[HN Gopher] TikTok divestment law upheld by federal appeals court
___________________________________________________________________
TikTok divestment law upheld by federal appeals court
Author : belter
Score : 278 points
Date : 2024-12-06 16:00 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cnbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cnbc.com)
| Leary wrote:
| Surprisingly, the court (2/3) thinks the law both requires strict
| scrutiny and satisfies it.
|
| Strict Scrutiny has two tests: 1. Compelling Government Interest
| 2. Narrowly Tailored (least restrictive means)
|
| Note the court does not say foreign actors don't have First
| Amendment rights.
| granzymes wrote:
| The Court did not say that the law is subject to strict
| scrutiny. The majority holds that they need not decide whether
| strict or intermediate scrutiny applies because the law
| satisfies the more stringent test.
|
| The concurrence by Judge Srinivasan would instead hold that the
| law is subject to only intermediate scrutiny and uphold the law
| on that basis.
|
| Why do it this way? It takes away a potential avenue of appeal
| for TikTok. They can't ask the Supreme Court to hold that the
| law is subject to strict scrutiny, because that issue wouldn't
| help them overturn this ruling.
|
| If you had forced the rest of the panel to choose, I think they
| would have landed on intermediate scrutiny.
| gpm wrote:
| I'd guess that at least one of the panel members thought
| strict scrutiny applies. Otherwise I think they would have
| ruled both that intermediate scrutiny applies, and that even
| if it doesn't the law passes strict scrutiny.
| granzymes wrote:
| The only thing the Court says on the matter is:
|
| >There are reasonable bases to conclude that intermediate
| scrutiny is appropriate even under these circumstances. We
| need not, however, definitively decide that question
| because we conclude the Act "passes muster even under the
| more demanding standard."
|
| It's possible that either Judge Ginsburg or Judge Rao think
| the strict scrutiny should apply, but if forced to put
| money on it I would say they both land on intermediate
| scrutiny.
| gpm wrote:
| Eh, all of pages 28, 29, 30, and 31 are dedicated to the
| question, they just choose not to come to a definite
| answer. It's not like they didn't think about it.
|
| Not to say that you couldn't be right, them both landing
| on intermediate scrutiny is just not how I read the tea
| leaves.
| mportela wrote:
| > Note the court does not say foreign actors don't have First
| Amendment rights.
|
| Is there a precedence on foreign actors (either inside or
| outside the US) having First Amendment rights?
| p_j_w wrote:
| The first amendment doesn't carve out an exception for non-
| citizens, so you should be asking if there's precedence on
| foreigners inside the US NOT having First Amendment rights.
|
| Outside of the US your question is moot, as the US
| constitution is only binding in the US.
| next_xibalba wrote:
| TLDR: The ban is set to take effect on January 19, 2025. It can
| be postponed once for a duration of 90 days by a presidential
| act. This appeals court upheld the law.
| cperciva wrote:
| Is it a coincidence that the deadline expires the day before
| Trump takes office?
| grajaganDev wrote:
| The deadline was established long before the election.
| cperciva wrote:
| Sure, but we've known for decades when inauguration day was
| going to be.
| Nasrudith wrote:
| We didn't know the outcome for certain. It could have
| equally been. "Why the start of Joe Biden's second term?"
| if you go back early enough on the timeline.
| cperciva wrote:
| I would say that it's still inauguration day even if it's
| the start of the second term?
| chvid wrote:
| It was very deliberate.
| next_xibalba wrote:
| Yes, I think it's a coincidence. The language of the law
| specifies the ban will go into effect 270 days after the
| law's passage. I don't think any one law maker can perfectly
| predict how long it will take for a law to make it through
| the House, Senate, and Presidential signature. This law was
| introduced on March 5, 2024 and signed by Biden on April 24,
| 2024.
| cperciva wrote:
| Thanks! That's the context I was looking for -- whether the
| date was written into the law or an accident of where N
| days after event X landed.
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| It's a global company right? What if they just don't respond. How
| does it get banned.
| lux_scintilla wrote:
| "the law would require app store companies, like Apple and
| Google, and internet hosting providers to stop supporting
| TikTok, effectively banning the app."
| tzs wrote:
| I've not used TikTok but from what I've seen most of what it
| does seems like it could be done well purely on the web,
| except maybe video creation but shooting a video in an app
| and uploading to the web doesn't seem like it would be too
| onerous.
|
| So what happens if they do make a pure web version, and host
| that on servers outside the US?
| codedokode wrote:
| Blocking? You can't outsmart politicians using technology.
| jwlake wrote:
| I'm pretty sure this is a big enough mote to let insta and
| youtube kill it.
| wruza wrote:
| That's not effective at all, as the practice shows in all
| censorships where internet access is still available.
| FeteCommuniste wrote:
| Maybe not effective as a full ban but once it got ejected
| from all the app stores, how much trouble is the average
| person going to take to keep accessing it rather than
| switching to some other source to get their short video
| fix?
| Leary wrote:
| 1. Apps stores remove them. 2. Any transactions paying the
| creators are banned. Any Tiktok shopping stuff banned. 3. ISPs?
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| App Stores maybe.
|
| But US doesn't have a national Fire Wall like China.
|
| So on one hand we don't have the ability to block
| content/internet like China, but we seem to want to be more
| like China and be able to?
| wruza wrote:
| Creators start begging for patreon support, tiktok operates
| at its own expense as a webapp, users set up vpn in case it
| gets banned at isp. Domestic alternatives continue to suck
| and fail to attract users. Nothing new under the sun.
| codedokode wrote:
| > users set up vpn
|
| You'll lose most audience to a competitor that doesn't
| require VPN at this step.
| wruza wrote:
| Not with tiktok, and "we have tiktok at home" doesn't
| work on teens. I have a <10yo niece, guess what I find on
| my grandmas tablet every time she visits? Right, a new
| vpn app. We are in Russia, and no one watches rutube.
| Even my grandma said it's useless crap with no content
| and turns her personal ovpn profile on and off to visit
| differently banned services. _Everyone_ is still on
| youtube, both viewers and creators. It's only hard for a
| week, then you get used to it and it gets normalized in
| the society. You US just have to live through your first
| real-sized ban, then that rule stops working. Bans are
| snakeoil, except for North Korean style.
|
| You actually do have a chance _iff_ someone manages to
| catch the essence of tiktok and implement it at home
| without screwing everything up, so better do not.
| asadotzler wrote:
| VPN use is only about 1/3rd globally and only about 1/4th
| in the Americas.
|
| Sure, TikTok could mount a massive campaign to get people
| off of its (in the future) banned in the app stores app
| and onto the web and then get them to install VPNs, but
| in the end they'd easily lose 80-90% of their users.
|
| Is TikTok with 10-20% of its users in the US still a
| problem? Maybe, but not nearly the problem TikTok is with
| 100% of its users.
| preciousoo wrote:
| Network effects of TT are stronger than anything that's
| ever come before it. Come to think of it, there any
| publicly tradable VPN companies?
| trinix912 wrote:
| Another point to consider here is that VPNs usually have
| a pretty low monthly data limit and kids won't bother
| paying for a VPN to access something they can also access
| through Instagram Reels or YouTube Shorts.
|
| A third thing to consider is the network effect. If
| (hypothetically) in Russia, every other teen uses VPN to
| post on an otherwise unavailable platform, there's enough
| content made by Russians there to get fellow Russians
| interested. OTOH, if in the US, the majority of the kids
| stop going there, there will be less relatable content
| that kids would be interested in. Those that exited the
| platform would publish their stuff elsewhere, and that's
| where everyone would eventually end up going.
| esbranson wrote:
| Imprisonment. Eventually, executives will want to spend their
| wealth in a First World country.
| cesarb wrote:
| > What if they just don't respond. How does it get banned.
|
| We had a very recent example of how that can work here in
| Brazil. Like the USA, we have hundreds of independent ISPs, and
| no national firewall. Twitter tried the "just don't respond",
| and got banned for over a month (the ban was lifted once
| Twitter gave up and cooperated with the courts).
| xnx wrote:
| The hypothetical risks of a Chinese owned TikTok seem a smaller
| concern than the Chinese having hacked into and still having
| access(!) to US telecom networks:
| https://www.politico.com/news/2024/12/03/chinese-hack-global...
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| Different kinds of risks.
| tgv wrote:
| In summary: China is a threat to the West (also to Africa, but
| they are still in denial). But you can't get rid of hacking
| through a bit of legislature, so fixing telcos is another
| process.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _you can 't get rid of hacking through a bit of
| legislature_
|
| We can make it harder. Switch our telecoms to E2E by default.
|
| We've shown the current set-up can be exploited by
| adversaries. It's not a huge leap given the prevalence of
| encrypted messaging apps. And you can market it as a finger
| to the deep state on one side and a limit on the executive to
| the other.
| daniel_reetz wrote:
| E2E doesn't fix the government mandated backdoors, which
| were implicated in this attack. Check out the last line of
| this article:
|
| https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/04/politics/us-telecom-
| providers...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _E2E doesn 't fix the government mandated backdoors,
| which were implicated in this attack_
|
| Of course it does. It removes them. This problem can be
| solved with a bit of legislation.
| rangestransform wrote:
| We should just make the three letter agencies go dark
| then, and hopefully jobless too
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _just make the three letter agencies go dark then, and
| hopefully jobless too_
|
| Good. Red teaming. This is exactly what I'd say, too, if
| I wanted to tank a federal E2E bill. It splits the
| national security bloc by unnecessarily vilifying the IC,
| the one group that doesn't traditionally bother with the
| lawful part of lawful intercept.
| churchill wrote:
| I keep hearing people crow about how Africa is going to get
| re-colonized by China, but I just don't see it. For instance,
| in the last 50 years, America and her allies have:
|
| -Overthrown Gaddafi and destabilized Libya in the process,
| leading to million of small arms washing into the Sahel.
| Jihadists groups have killed hundreds of thousands with those
| weapons, further destabilizing the region.
|
| -Funded and backed murderous dictators like Hissene Habre who
| tortured, killed, and raped roughly 40k innocent Chadians.
|
| -Other dictators that have held unto power with
| implicit/explicit American support include Mobutu, Amin,
| Barre, etc., and I'm not going to go into the atrocities
| they've committed.
|
| -Continue to meddle in African countries, including their
| implicit support for the overthrow of popularly-elected
| governments like Egypt's Muhammad Morsi, and Congo's Lumumba,
| after which the country fell apart .
|
| These are just a few examples off the top of my head. No
| matter how much you scaremonger about China, all they do is
| transfer technology, build infrastructure, and assist with
| explicit approval of local governments.
|
| Do they have evil intent in the long-run? Who knows?
|
| But, given their track record so far (of going heads down and
| building stuff) and the West's history of plain
| maliciousness, it'd be stupid to suggest anyone shouldn't
| partner with China.
| whatshisface wrote:
| China's not "going down and building," they are bribing
| officials to take on massive loans that must be spent on
| Chinese contracts. The West does this with the IMF (minus
| the bribery?).
| churchill wrote:
| Maybe let the people who live in these countries decide
| that? Whatever your opinion, Chinese companies leave
| these forsaken countries with lots of infrastructure. In
| many cases, if they can't pay, it's forgiven. So, what's
| your problem?
| whatshisface wrote:
| People who live in a lot of African countries don't play
| much of a role in deciding what their governments do.
| That's the issue I take with anything involving bribery.
| FactKnower69 wrote:
| >People who live in a lot of African countries don't play
| much of a role in deciding what their governments do.
|
| Holy fuck, are you saying this as someone who lives in
| the UNITED STATES? Incredible
| whatshisface wrote:
| Most infrastructure spending in the US happens at a local
| level. Cities don't build ports or railroads here but a
| big stadium or roadworks project would show up on the
| ballot.
| tgv wrote:
| I'm not denying the West has been quite bad to the
| Africans, but China isn't any better. They're in it for
| themselves. They get corrupt regimes to take loans (from
| China) for work (produced by China), deliver shoddy and
| useless results, let the local elite get their bribes, and
| then hold the country ransom over those loans, and demand
| payment e.g. in natural resources and political influence.
| All funded by the West's dependence on Aliexpress.
| woooooo wrote:
| All of that self-dealing is still in the context of
| development projects, rather than military and
| paramilitary interference.
|
| Would you rather have imperfect, corrupt development
| projects or the CIA fucking your shit up and definitely
| not building any dams?
| immibis wrote:
| What happens if you stop following the contracts? I bet
| military stuff.
| churchill wrote:
| Shoddy and useless according to who? I take it you
| haven't been to any of these African countries, where a
| Chinese-built dam generates the electricity millions use,
| or where a handful of bridges open up vast stretches of
| the country for trade.
|
| Speaking of loans, most of Africa (and the developing
| world's) loans originate from Western lenders. They never
| cared about the borrower's ability to pay back or the
| fact that a huge chunk of the capital would be stolen.
| They'd simply demand payment anyway.
|
| So, how is China responsible for loaning money on the
| same terms? In which specific cases has China demanded
| payment or strong-armed governments into making
| concessions for loans? Just one example, please. And
| don't mention the Hambantota port since you'll lose any
| credibility left.
|
| If any African country lets their leaders steal dev.
| capital, it's not China's fault, and it's not different
| from what has happened with Western loans. In fact, with
| Western loans, there's an understanding that it will not
| get to the people, but is seen as a payoff for the puppet
| leaders to stay loyal.
|
| China builds usable infrastructure that can be used for
| decades, and you can't argue against infrastructure.
| jtbayly wrote:
| I've been to Ethiopia and seen Chinese highway projects
| that were obviously unusable (caving in) before they were
| even open to traffic.
| churchill wrote:
| Ethiopia spans over 1 million KM2 and has over 144,000 Km
| of roads. How much of the country did you cover to
| determine this is a general trend? I can walk into large
| swathes of America or Europe and pick out badly damaged
| roads. So...
| jtbayly wrote:
| We drove from Addis to Arba Minch and back, which is
| about 900km total. We also drove from Gondar to Bahir Dar
| and... lots of other driving.
|
| But the main point is what you ignored. Have you ever
| seen miles of brand new highways falling apart before a
| single vehicle has driven on them? Spread over hundreds
| of kilometers, not a one-off mistake.
|
| Furthermore, the only reason I know it was a Chinese-
| built road is because our guide was explaining the
| differences (pro and con) between the Chinese (cheap,
| fall apart, but built quickly) vs Ethiopian (decent
| quality, but incredibly slow progress and never
| completed) road projects.
| deadbolt wrote:
| Judging by their actions vs the west's actions, China is
| far better. Be serious.
| rdm_blackhole wrote:
| > I'm not denying the West has been quite bad to the
| Africans, but China isn't any better.
|
| If the western countries want to clean up their acts and
| offer something better than what China is doing, I am
| sure the doors of the African governments are open.
|
| The problem is that the West has abandoned Africa,
| destabilized the region and then complains that Africa is
| looking for new partners.
|
| What is the West doing to make amends? What are they
| offering? If those questions cannot be answered then it's
| no wonder that China is making gains in Africa.
|
| > They're in it for themselves.
|
| As opposed to the West who does things out of the
| goodwill of it's heart, I am sure. Do we live in the same
| world?
| drivingmenuts wrote:
| Just because we were wrong does not automatically make our
| enemies right. Both sides can be equally wrong in some or
| all of their actions. As for the rest of it, determining
| intent depends on the evaluator and whether or not it's
| their job to assume the worst intent.
| churchill wrote:
| I don't assume China is right because the West was wrong;
| there's verifiable proof that China is better for
| developing countries, judging by their infrastructural
| footprint.
| vladgur wrote:
| Now do the same, but for West's alternative...Russia.
| churchill wrote:
| Umm... the few developing countries where Russia has a
| presence has been at the explicit demand of the local
| authorities. The same way Americans say certain questions
| should be left to the state, I think national governments
| should be left to choose who they work with.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| _I keep hearing people crow about how Africa is going to
| get re-colonized by China, but I just don 't see it._
|
| It already happened[0] through massive predatory loans that
| Africans were never realistically going to be able to pay
| back. Of course, you could also frame those loans as China
| believing in Africa and investing heavily in stalwart
| people who had long been exploited by other countries. The
| truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
|
| [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_and_Road_Initiative
| properpopper wrote:
| > massive predatory loans
|
| Were they forced to use them?
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| So China has learned how the US did it using the IMF and
| World Bank.
|
| Loans with strings attached to ensure ongoing dependence.
| x86_64Ubuntu wrote:
| Any time you hear an assumed Westerner talking about
| China's rising presence in Africa, it reminds me of an
| abuser whose love has left him for good. The speech is
| riddled with "he won't love you like I do", "He doesn't
| really love you", "He's actually worse than me".
| proxynoproxy wrote:
| More that the west has a better understanding of
| exploitation (from experience) and is generally against
| it now.
|
| China still has to learn these lessons, and it will in
| time. It will need to shake its authoritarian ways first,
| because lessons can never learned this way.
| Authoritarianism repeats the same mistakes over and over
| by reenforcement of dogma.
|
| It's not jealousy, it's a warning of lessons learned.
| rdm_blackhole wrote:
| > More that the west has a better understanding of
| exploitation (from experience) and is generally against
| it now.
|
| You must no be aware of the CFA francs that is used in
| some parts of Africa and de facto controlled by France.
| Control that in turn has been proven to actually channel
| money out of Africa towards France. I guess the end of
| exploitation memo must not have reached Paris.
|
| The West doesn't like that China is going to Africa
| because it creates competition for them. Before France et
| al could just call the shots and the African continent
| was simply supposed to shut up and take it.
|
| Now China is there and is trying to offer something
| better potentially. The West doesn't want to up it's
| offers so the complaining starts and with it comes the
| moralizing.
|
| As if the West has any lessons to give to someone else
| regarding anything moral.
|
| > It's not jealousy, it's a warning of lessons learned.
|
| Maybe the West should just let these people live and
| choose for themselves instead of whining about unfair the
| competition is.
| mrkramer wrote:
| >I keep hearing people crow about how Africa is going to
| get re-colonized by China, but I just don't see it. For
| instance, in the last 50 years, America and her allies have
|
| China financially and politically backed Pol Pot who
| murdered more than 1 million Cambodian civilians plus
| Vietnamese civilians on the border with Cambodia.
|
| China kept quiet when Putin invaded Ukraine because they
| get oil, gas and minerals from Russia.
|
| They all sin, not just US, UK or whatever great power from
| the West.
| lenkite wrote:
| And now fully sponsoring Hayat Tahrir al-Sham in Idlib,
| since Ukraine isn't doing well - best to get the Russians
| to look elsewhere!
| drawkward wrote:
| Both seem problematic to me.
| highcountess wrote:
| It's because this TikTok matter is not at all about Chinese
| ownership, which is really rather irrelevant since it is
| technically an American company based in CA and abides by
| American laws.
|
| The China China China histrionics is disingenuous and
| dishonesty by dishonest and fraudulent people who are concerned
| with the loss of control of censorship and thought policing.
| They want total control over thoughts and speech in America and
| TikTok is a major problem for them, a red-pill so to say, and
| they want everyone taking that blue pill because their whole
| tyrannical and fraudulent power structure relies on regularly
| taking the regime's blue pills.
|
| It's why there is so much frantic flailing about this issue and
| the same people who not only never cared about "protecting the
| children" from violence, gore, and sexuality including explicit
| pornography, are all the sudden so concerned with children once
| they may learn something about the world that makes them
| realize the dishonest, lying, narcissistic, histrionic,
| psychopathic dirt bags that control all of the west; have been
| telling them lies and abusing them and plundering their future
| for their own kind.
| redleader55 wrote:
| The risks are not hypothetical -
| https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/romania-
| pres....
|
| TikTok was used to push an unknown, unlikable character to
| almost win the presidential elections in Romania, who shares a
| lot of border with both Ukraine, the Black Sea and Danube.
| whatshisface wrote:
| Was it used by China, by the candidate, or by romainians? The
| national security arguments about speech on tiktok always
| avoid this question.
|
| See also: is China suddenly a center of human rights
| activism, or was it Americans who got upset about Israeli
| treatment of civilians?
| tivert wrote:
| > See also: is China suddenly a center of human rights
| activism,
|
| China is, when it serves their primary interest of
| deflecting criticism from the operation of their very
| extensive totalitarian/authoritarian system. IIRC, they put
| out "human rights" reports all the time to that end that do
| stuff like criticize American prison conditions.
|
| > or was it Americans who got upset about Israeli treatment
| of civilians?
|
| It's worth noting that TikTok could (and probably would) be
| used by the PRC in _very_ subtle ways, that would be missed
| in a distinction of "is it Chinese people speaking or is
| it Americans." I think the influence mechanism would almost
| certainly consist of giving artificial boosts to American
| voices that _unwittingly_ serve PRC goals, e.g. anti-war
| activists if China invades Taiwan. They could even strongly
| condemn China as a warmonger, but their elevation would
| still serve Chinese goals if they spread the message that
| the US should stay out.
|
| And given that the PRC has access to all the TikTok data (I
| believe no claims the could not access it), they can
| probably _very effectively_ figure out _exactly_ the voices
| to elevate that would do their job effectively.
| whatshisface wrote:
| I know that's the conspiracy theory, but shouldn't we be
| asking for evidence?
| tivert wrote:
| > I know that's the conspiracy theory, but shouldn't we
| be asking for evidence?
|
| No. This is about using _reason_ to _anticipate and
| prevent_ problems, not dumbly waiting around until the
| actualized problem stares you in the face and it 's too
| late to do anything about it.
|
| But if you want evidence, all that is needed is the
| evidence that China and the US are adversaries.
| j_maffe wrote:
| That's not sufficient evidence.
| tivert wrote:
| > That's not sufficient evidence.
|
| Then your standards of evidence are too high, and least
| for making decisions in this area. It's like you're
| working in computer security, but you demand evidence a
| vulnerable system was actually hacked _and_ used
| maliciously before you 're willing to take action to
| patch it and clear out the infiltration. It's foolish.
| Patch the damn system.
| jstanley wrote:
| If your observations would be the same whether your
| conspiracy theory is true or not, then the simplest
| explanation is that the conspiracy theory is not true.
|
| A theory that can explain everything explains nothing.
| Tyrek wrote:
| That's a farcically absurd statement given the context.
| Following this logic, Japan and the US being adversaries
| is the only justification you need for Japanese
| internment camps.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Equating a ban on Chinese-owned tiktok in the US to
| putting US citizens of Japanese descent into internment
| camps is a bit much.
| jerf wrote:
| If you're "conspiracy theory"-ometer is asking you for
| evidence for the proposition that "countries do not
| simply lie back and fervently hope for things to go their
| way but take concrete actions to advance their
| interests", your meter is tuned _waaaaaaaay_ too
| sensitively. Whether that 's a conspiracy is up to your
| definition, but that it's a _theory_ that somehow needs
| substantiation is absurd. It 's a plain and obvious fact
| of the world. Organizations of any size in general do not
| generally just sort of sit back and hope things go their
| way, but take action. "People take actions to advance
| their own goals" is not a "conspiracy theory".
| shadowmanif wrote:
| The irony is that people with this overly sensitive
| "conspiracy theory"-ometer largely have it from the
| amount of influence campaigns ran on them.
| monkeyfun wrote:
| Normally I'd be cautious about a witch hunt, but I think
| the point here is that there _isn 't_ much ability to ask
| for evidence, which is exactly why it's been able to
| progress through court so quickly.
| whatshisface wrote:
| The funny thing about that analogy is that it is also
| very difficult to prove that somebody isn't a witch. :-)
|
| Aside, Congress is not a courtroom. The legality of the
| law is on trial, not its motivation or the basis in fact
| of its public justification.
| wavemode wrote:
| We already know foreign countries attempt to influence
| American elections using American-owned social media. So
| why would it be a "conspiracy theory" for them to use
| foreign-owned social media for similar purposes? I would
| think it's probably even easier.
| kelnos wrote:
| I think we should take it as a given that countries try
| to influence the citizens of other countries using social
| media. We know for a fact that there are state-run
| influence campaigns on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc.
| That evidence has been well-researched for many years
| now. And I'm not just talking about China, Russia, etc.;
| I expect US intelligence agencies also use social media
| to influence _our_ adversaries.
|
| It's absolutely absurd to think that the Chinese
| government doesn't use TikTok to influence non-Chinese
| users. They'd be incredibly foolish not to do so. And the
| difference here (as compared to other nations, including
| the US) is that that Chinese government gets to legally,
| deeply meddle in the affairs of Chinese companies as a
| matter of course. Running influence campaigns on a
| platform owned by a company out of the Chinese
| government's reach is a bit more work; they get to do it
| essentially "for free" on TikTok, plus, as a bonus,
| they'd have access to data they wouldn't get from a
| foreign-owned platform.
|
| I think any country should have the right to protect its
| citizens from influence campaigns led by other countries.
| Whether or not that protection can and will be effective,
| and whether or not it's a smokescreen for other purposes
| (e.g. protecting Meta's market share), is another matter,
| of course. And certainly some kinds of protection -- such
| as a US TikTok ban -- will be wildly unpopular with a lot
| of people who love using it.
| ajmurmann wrote:
| IMO the bigger issue isn't propaganda posts on tiktok
| created by the CCP but the more subtle influence the
| recommendation algorithm can have on what gets eyeballs.
| There have been several studies that showed that content
| the CCP doesn't like is a lot less prominent than on
| other, comparable platforms. Here is the first study I
| could find again while googling:
| https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/NCRI-
| Report_-...
| wyldberry wrote:
| At best this comment implies there's actual an actual
| smoking gun related to what functionally are nation-state
| capability and operations to influence populations external
| to their own, specifically related to TikTok/ByteDance. If
| you have an AP government level understanding of how China
| and the USA work, then you can probably understand that
| this is an intersection of: government laws, great power
| competition, and wealth seeking behaviors. When you control
| the algorithm, everyone downstream of it is at the mercy of
| the power structures and incentives of your top level
| leadership [0]. Consider the following:
|
| 1.) How Chinese companies interact with the CCP: they are
| 100% subservient with a CCP party member who can pull the
| CEO in at anytime and assign them tasks related to studying
| Xi thought and other party material, as well as demand the
| company do anything for the state.
|
| 2.) What great power competition looks like including
| economic warfare (tariffs, massive state subsidies to
| protect national defense, influence operations for allies,
| securing raw materials, reducing reliance on rivals, etc).
|
| 3.) How espionage in general works in support of political
| aims, and especially how each nation uses it to further
| their goals. For China, it's always been about vacuuming up
| as much data as possible, and then later on finding use
| cases for it. The disruption side of their practices are
| successful if they make chaos in an adversary that forces
| them to spend time on dealing with that instead of
| confronting them. Each nation acts in their own interest
| and are absolutely ruthless here in a way the average
| person rarely can comprehend.
|
| 4.) The free pass given to China related to tech and social
| media industries. American Social Media is banned in
| China[1]. Why do you think that is? There are many
| reports/cases of American intel/military use cases of
| social media to influence outcomes worldwide[2]. China
| wasn't going to allow this. But we are supposed to allow
| them access to us? We know this is the case because we
| would do the same in their position[3]. There's a reason
| it's banned in India[4].
|
| 5.) We know China influences the Douyin algorithm[5]
| locally to promote behaviors the government perceives as
| healthy or important to state interests. This often
| manifests in pushing more STEM related content and
| suppressing the ragebait content that flourishes in other
| nations[6].
|
| Even if the leadership of Bytedance were 100% on board with
| not pushing CCP interests to the USA and world, there's no
| mechanism of protection or redress from them. The CCP can,
| and will, disappear high profile people at will with no
| repercussion, and replace you with someone who will listen.
| Any smart nation who wants to protect the minds of their
| citizens would do well to extremely regulate social media
| in their country.
|
| In your case for "Americans upset over Israeli treatment of
| civilians". Assuming that the American outrage is 100%
| organic on it's own: It is in the best interest of China to
| amplify that outrage and make it seem stronger than it is
| for a variety of reasons:
|
| A. This will have knock on effects for policy makers and
| their aides who are hyper-tuned in because if their
| constituents want something, voting for that is how B.
| Anything that disrupts American foreign policy and allies
| is an asset at weakening the grip the dollar has on
| international markets C. Israel is an extremely talented
| producer of technical people. If the relationship between
| the USA and Israel sours, then suddenly a pathway opens for
| China to get access to the incredible tech that Israel
| develops for various US programs. (This is also ignoring
| their incredibly advanced spyware capabilities in their
| private sector, which is morally repugnant, but it does
| exist).
|
| [0] - https://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07663 [1] - https://en.wik
| ipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_ma... [2] - htt
| ps://web.archive.org/web/20160410083943/http://www.reddit..
| . (look at the most addicted cities) [3] -
| https://theintercept.com/2022/12/20/twitter-dod-us-
| military-... [4] - https://apnews.com/article/tiktok-
| bytedance-ban-china-india-... [5] -
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0j0xzuh-6rY [6] -
| https://networkcontagion.us/reports/the-ccps-digital-
| charm-o... [7] -
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/25/the-growing-
| li...
| whatshisface wrote:
| If we are working on the basis of "it could have
| happened, therefore it did," Americans could have had a
| legitimate reaction to the war footage, and Romanians
| could have been frustrated with both major parties and
| voted for a spoiler candidate, therefore they did. :-)
| wyldberry wrote:
| I'm probably responding to you being intentionally obtuse
| but:
|
| Assuming that's true, TikTok, at the behest of the CCP,
| can (and will) amplify the reach of that outrage to an
| outsized impact. If the outrage is 5% of TikTok users in
| the given nation, and that 5% is thrown into the FYP of
| 50% of the users in that nation, that's an impact that
| any power that be dreams to have.
| troyvit wrote:
| This is an extremely well formed comment, and thanks for
| all the sources backing it up.
|
| > Any smart nation who wants to protect the minds of
| their citizens would do well to extremely regulate social
| media in their country.
|
| Extremely regulating social media isn't going to decrease
| the gormlessness of the population. In fact it'll
| probably make it worse. We can try to tamp down
| manipulative content all we want but it's a losing
| battle. What we need instead is to educate our masses.
| The problem is we won't, because our regulators want to
| be able to manipulate us. They just don't want other
| countries to be able to.
| whatshisface wrote:
| I still can't believe we're supposed to imagine the
| current or next president as the chief protectors of our
| minds, of all things. :-) How can anyone desire that much
| paternalism from _our_ government? Not only are we
| responsible for it, not the other way around, it is kind
| of terrible!
| aprilthird2021 wrote:
| > It is in the best interest of China to amplify that
| outrage and make it seem stronger than it is for a
| variety of reasons:
|
| I'm just not comfortable with a widely used platform for
| Americans to speak to other Americans being taken away
| because it might skew one way politically or another, no
| matter what evil country is advantaged by that. Even if
| it were heavily edited by enemy of USA Xi himself, I am
| uncomfortable with that. We are not a country that bans
| things because it's too dangerous for people to know
| them.
|
| The government doesn't get to decide what's good for us
| to learn and say and hear. We do. That's the entire idea
| of free speech. And this tramples on it significantly
| fragmede wrote:
| The question isn't if our government gets to do that,
| it's if another government gets to do that for us. our
| government is for the people by the people. this other
| government isn't like that for their people. and we want
| to put them in charge?
| aprilthird2021 wrote:
| What? Our government is only by the people if the people
| have the power to consume whatever information they want
| to.
|
| The other government doesn't become in charge because
| they put out stuff on social media Americans want to
| watch. Americans are in charge no matter what they think
| or who they are influenced by. That's the whole idea of
| democracy
| hakfoo wrote:
| To me, the story was never about even about the
| hypothetical "they could pull some strings and somehow
| get every 17-year-old in the US swearing fealty to
| Chairman Xi." If nothing else, do you really want to
| focus your political infleunce campaign on demographics
| known for being low-political-activity and with
| relatively low disposable income the best choice?
|
| It was about the fact that a firm which is foreign and
| unsympathetic captured lightning in a bottle: they became
| the cool platform for a new generation. Why bother trying
| to figure out why the platform that Mom uses to share AI-
| generated Trump spam with Aunt Bertha is no longer
| drawing the 14-year-olds when you can just rattle some
| sabres in Congress and get them to shut the competition
| down for you?
|
| If we're so terrified that TikTok can blast a candidate
| into office, we should be equally concerned that Rumble
| or Twitter could too. If your media is that powerful,
| it's dangerous wherever the nominal mailing address of
| the firm is. Taking potshots at single firms or specific
| ownership strategies just means the next one will take a
| slightly different form and dispense slightly different
| hazards.
|
| The only way to actually regain control is to boost media
| literacy. TikTok can be part of a balanced media diet,
| but are we teaching kids "Compare what the BBC and Tass
| say, and the truth is probably in the middle?"
| glenstein wrote:
| >If we're so terrified that TikTok can blast a candidate
| into office, we should be equally concerned that Rumble
| or Twitter could too
|
| I'm seeing a lot of attempts to render Tiktok as
| interchangeable to any number of other examples in order
| to pose a dilemma about logical equivalences. I just
| don't think these withstand factual scrutiny. Rumble is
| not at the scale or engagement of Tiktok and Twitter does
| not have ties to a major competitive state actor.
|
| You _can_ see how it 's meaningfully differentiated if
| you want to. If you don't want to, you attempt to restate
| the terms on which the comparison happens to make it look
| for fuzzy, so everything looks the same.
| myvoiceismypass wrote:
| Twitter is run by the world's richest man who is backed
| by Saudi wealth.
|
| That is one fucking tie if you ask me.
| hakfoo wrote:
| To be blunt, "the richest man in the world" is equally as
| dangerous as a "competitive state actor".
|
| He has direct motive to influence the operations of the
| American state, the resources to amplify his messages,
| and has control of a platform that's mainstreamed in a
| way that gives it a broader reach than TikTok ever had.
|
| Saying he's an American entity is barely meaningful. When
| you're that rich, you can probably pull in five new
| passports given 48 hours notice, so the one you carry at
| any given point is largely a flag of convenience.
|
| Blaming China is a cheat code for the current political
| climate. See the Huawei fiasco: No level of audits,
| disclosures, or actual technical evidence about security
| would satisfy-- It Is Foreign So It Is Evil. So I'm sure
| that the hype against TikTok was fanned in part by their
| competitors who saw an opportunity.
| rdm_blackhole wrote:
| > Any smart nation who wants to protect the minds of
| their citizens would do well to extremely regulate social
| media in their country.
|
| The road to hell is paved with good intentions like this
| one.
|
| Muzzle social media and make sure everyone gets their
| news from the "approved" mainstream media platforms which
| we all know never lie and have never pushed one narrative
| only instead of providing facts.
|
| I am sure this will end well.
|
| Next step, we should all leave our TVs on 24/7 just so we
| don't miss a single word from our beloved leaders. Maybe
| install some cameras in every home while we are it, you
| know to save the children/defeat terrorism/save the
| planet (take your pick)...
| lukan wrote:
| "or was it Americans who got upset about Israeli treatment
| of civilians?"
|
| Nobody in the open knows, that is the problem.
|
| But also russian millitary bloggers are outraged by the
| IDF. Simply because it is war in the information sphere,
| not that they care about the people there. Just like China
| don't give a damn about them - but they can and do use it
| to weaken the self declared western moral leadership.
| whatshisface wrote:
| Is there really any question that Americans have reacted
| negatively to Israeli war tactics? I think there is also
| a comment from an actual Romanian somewhere in this
| threat observing that their fellow citizens are
| legitimately frustrated with the two major parties.
| lukan wrote:
| "Is there really any question that Americans have reacted
| negatively to Israeli war tactics?"
|
| No, but is there a question that china still might try to
| influence and leverage it?
| whatshisface wrote:
| The international marketplace of ideas may pose some risk
| of allowing the American system of government to fufill
| its potential as a representative democracy, but the
| officials in Washington face no hazard greater than that.
| :-)
| lukan wrote:
| "The international marketplace of ideas "
|
| Market place implies transparent exchange of ideas. But
| if the TikTok algorithm is political biased, it is not a
| honest exchange of ideas anymore. (same goes for X's or
| FB, or whatever). But personally I am cool with not using
| those services.
| whatshisface wrote:
| A newspaper's editorial columns aren't the marketplace of
| ideas, the sum of all newspapers is. If TikTok were as
| editorially controlled as a newspaper, it would still
| represent one venue in the marketplace.
|
| In essence, the government wants to ban foreign news
| sources. TikTok may have been less editorialized than Al
| Jazeera, but it had wider reach.
| stonogo wrote:
| This argument is weak. Editorials are marked as such. The
| board makeup is known. Tiktok is a platform wherein its
| impossible to know which content is organically popular
| and what is being artificially weighted, we have no
| insight into who is doing the weighting, and which pieces
| of content are controlled by state media.
|
| In short, you have no idea whether it is more or less
| editorialized than other news outlets, and that's the
| central issue here.
| whatshisface wrote:
| Even if TikTok were 100% editorialized - like the most
| biased newspapers - it would be an affront to the
| principles of a free society to ban it for failing to
| encourage people to support the general line. That's on
| top of the fact that it hasn't even been demonstrated to
| be editorialized.
| lukan wrote:
| I do agree in general.
|
| It is a sign of weakness for a free society.
|
| Ideally in my oppinion, intelligence services would proof
| the manipulation - and show it to the public. Who then
| decide on their own to be sceptical of TikTok content.
|
| I am against a direct government intervention.
|
| But it is still a very different situation in terms of
| impact compared to a single local newspaper.
| lukan wrote:
| For some people TikTok contains all the newspapers.
| whatshisface wrote:
| For others, there is only one newspaper they think is
| worth reading.
| lukan wrote:
| Indeed. But newspapers do not work by hooking up their
| audience via individually targeted algorithms that make
| their users addictive.
| whatshisface wrote:
| They do, actually. An editor's job is to pick stories,
| oftentimes from syndicated networks, which maximize
| engagement
| lukan wrote:
| "individually targeted algorithms"?
|
| With data ranging back years, sometimes even birth of the
| individuals?
|
| I don't think so.
|
| Newspaper editor edit one newspaper for everyone.
| whatshisface wrote:
| In the days of local papers, editors would learn the
| names of everybody in town, and would try to print things
| about them so people would buy the papers.
| lukan wrote:
| I am aware. Still, do you think this is the same as
| TikTok's automated algorithm?
| jncfhnb wrote:
| I'm not convinced they would have reacted this way
| otherwise.
|
| A lot of folks have been empowered to say "end the war in
| Gaza". A lot of those folks don't quite know what to say
| to "should we allow Hamas to seize control of Palestine"?
| whatshisface wrote:
| The best opinion is the one formed with the most
| information. If learning something new about the facts of
| the case changes someone's reaction to it, it is probably
| for the better.
|
| If this were not the case, democracies would work best
| when the public was not taught to read. :-) Can we really
| argue that the public is too stupid to be trusted with
| the ability to communicate? If that is the idea we should
| admit, at least, that what is being considered inverts
| every principle of the free world.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| The best opinion is formed from complete information.
| More information is strictly harmful if it's driven by
| one-sided bad faith distribution networks.
|
| Having a foreign government control the narratives that
| reach mass audiences is not at all the same as trusting
| the public with the ability to communicate.
| whatshisface wrote:
| Maybe it would help if we distilled the abstract ideas
| ("foreign influence on the narrative ") to the specific
| event (current administration wanted to hide the human
| cost of Israeli tactics / the existence of a spoiler
| candidate).
| jncfhnb wrote:
| I think you missed some important details salient to
| understanding the conflict in Gaza.
| whatshisface wrote:
| Imagine how you would feel if the administration was more
| Saudi-aligned and wanted to shut down HN because you were
| doing too good a job of sharing those details! I support
| all the truth getting out.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| Ok great. Could you share the _whole truth_ then please?
| Could you discuss rocket attacks from Hezbollah? Massive
| tunnel networks and arms networks? Funding, military
| training, and arms coordination from Iran? The
| geopolitical implications of a weak Israel? The
| complicated connections with Russia's invasion of
| Ukraine?
|
| You're just spouting one cherry picked narrative of an
| incredibly messy situation.
| immibis wrote:
| It's ironic that you would talk about the whole truth,
| while not mentioning the rocket attacks _on_ Hezbollah,
| or who exactly built those tunnel networks or supplied
| those arms. The geopolitical implications of Israel 's
| existence at all. How Israel got there in the first
| place. At least you called it "Russia's invasion of
| Ukraine" though, rather than "America's proxy invasion of
| Russia in Ukraine"
| immibis wrote:
| Like the fact it's been continuously invaded and mass-
| murdered by Israel since Israel began? They call it
| "mowing the lawn". You mow the lawn periodically so the
| grass doesn't get too tall.
| immibis wrote:
| Hamas already has control of Gaza, and if there's any
| chance of it seizing control of the West Bank, bombing
| Gaza will not prevent it from doing so.
|
| Bombing people indiscriminately tends to cause them to
| oppose you and support the people who are most credibly
| able to stop you - regardless of anything you do. So it
| was inevitable that support for Israel would plummet and
| for Hamas would rise, once people learned about the
| situation.
|
| TikTok only had a hand in this to the extent that it
| helped Western citizens bypass Western soft censorship
| and learn about the situation sooner.
|
| Notice that if TikTok was spreading a false or one-sided
| view of the situation, Israeli and Western government
| could have effectively countered it by providing an even
| more complete information with even more evidence, but
| they did not. This in itself is weak evidence that there
| _isn 't_ a more complete view to provide.
| aprilthird2021 wrote:
| But most Americans didn't want Hamas to rule Palestine
| ever from the beginning. It's not as if they went mask
| off last year only. The entire root of the conflict is
| that all of Palestine basically is not sovereign. Us
| deciding who rules Palestine just makes that issue worse.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| And yet 93% of Hamas' funding comes from Iran.
|
| I don't believe we should determine who rules Palestine.
| But I also don't believe we should allow a hostile state
| to just bankroll effective seizure of Palestine and the
| military intimidation of Israel.
|
| It's frankly insanity to tell Israel to be chill while a
| hostile nation, which is posturing a potential nuclear
| attack, is actively funding a large and growing base of
| terrorist operations next door.
|
| Palestine is a proxy battleground of many foreign actors.
| Reducing it to a conflict that is just Israel vs.
| Palestine is bullshit
| UltraSane wrote:
| Notice the extreme generational divide in how Americans
| react to Israeli war tactics? I feel this is caused by
| younger people consuming vastly more social media in
| general and TikTok specifically.
| aprilthird2021 wrote:
| I live in a senior home converted to apartment buildings,
| and all the senior people (who still live in the building
| even after the conversion) have been shocked throughout
| this war, as if a person they knew flipped 180 and turned
| out to be nothing like you thought they were.
|
| The newer apartment renters (20s-40s typical young urban
| dwellers) are not surprised by anything they see on the
| news regarding the conflict. I think they had ways to see
| what the older generations had just been blind to since
| before this latest flare up happened.
| mohbk wrote:
| I'd argue this is because social media is ironically
| enough, manipulated less than traditional mass media.
|
| Despite brigading from any side, anyone can get anything
| trending on social media, including videos of the
| aftermath of israeli air strikes, meanwhile nothing but
| filtered news headlines make it out of editors.
|
| A fun exercise is comparing how big news websites frame
| headlines when Palestinians die (passive voice) and
| Ukrainian / israelis are killed.
| DecoySalamander wrote:
| It's not any less manipulated - there are just more
| parties doing psychological operations and not just
| established players. In the case of TikTok, China gets to
| pick and choose which operations are free to run, and
| likely picks the ones that are more destabilizing to the
| US.
| whatshisface wrote:
| Public opinion isn't destabilising in the US, instead it
| forms the basis of our system of government.
| alwa wrote:
| The allegation [0] is that a Russian influence campaign
| used TikTok as at least one of its platforms, to major
| effect. The subtext is that TikTok was at the very least
| complicit, in that, at a minimum, it tolerated what I
| believe Facebook calls "coordinated inauthentic behavior."
|
| If you think of TikTok as an instrument of the Chinese
| state, this could look consistent with the phenomenon Anne
| Applebaum has been talking about lately: a pattern of loose
| alliances-of-convenience between autocratic nations in
| service of specific disruptive missions [1]. A less spooky
| reading might be that Chinese norms don't align with
| American ones as far as proactively stopping this kind of
| thing--that they just don't care about this kind of Russian
| caper on the other side of the world. They sure do think
| carefully about their domestic information environment,
| though; and they're probably the best in the world at
| policing mass thinking when they feel like it.
|
| Where are the lines between mere negligence, complicity,
| and active participation? That seems a little more delicate
| than a couple news cycles' work. The Europeans have asked
| TikTok to preserve records to find out.
|
| I suspect the light and fire seems to be around whether a
| nation wants _any_ tool like this to just be lying around,
| ready to disrupt the nation's politics at a moment's
| notice. Social media may be new in the scheme of things,
| but in the years since the UN studied Facebook's genocides
| [2], governments have at least tried to get a handle on the
| kinds of monitoring and moderation tools and tactics that
| can help counter this kind of campaign (some with more
| deference than others to authentic speech).
|
| As far as I've heard, the allegation had never been that
| Chinese government villains cackled and rubbed their hands
| together and said "today we take Romania!" Rather, it's
| that the tools are powerful enough that we don't want to
| leave them lying around unchecked--especially since, at
| least from the perspective of American and European policy
| professionals, Chinese thinking doesn't really recognize a
| distinction between commercial and national security
| interests.
|
| Others may have better sourcing than I do for this specific
| instance, but I think it's fair to point to Western
| thinking about China's Military-Civil Fusion policy [3] to
| think about dual-use idea-disseminating technologies like
| TikTok.
|
| [0] https://www.rferl.org/a/romania-russia-election-
| interference...
|
| [1] e.g., https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024
| /06/china-r... and
| https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/07/russia-
| chi...
|
| [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-
| facebo... , https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/myanmar-
| ffm/reportoft... , https://iimm.un.org/wp-
| content/uploads/2024/03/Hate-Speech-R... [PDF, large]
|
| [3] https://www.fpri.org/article/2023/12/chinas-military-
| civil-f...
| lancesells wrote:
| I don't have an answer to this, but why if the algorithm
| can manipulate people, regardless of who directed it, why
| are we ok with the algorithmic content of all the
| platforms? I'm not much of a social media user but a lot of
| the argument here is the algorithm can feed propoganda that
| people will succumb to.
|
| Why is it ok then for Youtube to feed violence and awful
| behavior to people (probably to lots of kids) in the US if
| it's able to influence people? Is the thought that Meta and
| Google (both without ethics or morals) are just trying to
| get us to buy shit we don't need, but Tiktok is trying to
| get us to agree (or not agree) with their stance on x?
| cogman10 wrote:
| > why are we ok with the algorithmic content of all the
| platforms?
|
| What's the alternative? Even HN has "algorithmic content"
| the algorithm is based on voting and time.
| ImJamal wrote:
| While still algorithmic, a strictly chronological
| timeline is not really manipulatable, at least not in the
| same way
| mindslight wrote:
| Regulation forcing the unbundling of client software from
| content hosting. Then people can choose different client
| software depending on which algorithms they'd like to
| sort things by.
| hn_acker wrote:
| Tangent: There's a study that I can't access, but the
| abstract claims that during the 2020 election,
| chronological feeds exposed Facebook users to more
| "untrustworthy content", without necessarily having an
| effect on people's political knowledge or polarization
| [1]:
|
| > We investigated the effects of Facebook's and
| Instagram's feed algorithms during the 2020 US election.
| We assigned a sample of consenting users to reverse-
| chronologically-ordered feeds instead of the default
| algorithms. Moving users out of algorithmic feeds
| substantially decreased the time they spent on the
| platforms and their activity. The chronological feed also
| affected exposure to content: The amount of political and
| untrustworthy content they saw increased on both
| platforms, the amount of content classified as uncivil or
| containing slur words they saw decreased on Facebook, and
| the amount of content from moderate friends and sources
| with ideologically mixed audiences they saw increased on
| Facebook. Despite these substantial changes in users' on-
| platform experience, the chronological feed did not
| significantly alter levels of issue polarization,
| affective polarization, political knowledge, or other key
| attitudes during the 3-month study period.
|
| [1] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp9364
| glenstein wrote:
| >why are we ok with the algorithmic content of all the
| platforms?
|
| I don't think we are okay, but I don't think there's an
| across the board equivalent. We prioritize the egregious
| examples while simultaneously searching for a systematic
| redress that's less heavy handed.
|
| I don't think Facebook marketing Blue Apron to its users
| is the same kind of issue as undermining democracy in
| Romania.
| glenstein wrote:
| >Was it used by China, by the candidate, or by romainians?
|
| I think the allegation, implied rather than stated in this
| case, is that it is not predominantly any of those, but
| that it is predominantly the Russian state.
|
| Which would serve as an example that it's able to be
| mobilized, even weaponized, at the behest of state actors.
| China would not necessarily be culpable under this
| interpretation of this particular example, but it
| illustrates that they could exercise that same mechanism.
| Yeul wrote:
| The alternatives to TikTok are American companies led by
| Trumpists. Europe is surrounded by barbarians.
| codedokode wrote:
| > to push an unknown, unlikable character to almost win
|
| How does it work? You simply give some money to TikTok and
| the whole country runs to vote for an unknown, unlikable
| candidate? It must have superpowers.
| chris_va wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere-
| exposure_effect#cite_note...
|
| ... the same power as all media is sufficient
| sebastianz wrote:
| The allegations and current trial (and what looks like an
| upcoming European Commission investigation) seem to show
| that someone purchased illegal electoral ads (i.e. they
| were not declared as such, and financed though unclear
| means, by unclear parties).
|
| TikTok was required to comply with electoral law and
| check/enforce all this stuff but did not respond until
| _after_ the elections, and apparently did not enforce these
| electoral laws, while pocketing all the illegal ad money.
| pphysch wrote:
| People using new forms of media to break political status
| quos is a tale as old as time. This is a classic crackdown on
| democracy by a flailing elite, complete with the usual
| scapegoats.
| hellgas00 wrote:
| It's easier to blame a loss on the lack of narrative
| controls than self reflect on the actions of the incumbent.
| jimmydoe wrote:
| well said. China & Russia took too much credit
| markus_zhang wrote:
| AFAIK Romania is still a democracy. So maybe don't blame on
| something/someone else when the establishment doesn't take
| care of the people.
|
| Same with Trump. I don't agree with many of his policies but
| hey, did the establishment take care of the people?
| zen928 wrote:
| That's strange, I don't see anywhere where they're
| mentioning anything about questioning the legitimacy of
| democracy in any country from their post. Want to quote
| directly what statement you think you're replying to here?
| Or do you think your statement isn't a goalpost shift?
| markus_zhang wrote:
| > TikTok was used to push an unknown, unlikable character
| to almost win the presidential elections in Romania
|
| I interpreted it as questioning the democratic process. I
| could be wrong.
| lupusreal wrote:
| > _" an unknown, unlikable character to almost win the
| presidential elections"_
|
| _Nobody goes there anymore, it 's too crowded._
| mjfl wrote:
| Thank you for point that out. What is the parent comment
| talking about?
| ronnier wrote:
| TikTok is why Trump won his 2nd term. TikTok did not moderate
| away his content or moderate away pro Trump content like the
| other socials and Reddit. TikTok's viewership is massive and
| pro trump content was getting millions of views and likes and
| positive comments. Reddit will moderate that content away.
| TikTok has diminished Reddit's influence on politics.
| sethammons wrote:
| All of my TikTok feed was how poorly his turnout was, how
| silly his rallies were, and how dangerous it would be to
| elect him. Had I not also had my head outside my phone, I
| would have been flabbergasted by his win.
|
| So is that promoting Trump? Or is it double reversi and
| trying to make people more confident to not need to vote,
| while also telling them to go vote? It gets confusing.
| bttrpll wrote:
| But for people who were undecided/somewhat pro-Trump, it
| was MAGA nation nonstop. Similar to the alt-right
| pipeline Google supports via Youtube. It is scary.
| tetnis wrote:
| super scared right now.
| csomar wrote:
| TikTok gives you what _you_ want to see. The blue
| hysteria is because they can 't control it the way they
| did with Facebook.
| properpopper wrote:
| Not sure that we can use Reddit as a good example, Reddit's
| "Popular" page was full of anti-Trump mockery while
| praising Biden no matter what initially and then they
| switched to praising Kamala, this example is not healthy if
| you was looking for unbiased information about candidates.
| ronnier wrote:
| That's my point. Reddit is completely skewed against
| Trump, conservatives, the right, whereas TikTok allows
| this content and it thrives. TikTok was one of the few
| extremely mainstream platforms where pro trump content
| was allowed and flourished. I think for this reason Trump
| will fight the ban
| bdangubic wrote:
| TikTok, while allowing whatever content people post, can
| easily be trained to show you what you want to see.
| People that were fed whatever insane gibberish pro-Trump
| content are mostly the ones that wanted to see that
| content.
|
| When election campaigns "got going" I started first see
| pro-Left content for about 2 days off and on. Disliked
| the F out of it... as I was doing that the algorithm was
| proly thinking "ohhh the right-winger, here's some
| awesome pro-right content..." took 2 days (off and on) to
| dislike that shit... From like August onward I maybe saw
| 2-3 political videos weekly if that...
|
| Social media companies do not give a shit what you
| watch/read as long as you read/watch as long as possible.
| So you will get whatever (on TikTok or otherwise) you
| actually want to see there :)
| kelnos wrote:
| I'm pretty sure "Trump won because TikTok" is way too
| simplistic to be anywhere near the truth.
| tetnis wrote:
| don't you know that tiktok controls democracies now?
|
| look at romania!
|
| china is hacking the elections now!
| rdm_blackhole wrote:
| This is the lazy explanation peddled by the elites who
| can't be bothered to look outside their own little
| bubble.
|
| The far right is rising => everybody is racist. The cost
| of living is rising too quickly and people are
| complaining => you are too stupid to see that the economy
| is doing extremely well and if that doesnt make sense to
| you then you must be Chinese or Russian puppet.
|
| it's so easy a toddler could do it.
| clueless wrote:
| The Romanian candidate doesn't believe in covid, because "
| you can't see it"!!
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3a9oSuydBs
| 8note wrote:
| facebook was also used to do that in the US back in 2016, but
| it did not get banned from any western country as a result
| chii wrote:
| whataboutism.
| epolanski wrote:
| I don't believe those claims at all.
|
| 1) it's a very well known fact that 70% or so of the
| electorate can't be moved from their positions, even if their
| party said they were gonna harm them people will still not
| vote the other ones, thus any real advertisement or anything
| is gonna only impact a few % of people
|
| 2) extremism is on the rise everywhere in the world, from
| Germany to US, from South Africa to South America. Narratives
| have made centrist governments, especially those coming from
| larger coalitions made weak (often for good reasons)
|
| 3) we have had multiple scientists (stats, sociologists) look
| at these allegations of interference and no single data seems
| to demonstrate that political discourse on TikTok is any
| different than other media platforms. In fact, if anything,
| it seems way less controversial than other US based ones.
|
| 4) The average European finds supporting Ukraine not only a
| lost cause nowadays, but gives part of the blame to the west
| aguaviva wrote:
| _The average European finds supporting Ukraine not only a
| lost cause nowadays,_
|
| So what's an "average European"? You and your friends?
|
| A recent poll from Germany, for example, found solid (>60
| percent) support for both sanctions against Russia, and
| military support for Ukraine:
|
| https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1312216/umfr
| a...
|
| They would also prefer a diplomatic solution, but that
| doesn't mean they think "Ukraine is a lost cause".
| epolanski wrote:
| > More than half of Romanians believe that Ukraine should
| be pressured to negotiate peace with Russia, while less
| than 20% think that Ukraine should continue to receive
| military support, according to a survey conducted in
| several European countries by YouGov and Datapraxis.
|
| In Italy, where I live only 55% of the polled people
| support sending money to Ukraine, and only 33% support
| sending weapons.
|
| The only Europeans I know that are very pro helping
| Ukraine, like where it's an exception to be sceptical are
| Poles.
|
| https://www.ispionline.it/it/pubblicazione/due-anni-di-
| guerr...
|
| https://www.romania-insider.com/romanians-ukraine-
| negotiate-...
|
| The average European believes that Ukraine cannot win the
| war (meaning getting back their 1991 territories), but
| that's also a reality and the opinion shared by analysts,
| and is honestly tired of it.
|
| This war is extremely expensive on Europe and with no
| realistic prospects of Ukraine going anywhere it's hard
| to be a die hard supporter for Zelenskis official line.
|
| In any case what happened in Romania is a tragedy.
|
| A court canceling a democratic election because one
| candidate allegedly got financial support from Russia
| (something that many parties currently ruling in Europe
| like Italy did too by the way) is a very disturbing fact.
|
| This should've been handled, if true, weeks ago. Not
| after the candidate got so many votes.
| aguaviva wrote:
| Hmm - we can't go on dissecting polls each day, but
| here's one (dating from January) which measure sentiment
| across 10 countries and along several key questions:
|
| https://ukandeu.ac.uk/how-strong-is-public-support-for-
| ukrai...
|
| If the poll were taken today, the percentages would
| probably shift a bit on some of these questions. But
| what's more interesting is the spread across the 10
| countries.
|
| Notice that Italy and Hungary tend to sit more on the
| "doomer/skeptic" side (in accord with the poll you
| offered in regard to Italy's sentiment), while countries
| like the UK, Finalnd and the Baltics are more on the
| "there's still hope" side. And Germany seems to fight
| right in the middle.
|
| Which suggests that no, the average European does not
| simply think Ukraine is a lost cause.
|
| _The average European believes that Ukraine cannot win
| the war (meaning getting back their 1991 territories),
| but that 's also a reality and the opinion shared by
| analysts, and is honestly tired of it. ... It's hard to
| be a die hard supporter for Zelenskis official line._
|
| Well that's obviously no longer Zelenskyy's position,
| right?
|
| Also, you're setting up a false dichotomy here -- either
| the (now basically collapsed) "die-hard" position, or the
| "Ukraine is lost cause" position.
|
| My observations indicate that the median sentiment falls
| somewhere between these extremes.
| duxup wrote:
| Can address both IMO.
| iambateman wrote:
| this is a false dichotomy. They are both problematic, and both
| deserve careful governmental responses.
| ericmay wrote:
| You can have more than 1 risk at a time, and address each in
| different manners and at different times, and even at the same
| time.
| lazyeye wrote:
| It's possible for 2 different things to be a significant risk
| at the same time.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| Jokes on China! Americans don't talk on the phone anymore.
|
| (Also this week I had to share my credit card number over the
| phone to book an airline ticket and the next day I got a nice
| assortment of fraud charges despite using tap to pay/Apple Pay
| everywhere else)
| Taylor_OD wrote:
| Whataboutism... Many bad things may be happening at once.
| Should we just ignore one because another exists?
| immibis wrote:
| Both are also much smaller than what the US government does to
| you on a daily basis. However, all of them are bad.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| its too bad that Congress can only pass one law at a time then
| /s
| kccqzy wrote:
| This is "only" from an appeals court. I expect TikTok will take
| it to the Supreme Court and they may well reach different
| conclusions there.
| Quillbert182 wrote:
| I honestly would be surprised if the Supreme Court agrees to
| hear the case, there does not seem to be a huge amount of
| controversy here from a legal standpoint.
| cycrutchfield wrote:
| Does the Supreme Court still make decisions based on legal
| principles or is it just a thin veneer for their political
| opinions? Genuinely asking because I'm not so sure these
| days.
| dleeftink wrote:
| Is it wishful thinking there was a time those were ever
| separate?
| cycrutchfield wrote:
| The selection, nomination, and confirmation processes
| have certainly become significantly more ideologically-
| driven over time, so I would expect that to have an
| impact on the composition of the court and the way they
| make decisions.
| yyuugg wrote:
| The latter, but it's always been the latter. But usually
| they've been better at using the former to hide the latter.
| Recently, there's been a much thinner veneer of "legal
| principles".
| telotortium wrote:
| Lol, that's what conservatives think about Sotomayor and
| Jackson, and looking at their comments during oral
| arguments as well as their opinions, I think they have a
| point. (Kagan is generally a more rigorous thinker.)
| Actually most cases argued before the Supreme Court still
| have a unanimous or almost unanimous outcome, or are
| denied cert (which would often indicate a unanimous
| opinion were it to be ruled upon). It's only in the more
| controversial cases where you're more likely to read the
| more blatantly political arguments.
| fastball wrote:
| Could you give some examples of recent SCOTUS opinions
| that you think have a worse veneer of legal principles
| than the average veneer from previously?
| yyuugg wrote:
| In general, I find the concept of originalism to meet
| this criteria. Especially as originalist justices are
| turning to _tradition_ over originalism. The bend from
| "the words as originally written" to "our traditions" is
| a fundamentally conservative (lowercase c) one.
|
| In cases like Vidal v. Elster, United States v. Rahimi,
| and Samia v. United States I think you'll see the
| justices straining to understand how how square
| originalism against the modern world, and having to turn
| to another justification, traditionalism, which feels
| more like a "I believe this to be true, due to my
| political lenses" than perhaps some originalist justices
| in the past.
|
| That said, I personally find originalism to be pretty
| conservative already (lowercase c again), and kind of
| silly, but the recent justice appointments are dialling
| it up more and more.
| andrew_lettuce wrote:
| Has that changed, or are the political opinions they're
| delivering just not aligned with your belief system?
| plagiarist wrote:
| The process seems to be whoever takes them on the most
| luxurious vacation decides the verdict.
| gizmo385 wrote:
| This law has pretty big free speech implications which seems
| potentially controversial on the legal front IMO
| kccqzy wrote:
| The main controversy here is the first amendment and which
| kind of scrutiny should apply.
| kelnos wrote:
| Is it? The appeals court ruled that it doesn't matter,
| because the government's case satisfies the requirements of
| strict scrutiny.
| roncesvalles wrote:
| It sounds like the Appeals Court basically punted it to the
| SC (all emphases my own):
|
| " _Under intermediate scrutiny, the Act complies with the
| First Amendment_ "if it advances important governmental
| inter- ests unrelated to the suppression of free speech and
| does not burden substantially more speech than necessary to
| further those interests." Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC
| (Turner II), 520 U.S. 180, 189 (1997) (citing United States
| v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 377 (1968)). _Under strict
| scrutiny, the Act violates the First Amendment_ unless the
| Government can "prove that the restriction furthers a
| compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that
| interest." Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155, 171 (2015)
|
| "We think it clear that some level of heightened scrutiny is
| required. The question whether intermediate or strict
| scrutiny applies is difficult because the TikTok-specific
| provisions are facially content neutral, yet the Government
| justifies the Act in substantial part by reference to a
| foreign adversary's ability to manipulate content seen by
| Americans. _No Supreme Court case directly addresses whether
| such a justification renders a law content based, thereby
| triggering strict scrutiny._ There are reasonable bases to
| conclude that intermediate scrutiny is appropriate even under
| these circumstances. We need not, however, definitively
| decide that question because we con- clude the Act "passes
| muster even under the more demanding standard." "
| kelnos wrote:
| I'm not sure how you read that from this. The last sentence
| suggests that the appeals court believes there's no need to
| decide if strict or intermediate scrutiny applies, because
| they believe the government's justification satisfies
| strict scrutiny.
|
| They do believe that intermediate scrutiny could be
| appropriate. Sure TikTok can (and presumably will appeal),
| but to SCOTUS, they will only take up the case if they
| believe in the possibility that the appeals court erred on
| _two_ things: that 1) strict scrutiny is required, and 2)
| the facts of the case don 't pass muster when strict
| scrutiny is applied. That feels like a pretty high bar for
| a potential TikTok appeal to clear.
|
| Honestly I think TikTok's best hope is Trump. Either he
| somehow convinces Congress to repeal the ban law, or he
| instructs his DoJ to not enforce it.
| roncesvalles wrote:
| My reading (IANAL) is that if intermediate scrutiny were
| to apply, the bill holds. If strict scrutiny were to
| apply, the bill doesn't hold. There isn't enough SC
| precedent to decide which scrutiny should apply. (thus
| implying that the SC needs to make that determination).
|
| Then they concluding by saying "anyway, it doesn't really
| matter" but that seems weak to me.
| TrackerFF wrote:
| I think it's just a mater of time before TikTok starts seeing
| bans (or threats of bans) all over in the west.
|
| Countries are starting to view it as a _serious_ national threat,
| due to the disinformation risk.
|
| Just look at the Romanian election: A couple of hours ago they
| annulled the first election round, after a coordinated Russian
| campaign managed to propel a rather unknown pro-Russian candidate
| to the top, where they used platforms like TikTok to influence
| voters.
|
| Not that platforms like Facebook, Snap, etc. are much better, but
| this comes down to having some control.
| nextworddev wrote:
| Even if the app got banned abruptly today, the damage has
| already been done in the sense that it leaked a lot of training
| data and PII data to China
| swatcoder wrote:
| > the damage has already been done in the sense that it
| leaked a lot of training data and PII data to China
|
| That's not nearly the damage that people are organizing
| against. It's hard to imagine China really gains much simply
| be holding some trove of old details about some subset of US
| consumers, no matter how large. Vanishingly few users are
| individually interesting from halfway around the world, and
| the aggregate data grows stale quickly.
|
| The pressing concerns are in them being able to (a) advance
| their global political agenda by dynamically manipulating
| what people see and how its presented to them in a way that
| almost nobody can monitor, and (b) intercept ostensibly
| private messaging between select users. From the national
| security perspective of a foreign government, both of these
| are _huge_ vulnerabilities in a hot or even mildly warm
| conflict with China as most of the globe seems to be
| anticipating.
|
| And the fact that pushing back against these strategic
| threats raises ideological conflicts with Western celebration
| of free speech and free trade -- making it hard for the
| government to do anything about the threats and stoking
| internal conflict when they try -- is gravy on top of it.
| inahga wrote:
| > The pressing concerns are in them being able to (a)
| advance their global political agenda by dynamically
| manipulating what people see and how its presented to them
| in a way that almost nobody can monitor, and (b) intercept
| ostensibly private messaging between select users.
|
| It's interesting that these are only actionable threats
| when they apply to [insert foreign boogeyman here].
|
| That is, there's been lots of lip service paid about
| misinformation and privacy violations on/by U.S. companies.
| But it feels like the only meaningful action is being taken
| when it's some hypothetical foreign adversary. The further
| away they are, the more insidious.
|
| I've always felt the most tangible threat is in my
| backyard, instead of on the other side of the planet.
| swatcoder wrote:
| To citizens and cultural health, yes, the large domestic
| companies are a much greater threat. There are also many
| more impediments (by way of law, sentiment, and
| corruption) to doing anything about it.
|
| But to the US government (and its codependent allies),
| losing grip of the influence the US secured over the
| Pacific rim of Asia during to the 20th century and
| yielding it to China is an embarrassment at best and a
| major strategic loss at worst, and sets the stage for
| some kind of active contest of power which would be
| really costly and painful. Taking measures that prepare
| for that, under the lax purview of international law and
| diplomacy, is simply easier to do.
| inahga wrote:
| > But to the US government (and its codependent allies),
| losing grip of the influence the US secured over the
| Pacific rim of Asia during to the 20th century and
| yielding it to China is an embarrassment at best and a
| major strategic loss at worst, and sets the stage for
| some kind of active contest of power which would be
| really costly and painful.
|
| Do you have more sources/readings on this? It's not that
| I don't believe you, it's just the first rationale I've
| heard that doesn't boil down to vague innuendos about
| manipulation and national security that are equally
| applicable to US companies.
| kelnos wrote:
| Not the person you're replying to, and I also don't have
| sources, but to me this is the logical conclusion to
| deeper thought beyond these vague innuendoes about
| manipulation and national security.
|
| And isolationist, hands-off US would be _great_ for China
| (and Russia, etc.). China has been increasing their
| influence on the global stage for quite some time now,
| and would love to surpass the US in its global influence.
| Helping to get leaders elected (like Trump) who want to
| pull back and focus inward could easily be a part of that
| strategy. (To be fair, I don 't think China got Trump re-
| elected; I think Democrat blindness toward actual
| domestic issues got Trump re-elected.)
|
| > "... that are equally applicable to US companies.*
|
| I don't really agree that's the case. From the US
| government's perspective, the dominant social media
| platforms being owned by US companies is a big win.
| Certainly those companies sometimes act in ways that piss
| off the US government, but the trade off is worth it.
| swatcoder wrote:
| Which part sounds unfamiliar to you?
|
| Modern history through the Cold War sees diplomacy
| through the lens of "great powers" exercising some
| "sphere of influence" over vassals, subjects, and
| partners.
|
| Through the 19th and 20th century, up to WWII, the US
| worked to define its sphere of influence as all of the
| Western Hemisphere (Monroe Doctrine) and as much of
| Pacific rim as they could claw away from
| declining/decolonizing European powers.
|
| After WWII, as the only great power able to proceed at
| full stride and with no recovery to muster, they were
| able to cement the Pacific projection through new
| relationships with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc
|
| But the landscape changed over the subsequent 80 years,
| with China's independent modernization and
| industrialization setting it up as the modern "great
| power" was due to inherit its legacy from pre-modern
| history.
|
| And so we arrive at today, where China feels increasingly
| ready to challenge stale European and US influence over
| Hong Kong, Taiwan, and South East more generally. The US
| inevitably needs to respond to those challenges. That's
| the brewing, long-anticipated, and seemingly inevitable
| conflict that becomes increasingly hot as the US is
| stretched thin by internal conflict and Russias's
| parallel challenges to it in Europe.
|
| In this global conflict, TikTok's continued success is a
| _huge_ benefit to China and _huge_ vulnerability to the
| US.
|
| Meanwhile, domestic social media companies actually play
| the opposite strategic role, giving the US a channel to
| project its voice into foreign constituencies to
| influence both allies and enemies. Which we can assume is
| why China already bans them there.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _It 's interesting that these are only actionable
| threats when they apply to [insert foreign boogeyman
| here]._
|
| Well, duh. I know my government and what it can do and
| tends to do, for the most part. I know what restrictions
| are placed on it, and that when they circumvent those
| restrictions, it usually comes to light, even if it takes
| a while. I know that news outlets here can criticize the
| government and not have their journalists arrested. US
| (and other Western) intelligence agencies presumably run
| influence campaigns on social media to influence foreign
| citizens. While I may not agree with that practice, it's
| not high on my list of things I'm going to be worried up
| about.
|
| [Insert foreign boogeyman] also presumably runs influence
| campaigns on social media that target the citizens of my
| country. When they run those campaigns on Facebook,
| Instagram, Threads, Twitter, Bluesky, etc., it is safe to
| assume that the people running those companies (well,
| perhaps with the exception of Musk) don't like that, and
| will try (sometimes successfully, sometimes not) to shut
| them down.
|
| If China wants to run influence campaigns on TikTok
| against US citizens, TikTok will actively help them do
| it. If they're not already doing this, their intelligence
| agencies are asleep at the wheel.
| kelnos wrote:
| I'm not too concerned about that part of the damage. The big
| threat is that China can tell TikTok to promote particular
| views and political thought to American users. If TikTok is
| banned, that threat goes away. Sure, they've already gathered
| data to use in running influence campaigns on other
| platforms, but the US-run platforms at least try here and
| there to stamp out bot accounts and state-run account rings.
| (Well, I assume Musk is ok with them on Twitter now.)
| zht wrote:
| I think that's fine and great. We should ban TikTok if that's
| what we decide
|
| but what about Instagram and X?
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| As much as there are legitimate reasons to go after TikTok, I
| can't help but feel it's not a coincidence that it gets
| singled out for legislation because it's the only one owned
| by China.
|
| And yes, that ownership _is problematic_ but I would argue
| that the others including those you 've listed here are
| equally problematic for the safety of users.
|
| So to answer your question: they should be too, but they
| likely won't, because the force behind this isn't a desire to
| protect users from disinformation, the desire is to protect
| western companies from scary Asian competition. Same reason
| behind us constantly propping up Detroit. Protecting people
| from disinformation is just an excuse.
| lupusreal wrote:
| > _I can 't help but feel it's not a coincidence that it
| gets singled out for legislation because it's the only one
| owned by China._
|
| Of course it's not a coincidence. It's not even a hidden,
| implicit unspoken motive, it's openly explained as the
| reason behind the concern! TFA explains this clearly,
| numerous times.
| fragmede wrote:
| You'd have to ask Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk about their
| agenda for America, and for Americans.
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| TikTok isn't getting banned. PRC control of TikTok is getting
| banned. TikTok can survive by selling to a company outside of
| the US.
| protimewaster wrote:
| I've never understood this part of it. There's a
| disinformation problem on all of these platforms, so why not
| just kill all of them? The only argument I've seen is
| basically that it's better for the West to be the ones
| manipulating people in the West vs. having people in the East
| manipulating people in the West. And that just doesn't feel
| like a good argument.
| dark_glass wrote:
| People in the culture that they live in have a vested
| interest in it.
| j_maffe wrote:
| As the politicians of the US have shown time and time
| again /s
| protimewaster wrote:
| This is only relevant if people are manipulating others
| for the betterment of the culture, and that feels overly
| optimistic IMO. If everyone is just manipulating for
| selfish reasons, they'll happily destroy their own
| country.
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| Why wouldn't that be a good argument? You might as well ask
| why the US president is required to be a natural born
| citizen.
| farseer wrote:
| >>I think it's just a mater of time before TikTok starts seeing
| bans (or threats of bans) all over in the west. Countries are
| starting to view it as a _serious_ national threat, due to the
| disinformation risk.
|
| Aah I see the ruling elite in the West can't actually handle
| freedom of speech. The court really should unseal the
| classified part where they accuse TikTok of towing Chinese/PRC
| line. Then lets have a referendum to decide its fate or at
| least Congress to pass a law banning it.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _or at least Congress to pass a law banning it._
|
| They did that already.
| PittleyDunkin wrote:
| > due to the disinformation risk.
|
| If this were really the problem, TikTok wouldn't be singled-
| out. This is american frustration with the sympathy to
| Palestine: https://www.axios.com/local/salt-lake-
| city/2024/05/06/senato...
| ribosometronome wrote:
| >due to the disinformation risk. >Just look at the Romanian
| election: A couple of hours ago they annulled the first
| election round, after a coordinated Russian campaign managed to
| propel a rather unknown pro-Russian candidate to the top, where
| they used platforms like TikTok to influence voters.
|
| What you've described so far isn't disinformation but something
| more like illegal campaigning. This and disinformation both
| happen on platforms owned by the countries they're effecting
| (Facebook in 2016 with Trump). US shareholders benefiting
| doesn't really stop it.
| qingcharles wrote:
| Will I still be allowed to use Douyin? Can we all just sign up
| there instead?
|
| https://www.douyin.com/
| rdm_blackhole wrote:
| > Countries are starting to view it as a _serious_ national
| threat, due to the disinformation risk.
|
| You mean disinformation that the West does not control. If i
| want to hear disinformation, I don't need TikTok. I can just
| watch the public TV channels that are just parroting whatever
| the government says.
|
| > Just look at the Romanian election: A couple of hours ago
| they annulled the first election round, after a coordinated
| Russian campaign managed to propel a rather unknown pro-Russian
| candidate to the top, where they used platforms like TikTok to
| influence voters.
|
| Yes, these people are so brain dead that a few videos on TikTok
| changed their minds. It absolutely not because the governments
| of the EU have stopped listening to their people. No, it's the
| Chinese and the Russians.
| howmayiannoyyou wrote:
| Cannot happen fast enough. The barn door has been left wide open.
| If we cannot take social engineering and data security seriously
| - and we do not - then we're not serious about our continued
| survival as a country. Sound overly dramatic? Erosion of a common
| national identity, more than any other factor, has heralded the
| fall of nations throughout history. On the data security side, a
| failure to maintain a stable & secure transactional system is
| almost an equal threat given US dependency on finance, lending &
| commerce as a key pillar of overall stability.
|
| Doing 3 things at once, so above is best I can do in trying to
| describe an underreported and poorly appreciated threat to our
| nation.
| drawkward wrote:
| Good luck getting past the advertising lobby, and all that it
| supports, including the mostly free internet.
| grajaganDev wrote:
| The TikTok ban appears to have made it past the ads lobby.
| drawkward wrote:
| Yes, but it also has nothing to do with the security of
| personal data.
| Mathnerd314 wrote:
| Full opinion: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10289420/an-
| opinion-wa...
| scarecrowbob wrote:
| I am always curious how many people who are in favor of this have
| actually used tictok.
|
| I have found it very helpful for finding voices pretty far to the
| left. I also have found it very helpful for finding voices among
| marginalized communities, specifically indigenous folks, black
| women, anarchists, and queer folks- especially making fairly
| rational, well informed critiques of the US. And especially as
| that relates to things like Palestine or the Democrats failures
| in marketing Harri.
|
| I can get a lot of that kind of content through other channels-
| there are plenty of podcasts out there.
|
| However, the TT algo surfaces these things quite quickly and
| satisfactorally for me.
|
| I can see how that really is a threat to US powers. I have a
| pretty good understanding of the various US oppressive actions
| against subversives, including the all-out war to demonize folks
| starting with anarchists/trade unionists/communists in the late
| 1800s to the use of COINTELPRO against folks like the black
| panthers, AIM, and the anti-war movement.
|
| So from my standpoint, as someone who has gotten legitiamte
| "free-speech" value from the app, this move seems like just
| another step in a long history of US repression of political
| dissent.
|
| If you start from the assumption that everyone who has different
| politics than you has been brainwashed or manipulated into that
| differing position, then sure TT seems like a great tool to do
| that. But if you think that it really takes immense amounts of
| capital and effort to get people to "form" opinions, you might
| take the position that the effort could only be done by folks
| who, say, have control of the "history" curriculum in Texas
| public schools ot, for instance, the power to have their press
| releases uncritically published by the New York Times.
|
| Anyhow.
|
| It will be interesting to see the US set up its own version of
| the Great Firewall, I guess.
| forth_throwaway wrote:
| Maybe all of the people downvoting could try and make a
| coherent argument against this post instead. Although it's
| pretty hard to argue against objective facts.
|
| The US can ban TikTok all they want, but the worms aren't going
| back into the can.
| charonn0 wrote:
| As the grandparent comment points out:
|
| > I can get a lot of that kind of content through other
| channels- there are plenty of podcasts out there.
|
| The law doesn't ban the discussion of any particular topics,
| it bans social media platforms that are subject to the laws
| and control of adversarial governments. Specifically, China,
| Russia, Iran, and North Korea, who are already prohibited
| from participating in sensitive parts of the US economy.
|
| If social media exists to collect vast amounts of information
| about its users--and it does--then it's reasonable for the
| government to be concerned about whether that information can
| fall into the hands of an adversary.
|
| If social media exists to manipulate its users into believing
| and doing things that benefit the platform--and it does--then
| likewise the government has good reason to be concerned about
| how an adversary might use that.
|
| Framing the law as a ban on particular viewpoints is
| misguided at best, misinformation at worst. And, as you and
| the GP comment both point out, it wouldn't work since other
| platforms and venues are still wide open.
|
| The can of worms being left open is a feature not a bug. It's
| one reason why the law can survive a strict scrutiny review.
| forth_throwaway wrote:
| That's a fair analysis, but I'd argue that you are being
| too charitable to the US government. I think they
| simultaneously have legitimate security concerns, but also
| wish to regain control over some of their narratives w/
| respect to foreign policy. But really that's just a matter
| of opinion.
|
| https://www.axios.com/local/salt-lake-
| city/2024/05/06/senato...
| charonn0 wrote:
| This argument suggests that the Chinese government is
| already using Tiktok to control the narrative on US
| foreign policy, doesn't it?
| daedrdev wrote:
| The issue I have with this is that it treats the US
| government as one entity that has a singular view. I
| don't think the US government works like that, instead it
| has contradictory views within itself and especially over
| time as the party in power changes. For example, the two
| political parties that passed this bill have wildly
| differing views on foreign policy. Thus how can you say
| its to regain control over narratives, if thy don't even
| agree on which narrative to promote?
| sethammons wrote:
| where's the super-up-vote button? I have learned a lot and been
| exposed to perspectives that I would not have otherwise via
| tiktok. I have learned new things. I have literally changed how
| I do everyday tasks such as tying laces, using knifes, cooking,
| knots, etc.
|
| TikTok is a bastion of and important tool for free speech.
|
| Take recent news: the media is towing the line and crying over
| the murdered CEO. Social media is celebrating a Robin Hood
| character. One of these is a calculated expression from those
| in power. The other is an organic response that echoes public
| opinion.
| ncr100 wrote:
| Free == By China's Command (cylon voice)
|
| It appears the decision is related to China's control over
| the platform, shaping massively the opinion of groups, rather
| more importantly than the fact one can freely post ALT videos
| from their Ring cam of the assassin biking down the street.
| yyuugg wrote:
| This ban has always felt so silly. If it's privacy and data
| harvesting as a concern, don't a million apps do that? If it's
| anti-China sentiment, why _TikTok_ and not a million other
| things? If it 's about protecting elections and propaganda, why
| not X and Meta and YouTube?
|
| It's so weirdly targeted to me. Why TikTok only?
| sethammons wrote:
| because tiktok was doing FB stuff better and FB got scared and
| lobbied. I think that about sums it up.
| logicchains wrote:
| Because the AIPAC lobby explicitly called TikTok out for
| exposing young Americans to footage of the Gaza genocide
| (causing support for Israel among US youth to reach and all-
| time low), and pushed for the ban. The US politicians who
| initially pushed it had received hundreds of thousands of
| dollars of donations from AIPAC.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/08/business/tiktok-accusatio...
| swatcoder wrote:
| > If it's about protecting elections and propaganda, why not X
| and Meta and YouTube?
|
| Because the government is not threatened by X, Meta, or
| YouTube. In many ways, it exists in their pocket. There's not a
| lot of looming dissonance between what those parties are
| interested in seeing happen and what the modern federal
| government (as run by either party) is pursuing, and at this
| point, those each provide far more value as an allied
| propaganda arm than as a hostile propaganda risk.
|
| But China and the US have directly competing interests in many
| places around the world, and the radical changes that both
| countries have undergone in the last 80 years have set the
| stage of a fresh contest of power. Obviously, both parties
| would like to navigate that contest in the best position
| possible. Allowing your anticipated opponent access to
| unmediated, private communications with hundreds of millions of
| citizens in an already vulnerable democracy is not a great
| position to be in during that contest.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| X, Meta, and YouTube are not indirectly controlled by the
| Chinese Communist Party. The end.
| yyuugg wrote:
| So... nationalism? We like our surveillance state and
| demonize their surveillance state?
| disattention wrote:
| Yes? And it's not so much about the surveillance in the
| first place as opposed to the algorithmic manipulation of
| content to shift narratives and spread propaganda. Whether
| or not one believes the US based companies do similarly is
| beside the point, precisely because they're US based,
| whereas TikTok is the product of the US's primary economic
| and ideological adversary
| azinman2 wrote:
| It's very simple, the entire young generation lives on TT. It's
| where they get all of their information. It's owned by a
| foreign adversary. We already have laws against foreign owned
| media for radio and TV, why would this be any different given
| this is TV in 2024?
|
| I've used both reels and TT. I've only ever gotten lots of pro-
| China content on TT.
| thiagoharry wrote:
| So, you agree that most countries should ban US social media,
| as most of them probably have laws against foreign owned TV
| and radio?
| reaperducer wrote:
| _most of them probably have laws against foreign owned TV
| and radio?_
|
| Better check on that. I know of a few countries that have
| no problem with foreign-owned radio stations. I assume that
| applies to television stations, too.
|
| When the Iron Curtain came down, radio companies from
| around the world started buying up signals in eastern
| Europe.
| vl wrote:
| You would be surprised perhaps, but a lot of countries
| actually ban US social media.
| Uhhrrr wrote:
| I tried TikTok and never saw much political content at all.
| The algorithm gave me little dances and bad cooking. I
| finally got it to ditch the bad cooking and show me some
| interesting pseudo 70s horror AI videos. But then things kept
| repeating and I bailed.
|
| How did you manage to get Chinese propaganda?
| wvenable wrote:
| Data harvesting is a-ok. Propaganda by Americans to Americans
| is protected by the first amendment. But a foreign state
| harvesting data and applying influence is more straight
| forward.
|
| Look at the proposed solution: Just sell TikTok to someone else
| who isn't China.
| sethammons wrote:
| the quality of dialog on this site plummets to reddit levels when
| talking about TikTok.
|
| TikTok was stopped because it was eating FB's lunch. That's it.
| There is not a single argument that applies to TikTok that
| doesn't apply to FB or some other company
| FactKnower69 wrote:
| Heckin' wholesome news: Eglin Air Force Base revealed as the
| most HN addicted city!
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| It seems like the primary argument is that it is owned by
| China. I don't see how applies to FB or other companies.
| floatingtorch wrote:
| Your analysis is low quality as it focuses too narrowly and
| ignores the wider geopolitical tensions between the US and
| China.
|
| See:
|
| - CHIPs act
|
| - Ban of sale of many nvidia GPUs to China
|
| - Ban of export of ASML euv tech
|
| - Huawei ban
|
| - Chinese EV tariffs (ban?)
|
| - whole host of tariffs
|
| - China south sea tensions
|
| - Chinese support of Russia who is a threat to NATO allies (and
| invaded a sovereign country) - Ban of most US tech companies in
| China
|
| - Chinas mutual aid treaty with North Korea
| granzymes wrote:
| While the Court based this decision solely on the non-classified
| portion of the record, I found this quote to be very interesting:
|
| >Notably, TikTok never squarely denies that it has ever
| manipulated content on the TikTok platform at the direction of
| the PRC.
|
| The Court held that the law could satisfy strict scrutiny
| (regardless of whether or not it applies), which requires that
| the Government prove that the restriction furthers a compelling
| interest and less restrictive alternatives would not accomplish
| the Government's goals. That's a high, high bar, and most laws
| subject to it are found wanting.
|
| I doubt that the Supreme Court is going to want to hear this
| case. The most interesting legal question for them to decide was
| whether the law is subject to strict or intermediate scrutiny,
| but that is off the table now that the D.C. Circuit says it
| doesn't matter because the law could satisfy either standard.
|
| Direct link to the opinion:
| https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2024/12/24-111...
| rfw300 wrote:
| I don't agree with that analysis. The modern Supreme Court
| loves to wade into high-profile First Amendment issues, all the
| more when it's actually a relatively novel application. They'll
| take this case either to be argued at the end of this term or
| next term, and it will be subject to their analysis and
| whatever Trump decides to do with his discretion.
| brookst wrote:
| Agreed. This would be the perfect vehicle for a very broad
| ruling that the government can ban media in the name of
| national security, the precedent of which could be used in an
| ad hoc manner.
| EasyMark wrote:
| Oooof I don't think it will, but that bogey man is always
| in the back of the mind after SCOTUS essentially made the
| office of the President a 4 year kingship where you are
| immune to all but the most heinous crimes as president as
| long as you can cross the I's and dot the T's of "official
| business"
| fny wrote:
| This is a bipartisan issue. One of the three judges is an
| Obama appointee. If this case goes to the SC (big if), expect
| it to swing the exact same way.
|
| Trump also has no ability to upend this: he lacks the
| authority by law.
| EasyMark wrote:
| He can make sure that they aren't prosecuted for the next 4
| years since he is essentially the "sheriff and DA" that
| brings this stuff to court. He has made it clear that the
| DOJ, FBI, DEA, etc will be his personal police force and
| not independent. This is a yuge part of his Project 2025
| plan
| Leary wrote:
| The court must not have looked very hard.
|
| "Let us be very clear: TikTok does not remove content based on
| sensitivities related to China. We have never been asked by the
| Chinese government to remove any content and we would not do so
| if asked. Period. Our US moderation team, which is led out of
| California, reviews content for adherence to our US policies -
| just like other US companies in our space. We are not
| influenced by any foreign government, including the Chinese
| government; TikTok does not operate in China, nor do we have
| any intention of doing so in the future."
|
| https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/statement-on-tiktoks-conte...
|
| "58. Have members of the Chinese Communist Party, or other
| members of the Chinese government, asked ByteDance or TikTok
| employees to heat content?
|
| TikTok does not heat content in the U.S. at the request of any
| government, including the Chinese Communist Party. TikTok may
| promote or "heat" specific content (including, e.g., promoting
| the video of an artist who will be hosting a concert on TikTok
| Live) in line with company content policies to support the
| inclusion of diverse and high-quality content on the platform.
| A content operations team will review heating requests
| submitted by a limited number of cross-functional partners with
| access to the heating request, and the Content Operations team
| will either approve or reject the request based on their
| assessment of whether it follows the platform's best practices
| in support of content diversity and quality (including, e.g.,
| being engaging and meaningful and focusing on timely/relevant
| content) and business objectives. An audit function, that is in
| the process of being refined, will regularly review the heating
| request process to ensure internal compliance with company
| policies. Even if the request is approved, increasing
| visibility or video views ("VV") is not guaranteed as the
| recommendation system will not heat low quality content (e.g,
| reposted or irrelevant content). Heating impacts less than 1%
| of VV in the US."
|
| https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF00/20230323/115519/HHRG...
| WillPostForFood wrote:
| _The court must not have looked very hard._
|
| The court isn't an investigative body, they take the evidence
| submitted. Perhaps TikTok was more careful to be truthful in
| court submissions than press releases.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| Especially since what they said in the press doesn't even
| matter.
|
| The models come from China.
|
| You don't need to ask the US team to silence and amplify
| certain topics when your models do it for you.
|
| If you know this is happening, you tell the US gov it isn't
| happening, and they find out it is - you're in for a bad
| time.
|
| I'm not sure it's physically possible for a CEO to bury
| their head in the sand deep enough to plead ignorance in
| this situation.
| sanderjd wrote:
| Yeah I'm pretty flabbergasted that the commenter who
| posted this press language thinks it's a disproof of the
| issue rather than a transparently carefully worded
| statement that you could drive a truck of algorithmic
| manipulation through.
| HaZeust wrote:
| I mean, it's a lie by omission - which fundamentally
| needs familiarity (and oftentimes intermediate+ knowledge
| on a matter) to spot and scrutinize. The people who write
| these press releases are led by smart people that often
| talk to smart lawyers - it's easy to get lost in the
| sneaky language sauce.
| lukan wrote:
| Would this really work? Hardcoded models? When you want
| to influence a certain topic in a new way, on recent
| events - this means a new model needs to be created and
| adjusted all the time. I assume they rather use a complex
| traditional algorithm that can be tweaked - and if it is
| in use in US - it can be verified. If it is run through
| china, then things are clear as well. Do we have
| technical insights how it works?
| floatingtorch wrote:
| You can simply use specific training examples that teach
| the model what you please. Eg. a set of examples which
| lead ranking/retreival/filtering models. The models are
| already online training and weights likely updated every
| ~1 hour ( or even less).
|
| It'd be easy to go from a set of "moderators" who find
| examples and use it to query related content and use it
| as negative training samples. Just a guess.
| alwa wrote:
| I think those kind of answers might be exactly what the court
| is talking about. You don't have to "remove" something to
| influence its reach.
|
| They're denying stuff that doesn't matter while leaving
| plenty of room for the kind of behavior that does.
|
| To the question that you quoted: asked a question in the past
| tense, they responded in the present. Asked whether
| individual people had _made_ requests, they answered whether
| they currently _act on_ government requests.
|
| It reads as such a non-denial denial.
| MisterKent wrote:
| Search tiananmen on any app and then on TikTok. Regardless of
| their testimony, it doesn't take much to show that it isn't
| 100% of the truth.
| beastcoast wrote:
| I just did though - got lots of results about the massacre.
| Not sure what you're alluding to.
| fluidcruft wrote:
| Things can be _manipulated_ without being _removed_. This
| sort of word substitution is the type of misdirection "never
| squarely denies" could be referencing. They're asked about
| manipulation and they reply about removal. Removal is merely
| one type of manipulation. For example something like
| permanently hiding content while keeping it in the database
| isn't a removal.
| jsyang00 wrote:
| "We are not influenced by any foreign government, including
| the Chinese government."
|
| It is laughable to suggest that the basis for this ruling
| is anything less than fear and paranoia about Chinese
| government softpower. Nothing they could have said, and no
| fact they could bring to bear, would change the outcome of
| the court, which has been predetermined, for better or
| worse, by the current American political climate.
| UltraSane wrote:
| Search tiananmen on any app and then on TikTok. It is
| ridiculous that China can block all these sites but the
| US can't block TikTok Facebook (and
| Messenger) Instagram Pinterest
| Twitter Blogger Tumblr Tinder
| Blogspot New York Times The Financial
| Times The Economist The Wall Street
| Journal Bloomberg Google News
| Wikipedia YouTube Netflix Vimeo
| Google Search Bing Yahoo
| DuckDuckGo Messenger (and Facebook)
| WeChat SnapChat Telegram Signal
| llamaimperative wrote:
| I'm no fan of TikTok but this is a really shitty
| argument.
|
| China can do it because China doesn't have the First
| Amendment, which is, you know, sort of the whole point...
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| But in practice, that means the only global social
| network--one that is accessible in both the US and in
| China--is one that agrees to Chinese censorship laws.
| IMO, this is a massive backfire to the purpose of freedom
| of speech.
| corimaith wrote:
| paradox of intolerance rears it's head up again.
| brookst wrote:
| Yes? That's how it works. Because as soon as you act like
| the enemy, you're no different from them.
| votepaunchy wrote:
| An America without TikTok is still vastly more free than
| China. Our constitution is not a suicide pact.
| oskarkk wrote:
| Isn't there a totally separate TikTok for China?
|
| >TikTok, whose mainland Chinese and Hong Kong[3]
| counterpart is Douyin,[a][4] is a short-form video
| hosting service (...)
|
| >While TikTok and Douyin share a similar user interface,
| the platforms operate separately.[28][4][29] Douyin
| includes an in-video search feature that can search by
| people's faces for more videos of them, along with other
| features such as buying, booking hotels, and making geo-
| tagged reviews.[30]
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TikTok
|
| So I think even TikTok (app for non-China markets) isn't
| available in China.
| llamaimperative wrote:
| Yep, liberalism is hard. More breaking news at 10.
| SllX wrote:
| Plenty of countries don't have the First Amendment that
| are still liberal democracies that adhere to more or less
| free trade principles. The PRC does it because they are
| totalitarian State subject to the control of the
| Communist Party of China and their censorship regime does
| not stop at the border:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_censorship_abroad
| pelagicAustral wrote:
| Do Americans really have a 1st amendment anymore?
| bdangubic wrote:
| If social media sites had identity proofing (e.g. IAL2)
| and you can definitely say who is saying what - then you
| can talk
|
| A) About "Americans"
|
| B) Freedom of Speech
|
| If TikTok bans a post from user846859347 which American's
| freedom of speech are we talking about. 98.65% of shit on
| TT is bot-generated propaganda and removing it isn't
| violating anyone's freedom of speech
| llamaimperative wrote:
| Yes, which is why you hear them unabashedly complaining
| about their government nonstop.
| datavirtue wrote:
| That's a hell of a lot of milieu control. Seems they are
| just trying to prevent an understanding and ultimately a
| blending of cultures and are effectively controlling
| language and therefore the people's world view.
| llamaimperative wrote:
| ... yes...
| nambamutta wrote:
| Do you even use the app? I literally found it on Tiktok
| within seconds
| llamaimperative wrote:
| Oh no, fear and paranoia about a dictatorial regime with
| extrajudicial police stations in the US to hunt down
| family members of domestic political dissidents putting
| media in front of our children's eyes 24/7 while walking
| around our streets with space age sensor arrays! Oh no!
| So unjustifiably fearful!
|
| Who could possibly take issue with such a technology!
| CPLX wrote:
| If a court of appeals says a party to a case "has not denied"
| something they are speaking specifically about the record of
| the trial being presented to them.
| epolanski wrote:
| Not sure why are you getting down voted to express an
| informative take.
|
| It feels like I'm on Reddit and not in a place that should be
| more intellectually active and open.
| nullc wrote:
| Public comments not made in court are worthless as a defense.
| They _didn 't_ make those same remarks in court where they
| could be forced to answer questions about their meaning and
| where the speaker could be sent to prison for knowingly lying
| about them.
| EasyMark wrote:
| It also speaks books worth of implications that the TikTok CEO
| would never straight up state to Congress that they would not
| promote CCP material or disinformation strategies if they were
| told to do so (not like they have a choice either, its
| literally a CCP law)
| BadHumans wrote:
| Tiktok ban is a farce because FAANG companies don't like that a
| Chinese company is doing what they do better and taking their
| market share. If they actually cared about the privacy and
| misinformation risk they would pass privacy laws that affect all
| social media companies.
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| This was not about privacy. This is about CCP using
| disinformation to sway populations in a democratic country.
| gpm wrote:
| The ruling actually spends quite a bit of time talking about
| the privacy justification as well.
| sanderjd wrote:
| Yeah, but it's still a distraction from the real issue.
| BadHumans wrote:
| The excuse of misinformation is also fud. Facebook help
| Trump get elected in 2016 through the whole Cambridge
| Analytica fiasco. Facebook paid a paltry fine and the
| executives from Cambridge Analytica formed another
| company named Emerdata. There would be no need to take
| action specifically against Tiktok if legislation was the
| stick given to all companies but lobbyist don't want to
| crack down domestically.
| sanderjd wrote:
| It's not about misinformation either. It's about control
| over the algorithm that chooses what people see.
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| > Facebook help Trump get elected in 2016 through the
| whole Cambridge Analytica fiasco
|
| This comment is FUD though. Did FB do it intentionally?
| Spivak wrote:
| Yeah! We like our organized disinformation campaigns to be
| made in the USA instead.
|
| It's frankly an embarrassing look for the US if we go through
| with this on these grounds because we're basically saying we
| can't weather targeted disinformation and propaganda while
| simultaneously deploying them in our own house.
|
| You can't _make_ people in the US believe anything. We had
| the full force of US government pulling every lever they had
| access to get people to get vaccinated and wear a mask and it
| still didn 't work. Even when (arguably) they had the truth
| on their side. There's no way we're admitting China
| outclassed us.
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| Disinformation is bad from any source, but it is much worse
| if it comes from a foreign adversary govt.
|
| Also, the US acts against misinformation from with US too.
|
| https://www.npr.org/2024/06/26/nx-s1-5003970/supreme-
| court-s...
|
| Honestly, I never understood arguments like this. What
| next?
|
| 1. Why should only the US govt tax Americans, we should
| also let CCP tax Americans.
|
| 2. Why should only the US govt police Americans, we should
| also let CCP police Americans.
|
| > You can't make people in the US believe anything. We had
| the full force of US government pulling every lever they
| had access to get people to get vaccinated and wear a mask
| and it still didn't work. Even when (arguably) they had the
| truth on their side. There's no way we're admitting China
| outclassed us.
|
| You are conflating many things.
|
| CCP doesn't have to sway the average American. It only has
| to sway fringe groups at critical moments/places. That is
| much more easy.
| BadHumans wrote:
| When you make strawmen like "Lets let the CCP tax
| Americans" I can't take you seriously.
| immibis wrote:
| To accept the strawman rebuttal I have to be able to
| figure out what differentiates your actual position from
| the strawman, which I can't. You implicitly claim that
| the Chinese government should be able to do to US
| citizens everything that the US government can do to US
| citizens. To which two counter-examples were provided.
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| 1. Yeah, that's not my argument. My main argument is that
| there is a false equivalence drawn between US and CCP
| govts. That's not what a straw man.
|
| 2. Apparently, you take the original argument US and CCP
| are equivalent seriously. If so, I can't your argument
| seriously and it needs to mocked with equivalences like
| what I was going for. That was the argument I was
| responding to.
| simoncion wrote:
| > Honestly, I never understood arguments like this. What
| next?
|
| > 1. Why should only the US govt tax Americans, we should
| also let CCP tax Americans.
|
| Well. Much to the frustration of authoritarians
| everywhere, we have the first amendment to the US
| Constitution. We also have a lot of precedent saying that
| Constitutional protections don't only extend to US
| citizens.
|
| Tiktok, Ltd is a company operating in the US, with a
| solid, real US presence. Either the conduct of the
| company violates local, state, or federal law and the
| company should be prosecuted accordingly, or it doesn't
| and they should be left alone.
|
| The actual argument being made is not "We should let the
| CCP police Americans." but rather "Multinational
| companies with a real US presence have the same free
| speech protections as any strictly-domestic US-based
| company. Why is TikTok, Ltd being treated differently?".
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| > Tiktok, Ltd is a company operating in the US, with a
| solid, real US presence. Either the conduct of the
| company violates local, state, or federal law and the
| company should be prosecuted accordingly, or it doesn't
| and they should be left alone.
|
| This is not violating the first amendment rights of
| TikTok.
|
| This is just asking Bytedance/CCP to divest from TikTok.
|
| Last I heard, CCP is not subject to US laws (maybe CCP
| thinks otherwise?). Bytedance is a Chinese entity and US
| first amendment and equivalent don't apply to it.
|
| Bytedance - CCP link
|
| > In 2014, ByteDance established an internal Chinese
| Communist Party (CCP) committee.[51] The company's vice
| president, Zhang Fuping, serves as the company's CCP
| Committee Secretary.[52][53] According to a report
| submitted to the Australian Parliament, Zhang Fuping
| stated that ByteDance should "transmit the correct
| political direction, public opinion guidance and value
| orientation into every business and product
| line."[54][55]
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ByteDance
|
| If CCP wants American first amendment protections for
| itself, it should also be subject to all other US laws
| then.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > CCP is not subject to US laws
|
| The Communist Party of China is, in fact, subject to
| those US laws with extraterritorial application (with the
| limitations and exceptions the US has chosen to include
| in those laws), or when it acts within US territory. For
| instance, see the litigation over Missouri's claims
| against the the People's Republic of China, Communist
| Party of China, National Health Commission of the
| People's Republic of China, Ministry of Emergency
| Management of the People's Republic of China, Ministry of
| Civil Affairs of the People's Republic of China, People's
| Government of the Hubei Province, People's Government of
| Wuhan City, Wuhan Institute of Virology, and the Chinese
| Academy of Sciences under US law over COVID-19 related
| actions. [0][1]
|
| > Bytedance is a Chinese entity and US first amendment
| and equivalent don't apply to it.
|
| The First Amendment is applicable based on the US
| government being the actor, not based on who is acted
| against.
|
| [0] https://tlblog.org/missouris-covid-suit-against-
| china-revive...
|
| [1] https://lettersblogatory.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2024/01/2224... [PDF]
| ASinclair wrote:
| > We had the full force of US government pulling every
| lever they had access to get people to get vaccinated and
| wear a mask and it still didn't work.
|
| Well, did they try a disinformation campaign on TikTok?
| coin wrote:
| > they would pass privacy laws that affect all social media
| companies.
|
| And China would just ignore it. It's already illegal to steal
| IP and yet China does it all the time.
| BadHumans wrote:
| The companies stealing US IP don't operate in the US.
| ByteDance has US operations and is subject to US law.
| logicchains wrote:
| Trump explicitly promised to stop the TikTok ban so it'll be
| interesting to see if he follows through.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Right after they finally repeal Obamacare, one presumes.
| reaperducer wrote:
| He promised to end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours of
| being elected. Not being sworn-in, but 24 hours of _being
| elected._
|
| We see how well that promise worked out.
| susixbcjbc wrote:
| Very doubtful. Israel/zionists were pushing big for the ban,
| and trump has maybe the most pro Zionist cabinet in history.
| It's a lot easier to call criticism of Israel anti-semitic when
| you shutdown one of the few "mainstream" outlets that will
| report otherwise.
|
| He's promised a lot of things he doesn't follow up on. Cabinet
| choices speak louder than words.
| burkaman wrote:
| No he didn't. The most he said is that he would "SAVE TIKTOK" (
| https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1130812582422...
| ), which can mean anything you want. If you think the ban
| should be repealed, then that's what he meant. If you think the
| ban should be upheld and TikTok should be taken over by an
| American company, then that's what he meant. As usual, he has
| also made every other possible contradictory statement on this
| issue.
|
| "When I wanted to disable TIKTOK 3 years ago [...] I was
| right":
| https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1099896988452...
|
| "A national ban on TikTok is long overdue":
| https://trumpstruth.org/statuses/18212
|
| "Trump was RIGHT on TikTok":
| https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1100753484322...
|
| "FACEBOOK IS A GREAT THREAT TO DEMOCRACY, AND IT WILL ONLY GET
| BIGGER AND STRONGER IF TIKTOK IS TAKEN OUT. DO THEM BOTH?":
| https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1120957020572...
|
| And of course, his own executive order to ban TikTok:
| https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/ex...
| martythemaniak wrote:
| He will absolutely 100% save TikTok. Expect to see him work
| closely with Xi and Putin against their common enemies during
| his term.
|
| Here's another fun prediction: China will give him (personally,
| not the US) a huge sum of money and he will withdraw all
| support from Taiwan allowing China to take them over. TBD
| whether there's shooting involved.
|
| I'm open to friendly bets!
| malshe wrote:
| WSJ earlier this year reported that a Trump donor is an
| investor in TikTok and has been pushing to save TikTok from a
| ban: https://www.wsj.com/business/how-tiktoks-trump-whisperer-
| cha...
| thrance wrote:
| I think the fear of foreign influences poisoning our democracies
| through social media is a very legitimate one. But then, why
| limit the debate to PCR-owned TikTok? Arguably, Twitter/X was way
| more instrumental in the election of Donald Trump, a man who has
| repeatedly praised Xi Jinping [1], Putin [2] and other despots.
|
| [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-
| news/video/2024/jul/21/trump-...
|
| [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/trump-
| praises-...
| plagiarist wrote:
| Legally it turns out it is perfectly fine if propaganda and
| disinformation machines are run by domestic billionaires.
| Footnote7341 wrote:
| We aren't used to draconian internet control in the west yet, in
| China and Russia the population is. Everyone who's anyone just
| uses a VPN and uses western internet when they like. China banned
| western social media for the exact same reason that the US wanted
| to, they were just ready to do it earlier.
| internetter wrote:
| I don't like this. TikTok is certainly a national security threat
| and it should absolutely be heavily restricted via sweeping
| privacy regulation that applies to all US tech companies, however
| the government has failed to implement privacy regulation _while_
| allowing TikTok 's unfettered growth. Consequently, it has
| allowed the platform to become _the_ place for free speech and
| exchange of ideas by the country 's youth, and hence this cold
| turkey removal is a direct assault on their freedom.
|
| This decision could set a dangerous president, pulling us towards
| a future of authoritarianism where only government approved
| communication channels are permitted.
| reaperducer wrote:
| U.S. courts are not "the government." They are a part of the
| government. It's not the court's job to "implement privacy
| regulation." That's the legislative branch's job.
|
| The U.S. government is designed this way on purpose -- so that
| no one part of the government is more powerful than the other.
|
| I assume you're not an American, because this is generally
| taught in elementary school.
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| The job of the court is not to decide if this law is the best
| possible solution.
| hn_acker wrote:
| When strict scrutiny is involved, (which it is, because there
| are many US users of TikTok using their First Amendment
| rights) it IS the court's job to decide whether the law is
| the "least restrictive means" [1] of solving the problem that
| the legislators claim to be solving.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny
| dtquad wrote:
| Discussions about Tiktok are always dominated by the focus on
| privacy which is a joke.
|
| The real problem is the algorithmic control this gives China to
| influence the populations of Western countries. But Meta was
| found to outsource content moderation to a Canadian company that
| outsourced Instagram content moderation to Iran.
|
| This is not about privacy. These platforms have become the new
| media. Getting your news from profit-seeking American and Chinese
| companies is not ideal in the long run.
| beepbooptheory wrote:
| Ok but like if this true and operative, why aren't they
| mobilizing their algorithmic control right at this moment when
| it seems like they would need it the most?
|
| Just seems like pretty incomplete control if they can still let
| themselves get to this point.
| asadotzler wrote:
| They are.
| beepbooptheory wrote:
| Do you see the dissonance in this response, or no?
| sadeshmukh wrote:
| Algorithmic control doesn't mean mind control - it works
| best when attention isn't directly drawn to it. It's also
| hard to "algorithmic control" your way out of a lawsuit
| when public opinion doesn't change the outcome.
|
| And if you're talking about public opinion, just look
| down this thread - most people are against this action,
| not for it.
| beepbooptheory wrote:
| This makes sense but I guess I thought public opinion
| would make a difference here because USA is a democracy
| and everything. That's at least from my understanding
| what is supposed to distinguish the USA from China.
| chis wrote:
| Even if they aren't doing it, it's just a crazy risk to run.
| Imagine if the biggest American newspapers were owned by
| Russia during the Cold War. America just wouldn't have
| allowed it.
|
| And unlike that metaphor, TikTok offers basically 0 value
| over replacement compared to other media. Maybe it's even
| worse than other media since it's more addictive.
| beepbooptheory wrote:
| I think actually very importantly to your implicit point:
| that is not a metaphor, its an analogy.
|
| But either way, if my state is banning things based on
| their "value", on what might be "dangerous" to my thought,
| well, I _might_ as well move to China! Because its the same
| thing there, but at least I know I can get cheap rent.
| kelnos wrote:
| It depends on how you define "value", I guess. TikTok has
| become the dominant platform for this sort of thing in the
| US. Clearly it has value for lots of people. It doesn't
| really matter from an optics perspective if TikTok achieved
| dominance through addictive engagement practices.
| sekai wrote:
| > Ok but like if this true and operative, why aren't they
| mobilizing their algorithmic control right at this moment
| when it seems like they would need it the most? Just seems
| like pretty incomplete control if they can still let
| themselves get to this point
|
| They did try: https://gizmodo.com/tiktok-activates-army-of-u-
| s-tweens-to-s...
|
| "TikTok sent a push notification to United States users on
| Thursday morning asking them to call their local
| representative to "Stop a TikTok shutdown." The app refers to
| a bipartisan bill gaining momentum in Congress this week
| which could ban TikTok altogether."
| hn_acker wrote:
| A push notification bypasses the recommendation algorithm
| entirely.
| tonygiorgio wrote:
| The real problem is people scared of tHE aLGOrItHm
| aprilthird2021 wrote:
| > the algorithmic control this gives China to influence the
| populations of Western countries
|
| The first amendment allows us to choose whatever we want to
| influence us. If Americans want to sit in front of Chinese
| controlled social media and gorge on it, that's our right. I
| don't agree the government can take it away. The idea that they
| should control what influenced us is very anti democratic.
| spacephysics wrote:
| At the very least there should be legislature to disclose the
| parties involved in decision making around algorithms and
| content moderation
| aprilthird2021 wrote:
| Sure, but I am extremely against the government banning any
| type of media, social or otherwise.
| booleandilemma wrote:
| I never signed up for instagram, snapchat, or threads, but I am a
| tiktok user. If tiktok is banned, it might very well be the last
| social media app of its kind that I ever use.
| klysm wrote:
| That sounds like a good thing
| quantum_state wrote:
| Any intervention from the government on our choice of media is
| unconstitutional ... hope this is a self evident truth.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Who are you? Courts think otherwise.
| evanfrommaxar wrote:
| The FCC is allowed to issue radio broadcasting licenses that
| prevent pirate radio stations, thereby "intervening" on my
| choice of media.
|
| Learn some law.
| brink wrote:
| I get where your heart is at, but this is decisively not true.
| asadotzler wrote:
| That's either a silly throw-away comment, or you're not a
| serious person.
| jmward01 wrote:
| Does this matter without meaningful US privacy laws? Can't China
| just buy metrics and ads to get the same access?
| hn_acker wrote:
| Related: DC Circuit Upholds TikTok Ban In Alarming Ruling,
| Claiming It Actually Enhances Free Speech
| https://www.techdirt.com/2024/12/06/dc-circuit-upholds-tikto...
|
| > There is a fair bit of hand-waving, in which they note that the
| government presented no actual evidence of China doing anything
| nefarious with TikTok, but because government officials said "but
| they could!" that was enough. This sets an extremely low and
| dangerous bar. Mere speculation about what a foreign government
| might hypothetically do in the future should not be enough to
| override the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans.
|
| > In many ways, this is a continuation of the way the courts
| often view Fourth Amendment cases, where if the government just
| yells "national security" loud enough, courts will ignore the
| plain text of the Fourth Amendment.
|
| ...
|
| > The court's reasoning here is Orwellian. It claims that banning
| TikTok, and the speech of millions of Americans on the platform,
| somehow enhances free speech. This is a complete inversion of
| First Amendment values. The First Amendment protects against
| government censorship and control of private speech, it doesn't
| justify such censorship in the name of preventing foreign
| influence. The court is essentially arguing that violating the
| First Amendment is necessary to save it, which is absurd.
|
| ...
|
| > The ruling also rejects the idea that this was a Bill of
| Attainder, by saying that while it does "target" TikTok directly,
| its remedy is not a "punishment" and therefore that prohibition
| doesn't apply. But banning TikTok from operating in the US unless
| it is sold certainly seems like a punishment. The court's
| analysis on this point is not persuasive.
|
| > The court also claims that this bill is, in fact, the least
| restrictive means of achieving this outcome, rejecting
| ByteDance's long-negotiated alternative of having all the data
| stored in the US on Oracle hardware, and giving Oracle the
| ability to audit the code. This plan was originally cooked up
| deliberately under the first Trump administration to support
| Trump donor Larry Ellison.
| throwawaymanbot wrote:
| Excellent news. And all social media should be blocked until you
| are 16+
| vkou wrote:
| Social networks in general should be nation-specific, to ensure
| that only domestic enemies of the people and similar bad actors
| can take advantage of them.
|
| Allowing foreigners to broadcast speech into your country, or
| harvest data from it invites nothing but trouble.
| aprilthird2021 wrote:
| Allowing foreigners to broadcast speech into your country is
| protected by the First Amendment. It's exactly why every
| American can consume 24/7 PressTV if they choose to
| wk_end wrote:
| IANAL but I'm not sure if this is accurate. You're, of
| course, allowed to consume PressTV but AFAIK I don't think
| there's any First Amendment protections for non-citizens
| outside of the US.
| dartos wrote:
| Idk if that's the case either, but a shell corp which is
| incorporated in the US easily gets around it.
|
| Though the first amendment does not protect calls to
| action. Especially if that call includes violence or
| treason. (Unless you're specifically Donald Trump)
| vkou wrote:
| Shell corps would have to register as foreign agents, and
| be surveilled and regulated as such. In the United
| States, and in most countries around the world, the
| speech and spending power of such agents is carefully
| monitored and curtailed.
|
| Any social network should be assumed to be an agent of
| the government in which it operates from. Facebook, for
| instance, has a special relationship with the Pentagon,
| VKontakte with the Kremlin, TikTok with Beijing, etc.
|
| If a foreign rabble-rouser, seeking to disrupt our
| harmonious society can be banned from entry into the
| country, why should their ideas be let in through a
| social network?
| gpm wrote:
| The ruling suggests that a shell corp might not be
| _quite_ enough, even though TikTok as a US operating
| entity is sufficient.
|
| > The Government suggests that because TikTok is wholly
| owned by ByteDance, a foreign company, it has no First
| Amendment rights. Cf. Agency for Int'l Dev. v. All. for
| Open Soc'y Int'l, Inc., 591 U.S. 430, 436 (2020)
| (explaining that "foreign organizations operating abroad
| have no First Amendment rights"). TikTok, Inc., however,
| is a domestic entity operating domestically. See
| NetChoice, 144 S. Ct. at 2410 (Barrett, J., concurring)
| (identifying potential "complexi- ties" for First
| Amendment analysis posed by the "corporate structure and
| ownership of some platforms"). The Government does not
| dispute facts suggesting at least some of the regulated
| speech involves TikTok's U.S. entities. See TikTok App.
| 811- 12, 817-18 (explaining that promoted videos are
| "reviewed by a U.S.-based reviewer," that an executive
| employed by a U.S. entity approves the guidelines for
| content moderation, and that the recommendation engine
| "is customized for TikTok's vari- ous global markets" and
| "subject to special vetting in the United States").
|
| > Nor does the Government argue we should "pierce the
| corporate veil" or "invoke any other relevant exception"
| to the fundamental principle of corporate separateness.
| Agency for Int'l Dev., 591 U.S. at 435-36. We are
| sensitive to the risk of a foreign adversary exploiting
| corporate form to take advantage of legal protections in
| the United States. Indeed, the Government presented
| evidence to suggest the PRC intention- ally attempts to
| do just that. See, e.g., Gov't App. 33-35 (describing the
| PRC's hybrid commercial threat and its exploitation of
| U.S. legal protections for hacking operations). Under
| these circumstances, however, we conclude that the
| TikTok-specific provisions of the Act trigger First
| Amendment scrutiny.
| smogcutter wrote:
| You're flatly wrong, and so is vkou. From the text of the
| 1st amendment: "Congress shall make no law [...]
| abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." (cut
| the establishment clause for clarity).
|
| It doesn't say "congress shall make no law _for citizens_
| " or "within the US".
| ericjmorey wrote:
| What's written and what's enforced often don't align.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| It is very much construed "within the US", excluding the
| border enforcement zone
| Dalewyn wrote:
| Obligatory IANAL.
|
| The Constitution derives power from and applies them to
| the "People of the United States"[1], excluding everyone
| including even Americans who do not physically exist
| within US sovereign jurisdiction.[2]
|
| That is to say, some guy in not-Americaland does not
| enjoy First Amendment nor any other Constitutional
| protections.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United
| _States_...
|
| [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United
| _States_...
| TeaBrain wrote:
| The are FCC rules concerning foreign ownership of
| broadcast channels, which could be considered an
| exception to this.
| BadHumans wrote:
| This doesn't pass the smell test.
| zztop44 wrote:
| It's sad that people think this way. As a young child growing
| up in the 90s in a rural part of a small country, being able
| to access the "speech" of people around the world via
| internet forums was a revelation.
|
| Are you really so scared of China that you'd throw that all
| away?
| Dalewyn wrote:
| I think there is an aspect of foreign interference that
| Americans might be particularly blind to.
|
| Namely, we are engaging in foreign interference towards any
| country that uses our social media (Mysterious Twitter X,
| Facebook, Youtube, et al.). Japan's online discourse lives
| and breathes Mysterious Twitter X, for example. We
| definitely influence and interfere in their domestic
| affairs whether anyone likes it or not.
|
| If the sanctity(?) of domestic-only electoral will is
| paramount, it stands to reason that any and all social
| media should be legally barred from crossing borders
| regardless if that even makes internet sense.
| mcmcmc wrote:
| So essentially you are advocating for the Great Firewall
| of China. Would you ban VPNs as well?
| vkou wrote:
| All free countries control and censor broadcast media,
| but most don't do it for unicast communication.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| If foreign interference in domestic politics is a
| concern, you absolutely do not want foreign-owned
| communication channels operating within you. They have
| every reason to manipulate discourse within them towards
| specific foreign ends in defiance to domestic interests.
|
| TikTok manipulates discourse everywhere towards Chinese
| ends, X/Facebook/et al. manipulate discourse everywhere
| towards American ends.
|
| This is an entirely separate concern from firewalls,
| which with the way you posited it might as well be a
| strawman.
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| The person you replied to is clearly being sarcastic.
| troq13 wrote:
| Funny how the decline of American hegemony over social media
| coincides with Americans arguing social media should be
| nation-specific.
| triyambakam wrote:
| That should be regulated by parents. If the government does it
| it means needing a digital id
| goda90 wrote:
| Not that the government would ever do this, but it is
| technically feasible for them to distribute anonymous digital
| IDs that verify age without allowing the user to be tracked
| or identified.
| elzbardico wrote:
| Technically feasible? yes. But why would the
| intelligence/military blob do things this way?
|
| Haven't they proved over and over that they will use any
| opportunity to spy on as much people as possible?
| plorg wrote:
| Once the government is issuing digital IDs to grant access
| to speech you can split that hair however you want I think
| it's a pretty uncomfortable idea for a lot of people.
| hn_acker wrote:
| Related: DC Circuit Says the TikTok Ban Is Censorship, But
| Upholds It Anyway-TikTok v. Garland
| https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2024/12/dc-circuit-say...
|
| >> the Government acknowledges that it lacks specific
| intelligence that shows the PRC has in the past or is now
| coercing TikTok into manipulating content in the United States
|
| > (Note 1: the court then shifts the burden back on TikTok:
| "TikTok never squarely denies that it has ever manipulated
| content on the TikTok platform at the direction of the PRC.")
|
| ...
|
| >> At bottom, the Government lacks confidence that it has
| sufficient visibility and resources to monitor TikTok's promised
| measures, nor does it have "the requisite trust" that "ByteDance
| and TTUSDS would comply in good faith." The court can neither
| fault nor second guess the Government on these crucial points...
|
| >> The Government "need not wait for a risk to materialize"
| before acting; its national security decisions often must be
| "based on informed judgment." Here the Government has drawn
| reasonable inferences based upon the evidence it has
|
| > The court can't second-guess possibly pretextual arguments? The
| government has "drawn reasonable inferences" about conjectural
| risks? Those words don't sound like the rigorous judicial review
| we expect from strict scrutiny.
|
| ...
|
| > Third, the majority repeatedly indicates that the ban won't
| necessarily change the content available on TikTok, given that
| the PRC hasn't yet engaged in its conjectural influence
| operation. But which way does this cut? As mentioned above,
| changing the ownership will change the editorial policies and
| practices, so inevitably the content would change from the forced
| divestment. More importantly, doesn't this raise serious
| questions about the ban's efficacy if it doesn't actually change
| the content? In other words, if the content stays the same, then
| means-fit analysis seems potentially undermined.
|
| > (Yes, I would also argue the contrary position-that if the
| speech were to change, that would be reason to strike down the
| ban. From my perspective, legislatively picking and choosing
| owners of speech venues is always constitutionally problematic,
| regardless of the effects on editorial content).
| deadbabe wrote:
| Trump said he won't ban it.
| kibwen wrote:
| Unfortunately for our collective sanity, Trump's promises have
| the predictive power of /dev/random. He was all aboard the
| original train to ban TikTok, so he'll just as easily flip-flop
| back and forth based on whatever his cadre of puppeteers
| whisper into his ear today. And also the bill already passed
| and was signed into law in April:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protecting_Americans_from_Fore...
| delfinom wrote:
| Given that Zuckerberg is now trying to get in the Trump
| swamp, and Meta was behind some of the initial lobbying to
| ban Tiktok. It'll be some funny back and forth.
| vkou wrote:
| It would be funny if all the people and institutions with
| power in the country weren't tripping over each other to
| kiss the ring.
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| Is there any evidence that Meta directly lobbied for the
| ban?
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| Meta spent a record $7.6 million on lobbying the federal
| government in the first quarter of 2024, which is the
| same time Congress was advancing legislation that could
| ban TikTok. Although Meta's disclosure doesn't explicitly
| mention the TikTok ban, it does mention lobbying on
| topics like cybersecurity, data security, and platform
| integrity, which are all relevant to the concerns
| surrounding TikTok. So...yeah.
|
| https://readsludge.com/2024/04/23/meta-shatters-lobbying-
| rec...
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| So no evidence. Got it.
|
| Ironically, for anti-ban folks Meta is by default assumed
| guilty despite evidence unlike TikTok which is given the
| benefit of doubt despite evidence [1,2,3].
|
| [1] https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/08/tech/tiktok-data-
| china/index....
|
| [2] https://apnews.com/article/tiktok-china-bytedance-
| user-data-...
|
| [3] https://www.dw.com/en/eu-probes-tiktok-after-
| surprise-win-in...
| Sabinus wrote:
| Trump says lots of things. What he will do depends on which
| advisor/donor gets in his ear, and when.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| He won't ban it he's saving it as a chip for bargains
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| The ban takes effect on Jan 19, 2025. Given that Trump will
| not take office until the next day, he won't have the power
| to stop it. I suppose he could try to reverse it once he's
| in, though.
| mjfl wrote:
| mixed feelings about this. Tiktok was highly addictive and
| destructive to the brains of young teenagers, but at the same
| time it was one of the few media platforms that allowed criticism
| of Israel to go viral. Instagram is similarly addictive and
| destructive. There are charts showing the rise of depression in
| female teens that coincides directly with the rise of Instagram.
| But Instagram also actively censors criticism of Israel. The
| government wants to redirect young people towards these enclosed
| pastures to better herd them.
| epgui wrote:
| > allowed criticism of Israel to go viral
|
| Typically the things that get deplatformed are not well-
| reasoned criticism so much as emotional outbursts full of
| barely coherent rhetoric anyway... (this comment should not be
| interpreted as taking a position on the issue).
| mjfl wrote:
| Even if that were true - is that a valid excuse for
| censorship? Certainly not. Freedom of speech means freedom of
| speech. Period. It doesn't mean freedom of speech that you
| personally agree with or that passes some arbitrary bar of
| rhetorical quality.
| aaomidi wrote:
| With Israel coverage, companies have had leaked moderation
| guidelines to remove practically anything critical of Israel.
| birksherty wrote:
| No. It's not criticism but more about able to broadcast
| directly what is going on in gaza. Western media were not
| showing that at the beginning or they were only showing what
| Israel allowed them to.
|
| Politicians were not happy that tiktok had those raw footage.
| It's not criticism but trying to hide reality.
| exabrial wrote:
| I'm not picking a side here on the conflict.
|
| Do you actually believe the criticism of Israel was just random
| and "viral"? I find it hard to believe sitting on that platform
| is anything 'random'.
| mjfl wrote:
| I never said anything about it being random. I think many
| people share the opinion of the content authors, and thus
| 'like and share' the content, causing it to go viral. You
| should understand that normal people are deeply sympathetic
| to the Gazan civilians because they see the images coming out
| of Gaza, images of children whose limbs have been blown off
| by 2000 lb bombs dropped on apartment buildings, and are
| horrified by the violence being done to the innocent.
| 2c2c2c wrote:
| > But Instagram also actively censors criticism of Israel
|
| I have friends working for nonprofits in this space, and I can
| assure you the 25 stories a day they blast out are not being
| censored
| aguaviva wrote:
| _At the same time it was one of the few media platforms that
| allowed criticism of Israel to go viral._
|
| Actually, it has been the 76 years of increasingly brutal
| occupation with no end in sight, along with all the compltely
| ludicrous propaganda the State of Israel (and its right-wing
| support base abroad) continually transmits about itself this
| state of affairs, with the weird expectation that the world
| should actually believe it for some reason -- which has allowed
| criticism of Israel to go viral.
| hobo_mark wrote:
| What I find funny is that the first country that banned TikTok,
| was China! (Yes, you can't access it from there)
| molave wrote:
| I mean it's similar to banning Monegasque locals from gambling
| in Monte Carlo
| mcmcmc wrote:
| Don't they just have Douyin, the Chinese version of TikTok?
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| If SCOTUS takes it up, it will almost certainly overturn the
| ruling.
| bdangubic wrote:
| too funny. SCOTUS will do whatever the ruling political party
| tells it to do. funny people still think SCOTUS is anything
| more that that these days...
| slantaclaus wrote:
| Headline should have been: "Sell or Die: TikTok set to be banned
| in the US after losing appeal"
| Frederation wrote:
| US laws are US laws, and PRC laws are thiers. US constitution is
| for US companies, not for China. China's gonna block our media,
| we can do so to them. Full stop.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-12-07 23:02 UTC)