somewhere else. But if we want the devices that our
| information economy requires, there seems to be no where
| else to build them. Apple's attempts to build iPhones in
| India for example: https://www.firstpost.com/world/apples-
| india-production-face...
| anigbrowl wrote:
| A governor of s state =/= the federal government. the US
| Constitution vests the management of foreign affairs in the
| President. The Governor of Montana is just a public official
| expressing a private opinion, and has no official standing.
|
| Consider the possibility that Greg Gianforte is angling for a
| cabinet job in a hoped-for future GOP administration, since his
| brash style is popular with many voters in that party,
| notwithstanding its sometimes criminal manifestation:
| https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/12/532613316...
| [deleted]
| sgjohnson wrote:
| It's an entirely meaningless declaration that carries 0 real
| weight, because foreign policy is exclusively in the federal
| government's ballpark.
|
| All it means is that "the people of Montana really don't like
| China", but more officially.
| 0xDEF wrote:
| I don't give much about the privacy arguments because Western
| apps also spy on us.
|
| However it's good that we are finally responding to the unfair
| market conditions imposed by the Chinese government. Western app
| devs do not have the same access to the Chinese market as Chinese
| app devs have to the Western markets.
| beardyw wrote:
| True, but the corollary is that Chinese people do not have
| access to as wide a range of products. So from the perspective
| of the freedom of the individual their situation is worse.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| Montana becomes first US state to make sideloading ubiquitous.
| eimrine wrote:
| Censoursip or surveilance crisis?
| jfengel wrote:
| Shaking fists at Kids Today(tm)
| guilhas wrote:
| Freedom crisis
| eimrine wrote:
| I like your attempt but your answer delivers less sence and
| more ambiguity than I would like to meet. Could someone
| elaborate on this answer?
| smith002 wrote:
| [dead]
| barathr wrote:
| I wrote up a quick analysis last night here:
| https://ioc.exchange/@invisv/110387246627189198
|
| Here are the takeaways:
|
| * It'd be easy for Apple and Google to prevent downloads of
| TikTok for most users, which would also include app updates, as
| they have a significant amount of knowledge of users' locations
| and could prevent most users in Montana -- even those using a VPN
| -- from downloading the app or updating it.
|
| * It'd be very difficult for Montana to enforce the other piece
| of the TikTok ban -- if "entity" in the bill means any company,
| they're stuck: the state has little ability to prevent side-
| loading of apps on Android and users who want TikTok can access
| app repositories hosted out of state. There's virtually no way
| for ISPs inside Montana to surveil all user usage to find out if
| they're trying to download TikTok from a third-party repository,
| and even if they could there would be legal issues with the state
| mandating this.
|
| Fundamentally, this makes user privacy and security much worse.
|
| * Apple, Google, and ByteDance could be aggressive and use the
| data they have -- all three have GPS data for most or all
| relevant users here (i.e. TikTok users on an iPhone or Android)
| -- and block requests to download or use TikTok from within
| Montana. And they probably will, unless they get a court to block
| the bill.
|
| The one thing the bill banning TikTok _doesn 't_ do is the one
| thing that is desperately needed: actually protect user privacy,
| by banning the collection, aggregation, sale, and use of fine-
| grained user data -- by ByteDance, Meta, Google, Apple,
| Microsoft, Amazon, or any other.
| screye wrote:
| > side-loading of apps on Android
|
| 90%+ users are never going to use apks. If this ban kills the
| network effect (the R0 of the viral infection), then the last
| 10% aren't going to last long either.
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| That's true, but TikTok's primary demographic (teenagers)
| contains a disproportionate part of the population willing to
| go to remarkable inconveniences to subvert authority. Alcohol
| and vapes take substantially more effort for your average
| high schooler to get their hands on than downloading an APK
| and pressing "install", yet there's no shortage of drinking
| and vaping happening.
|
| As long as the overall platform is popular, it won't be
| surprising to see a lot of kids showing each other how to
| sideload.
| knaik94 wrote:
| This is only a single state ban, the majority of content
| creators are unaffected. There is zero chance of this ban
| having any impact on the network effect. If anything I
| predict the opposite, people will become frustrated with the
| walled-garden of iOS, I can see people choosing Android over
| it for the sake of being able to sideload TikTok. I remember
| when there was a sudden aftermarket of iOS and Android
| devices when flappy bird was delisted by the developer.
| TikTok is obscenely bigger.
| twelve40 wrote:
| but of this keeps trending (more future bans) it will nudge
| more people to sideload to get around stupid middlemen who
| get in their way
|
| countries who engage in these bans have conditioned many non-
| tech people to learn to use vpns and other tools
|
| "sideloading" is the norm on desktop too, btw, and always has
| been
| tracker1 wrote:
| Doubt it... I seriously doubt even 1% of android users has
| even heard of FDroid or knows that Amazon has it's own
| android market you can load on your phone. That will really
| limit network effect overall.
| hiatus wrote:
| If you download an apk off of a website you can install
| it just like that, no f-droid needed.
| threeseed wrote:
| Almost everyone that uses the App Store has a credit card and
| billing address on file.
|
| And they have mechanisms to require it for certain app
| downloads e.g. adult content.
|
| So they won't need to rely on GPS or VPN data.
| mrighele wrote:
| > It'd be very difficult for Montana to enforce the other piece
| of the TikTok ban
|
| I don't know if it is technically and legally feasible in
| Montana, but you "just" need to block the endpoints that the
| app uses to fetch the data. It is not foolproof, but given that
| ByteDance probably has interest in keeping doing business in
| the rest of the USA, at least for now, it would be fineable in
| case it was trying to avoid the block.
| threeseed wrote:
| Technically and legally it's trivial and common.
|
| They just ask any ISPs and telcos operating in the state to
| ban the URL.
| dudus wrote:
| But then TikTok can still detect your location. Unless you
| spoof that, remove the permission or patch the apk.
|
| Then you still need to update almost daily to keep using
| it.
| jasmer wrote:
| This is not a user privacy vs. megacorp story, it's a national
| security story.
|
| I wish there was a megacorp privacy story to run here, sadly,
| I'm not sure Congress will go for it.
|
| There is only one solution and that is for TT to be 'forked'
| from ByteDance/Doyin. It would literally cost almost nothing,
| there are almost zero synergies between Doyin and TT at this
| point, they will do just fine separately, and it won't cost
| anything but a few bankers/accountants to do the split.
|
| TT will have to be based in Singapore or US and be completely
| independent from BD/Doyin but that's fine.
|
| Nothing will skip a beat, everyone can be happy, kids can have
| their app but CCP won't have any control visibility at all.
|
| Funny enough, ByteDance could probably retain maybe even
| majority control, although that might not work in practices.
|
| And then we can get on with trying to get Congress to protect
| consumers from Meta ...
| knaik94 wrote:
| Part of the issue is that the government itself takes part in
| that marketplace as a seller and buyer. There's no resonable
| way to make laws for corporations while giving a pass to
| government agencies, it might be proposed but it would never
| pass. One of the biggest clients of Cambridge Analytica was the
| Trump campaign.
|
| I became disillusioned about hoping laws pass that protect user
| data after watching the TikTok hearing. The congressman
| questioning whether TikTok tracks eye dialation as a signal for
| "the algorithm", and the CEO having to explain that it's used
| for funny face filters, gave me second hand embarrasment. It
| reminds me of the Facebook hearing where a congressman ask
| whether it was possible to ban "finsta" and the Head of Global
| Safety at FB reponding that it's not a product. It's people
| having a secondary personal account limited to specific
| friends. An explanation the congressman was having a hard time
| understanding.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPZA98whQGI
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGt1Ukg7q4Y
| Joe_Boogz wrote:
| What VPNs should people in Montana and Utah use? Genuinely
| wondering the best option.
| knaik94 wrote:
| Mullvad has options to pay by cash, bitcoin, or even a physical
| gift card, in addition to the usual methods. There are no
| usernames, everything is tied to a randomly assigned account
| number. It's also moving many servers to a diskless
| infrastructure, running off ram and supports wireguard and
| openvpn.
|
| https://mullvad.net/en/blog/2022/8/1/expanding-diskless-infr...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-18 23:02 UTC)