[HN Gopher] TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users
___________________________________________________________________
TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users
Author : Leary
Score : 728 points
Date : 2025-01-19 17:42 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nbcnews.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nbcnews.com)
| andrewflnr wrote:
| On today, the 19th, Trump isn't president yet and can't issue
| executive orders.
|
| Ed: to be clear, the original title specifically mentioned an
| executive order.
| ReptileMan wrote:
| Timezones are always the doom of programmers.
| ctippett wrote:
| It's not yet the 20th anywhere in North America.
| gpm wrote:
| It is in China though...
| ReptileMan wrote:
| One person got the joke ...
| whimsicalism wrote:
| you might read that as a signal about the quality of the
| 'joke'
| ReptileMan wrote:
| Variants of this have been around for a century.
|
| Russian Prime Minister Medvedev comes to President Putin
| and nervously tells him to abolish these time zones.
|
| - Why, Putin asks him?
|
| - Ah, I can't find myself with these times:
|
| - I fly to another city, call home and everyone is
| asleep,
|
| - I last woke you up at 4 in the morning, but I thought
| it was only evening,
|
| - I call Angela Merkel to congratulate her on her
| birthday and she tells me she had it yesterday,
|
| - I wish the Chinese President a happy New Year, and he
| says it will be tomorrow.
|
| - Well, these are just minor awkwardness, Putin answered
| him
|
| - Do you remember when that Polish plane crashed with the
| president? I called them to express my condolences, but
| the plane hadn't taken off yet !!
| andrewflnr wrote:
| I live in Virginia.
| ReptileMan wrote:
| But developers of TikTok live in Shanghai
| TomK32 wrote:
| Trump still has to do the inauguration. Even a reptile
| should understand the basic procedures of office. https:/
| /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ina...
| ipsum2 wrote:
| There was no executive order. Turning off Tiktok yesterday was a
| highly successful political stunt.
| kotaKat wrote:
| Bingo, bango, boingo. Just another way to help manipulate
| people into thinking Trump saved the day, once again. TikTok
| played the propaganda just right.
| Xmd5a wrote:
| - The Occupy Wall Street movement.
|
| - A COINTELPRO-inspired diversion undermines the cause:
| during demonstrations, individuals wishing to speak must wait
| in line, while women, minorities, and other groups are
| prioritized.
|
| - This method becomes widespread in media narratives over the
| next 15 years, fueling focus on these topics and deepening
| societal divisions while bankers slip under the radar.
|
| - Initially driven by billionaires, the movement is soon co-
| opted by financial firms, corporations, and government
| entities.
|
| - Ultimately, Trump is reinstated, while Zuckerberg, Gates,
| Bezos, and, to some extent, Altman align with Thiel and Musk,
| reversing their previous stances with a dramatic 180deg
| shift.
|
| The oligarchy endures.
| notfed wrote:
| It's funny to imagine how, very deeply ironically, it turned
| out to be a national security risk after all.
| kj4ips wrote:
| There is, it's a few days old, and it's a non-enforcement from
| the Biden administration, according to the man himself and his
| staffers, he intends to let it be the next administration's
| problem. Whatever the next administration does when it takes
| power is yet to be seen.
|
| The restrict act was written really strangely, and I assume
| Oracle required some assurance from someone to not just delete
| Bytedance's accounts and resources.
| qingcharles wrote:
| That wasn't an executive order, as far as I'm aware it was
| just a statement. It had no legal value, which was why TikTok
| asked for more assurance.
|
| The fine to each company (Apple, Google, Oracle, TikTok) was
| in the order of around $5bn each if they kept the lights on,
| so I would be hesitant to keep it running too without
| something in writing.
| grajaganDev wrote:
| Right. The Legal teams at Apple and Google will follow the
| existing law as written.
|
| No EO from Trump will change that.
| wumeow wrote:
| If TikTok was concerned that Biden's statement wouldn't be
| honored, they wouldn't have turned service back on today
| while Biden is still president. They've had months to work
| out some sort of deal with Trump, this whole show they've
| put on the past couple days is propaganda.
| qingcharles wrote:
| I have to agree with this. If they'd waited until Monday
| it would have been different, but legally nothing changed
| overnight except more puffery.
| ipsum2 wrote:
| The title was changed, it used to be "Trump's executive
| order..." something.
| wumeow wrote:
| Everyone got played by what is effectively joint CCP/Trump
| propaganda and they're cheering about it. Bleak, bleak, bleak.
| jsheard wrote:
| Especially given that Trump initiated the push to ban TikTok
| in the first place.
| aaronbrethorst wrote:
| Until he didn't because a major donor to him has a 15%
| stake in it.
| https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/14/trump-tiktok-
| billio...
| 34679 wrote:
| "Biden just signed a potential TikTok ban into law. Here's what
| happens next" https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/23/tech/congress-
| tiktok-ban-what...
|
| "Biden Signs a Bill That Could Ban TikTok. Now Comes the Hard
| Part." https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/23/technology/bytedance-
| tikt...
|
| "Biden signed a bill to force a sale of TikTok or ban it.
| What's next?" https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/24/biden-
| signs-tiktok-...
|
| "Biden signs a bill that could ban TikTok -- after the 2024
| election" https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/congress-
| biden-bil...
| Capricorn2481 wrote:
| So not an executive order, but signing a bill that passed
| with a veto proof majority, and then saying he won't enforce
| it.
|
| And to prove how much of a stunt this was from TikTok, they
| turned their services back on less than 24 hours later even
| though nothing had changed.
| 34679 wrote:
| What does being veto-proof have to do with it? No president
| has to sign a bill just because Congress can override him
| if he doesn't. His signature is literally an endorsement.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| spin working overtime
| Leary wrote:
| Trump wants 50% US ownership in a joint venture for Tiktok.
| Shouldn't be a problem since 60% of bytedance ownership is
| already non-China (probably a lot of it already US investors -
| General Atlantic/SIG)
|
| https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1138556168486...
| whatshisface wrote:
| All this and it was only 40% Chinese-owned???
| thatguymike wrote:
| With the algorithm 100% Chinese-operated
| baq wrote:
| You seem to think percentage of ownership works the same way
| in China as in the West. That's an understandable mistake
| illusive4080 wrote:
| Doesn't matter what he thinks. Executive cannot override
| legislative action.
| pjc50 wrote:
| The law always allowed for divesting to US owners. It didn't
| specify who.
| metabagel wrote:
| The Supreme Court can always say that it can.
| edoceo wrote:
| Executive Order
| thatguymike wrote:
| The ownership of the company is irrelevant, it's who has
| control of the algorithm and where the data flows. If Tiktok US
| licenses the algorithm from China (which seems likely) then
| none of the national security issues are addressed.
| roskelld wrote:
| Chinese government has a golden shares deal with Bytedance
| granting their 1% ownership the ability to nominate a board
| seat.
|
| https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/tiktok-ban-b...
| Leary wrote:
| That 1% golden share is in Douyin, the Chinese subsidiary of
| ByteDance, not ByteDance or Tiktok.
| undersuit wrote:
| Tiktok has been working for the last 40 minutes for me after
| going dark last night.
|
| Some thoughts from Donald Trump:
| https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1138556168486...
| chvid wrote:
| Incredible.
|
| Isn't ByteDance already owned 60% by international (mostly
| American) investors?
|
| https://usds.tiktok.com/who-owns-tiktoks-parent-company-byte...
| markus_zhang wrote:
| You need to drill deeper to figure out who really holds the
| money bag. Not to say I know anything, but this page doesn't
| really say much.
|
| But again, I don't really care about the nationality of the
| elites.
| roskelld wrote:
| Have a look at the golden shares part of that, 1% gets you a
| lot.
|
| https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/tiktok-
| ban-b...
| atlintots wrote:
| Per the article, those shares are not in TikTok:
|
| > The ByteDance unit that sold golden shares to China's
| government holds the licenses of Toutiao and Douyin to
| operate under local law.
|
| So those shares don't mean much as far as TikTok's
| operations are concerned.
| shihab wrote:
| Is anyone aware of any opinion poll among US population about
| banning tiktok? This to me feels like one of the issues with
| potentially largest disconnect between voters and politicians
|
| Edit: found one from Pew. "The share of Americans who support the
| U.S. government banning TikTok now stands at 32%." Sept 05, 2024.
| In contrast, 87% US lawmakers voted for the law that caused this.
| aksss wrote:
| You know polls are a rotten way to make policy. Easily
| manipulated. In fact, Hitches said in "Letters..." that any
| time you see a poll just realize it's someone trying to change
| your mind with the bandwagon fallacy - isolating your own
| opinion as wrong and outside the norm or trying to reinforce
| the "right" opinion by confirming that you're part of the cool-
| kid club.
| shihab wrote:
| Yes, polls are an imperfect tool. But I think they remain the
| only tool we have to gauge what decisions coming out of
| Washington are product of broad popular support vs ones
| product of intense lobbying from shadowy powers.
| lukeschlather wrote:
| Most policies aren't the sort of thing that is going to
| attract broad popular support (or opposition.) Did you look
| at the opposition numbers? Who are the "shadowy powers?"
| Lawmakers say that China is the shadowy partner here doing
| bad things with Tiktok. I don't necessarily trust the US
| government on this issue, but I was speaking to a Chinese
| national last year, they asked me why the US was banning
| Tiktok. When I said "because China is using it to spy on
| Americans" they replied "Of course they are!" and laughed.
|
| I think there are probably some people who are pushing this
| for self-interested reasons (American social media apps)
| but also I think the stated reason for the ban is probably
| the truthful motivation, and I'm ambivalent about trusting
| the US government and US corporations not to spy on me, but
| I tend to trust the US government when they say they are
| trying to stop China from spying on me. And if zero people
| spying on me is not an option, well, fewer people would
| probably be an improvement.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _I was speaking to a Chinese national last year, they
| asked me why the US was banning Tiktok. When I said
| "because China is using it to spy on Americans" they
| replied "Of course they are!" and laughed._
|
| Right. If the Chinese government is not using TikTok to
| spy on citizens of their adversaries -- or, more likely,
| _influence_ citizens of their adversaries -- then the
| Chinese government is full of incompetent fools. And I
| think it 's safe to say that the Chinese government is
| _not_ full of incompetent fools.
| Gormo wrote:
| It's not that polls are imperfect, it's that they're often
| entirely misleading and incorrect. And if the only tool you
| have to do a job isn't fit for purpose, then that just
| means that you aren't equipped to do the job properly.
|
| If the only tool we have for measuring Washington's
| behavior against public opinion is one that doesn't
| accurately reflect public opinion, then that means that we
| just don't have a reliable way to measure Washington's
| behavior against public opinion.
| mlekoszek wrote:
| > _It 's not that polls are imperfect, it's that they're
| often entirely misleading and incorrect._
|
| Can you point to the source of your argument? Furthermore
| -- can you point out how _this_ particular poll is one of
| the misleading and incorrect ones?
| Gormo wrote:
| The previous commented made an on-target point about how
| polls can often be manipulated to produce contrived
| results. I've seen plenty of cases that corroborate this:
| differently constructed polls showing wildly different
| breakdowns of opinion on the same issues among the same
| population, surveys full of obviously leading and loaded
| questions, etc.
|
| So given all of that, I think the burden of proof is
| properly the other way around. Why do you think this
| particular poll _is_ reliable?
| ourmandave wrote:
| I wonder if those numbers would change if people read the same
| intel reports and knew how far the Chinese spies are up our
| asses.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Well, those who made the decision decided to keep the intel
| secret, so we'll never know.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| You bring up valid point. Did the legislators lie en masse to
| us about national security to remove a competitive app from
| the American ecosystem or not. If the national security
| issues exist, where is the outrage from our elected
| officials? If not, our government is for sale.
| dagss wrote:
| Not for sale as much as adjusting to the new reality of
| feudalism.
| kergonath wrote:
| > If the national security issues exist, where is the
| outrage from our elected officials?
|
| The vast majority of security threats does not cause any
| public outrage. It is dealt with behind the scenes.
| tokioyoyo wrote:
| You're overestimating the number of people that care about
| it. A good chunk of people really don't care about privacy,
| data security and potential exposure to propaganda, no matter
| how much we (engineers who actually care about it) tell them
| to.
| sanderjd wrote:
| Lots of people do care about the propaganda thing. Like,
| most normie voters I know definitely don't give a crap
| about the data privacy stuff, but they haven't forgotten
| about the cold war and are not bought into this "maybe it's
| fine if the Chinese government can control what all the
| kids are seeing" narrative.
|
| But it's a big problem that the framing has often been
| about the data privacy thing.
| tokioyoyo wrote:
| People who were born after Cold War are 35. I don't think
| TikTok's main demographic remembers that.
| xmprt wrote:
| A lot of normie voters care but they are at least one if
| not two generations removed from the median TikTok user.
| Generational divides can be pretty stark and it's clear
| that future generations increasingly don't care as much
| about internet privacy. In fact, being a public figure on
| the internet is a good thing these days since you can
| make a career out of it.
| stuartjohnson12 wrote:
| Engineer who uses TikTok here, I'll let you know once I
| become a communist.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > people read the same intel reports and knew how far the
| Chinese spies
|
| People do, and after Snowden revelation, they wonder why they
| should care.
|
| The population was forced to accept the fact that they are
| constantly spied on 10 years ago.
|
| Decisions have consequences.
| _heimdall wrote:
| A lot of people hold the view that privacy isn't important
| unless you have something to hide. They likely wouldn't care
| about some government on the other side of the world knowing
| what stupid tiktok videos they watch.
| philippejara wrote:
| I assume most americans today are already under the
| impression their government spies on them and facebook/google
| will gladly give anything that is asked for, how does the
| chinese spying on them make any difference for the average
| citizen? If I was a regular american and had to choose I'd
| take the foreign spy 10/10 times. What will the chinese do to
| the regular american citizen compared to what his own contry
| could do with this information?
|
| If you're diaspora and other smaller interest groups for
| sure, but the general citizen probably wouldn't care at an
| individual level. I'd argue that the NSA revelations and how
| everything just got worse and worse since then killed any
| chance of the public caring about this kind of stuff.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _how does the chinese spying on them make any difference
| for the average citizen? If I was a regular american and
| had to choose I 'd take the foreign spy 10/10 times_
|
| I hope our adversaries believe the same one day!
| dbfx wrote:
| I'd be surprised if they don't already.
| quasarj wrote:
| "under the impression" ???
|
| We have proof. There is no guessing here.
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| Until they're shared to the public, the wise move is to
| choose not to believe them.
| quasarj wrote:
| They probably would. But so long as the decisions are made
| using secret information, how can we know? We can only assume
| they are lying to us, until they show the proof.
| metabagel wrote:
| People are fickle and will forget about this in a few months.
| bamboozled wrote:
| Days
| lukeschlather wrote:
| 28% oppose the ban, and 32% support it. So a majority are
| either in favor or ambivalent. Two years ago a majority
| supported it: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-
| reads/2024/09/05/support-f...
|
| Support has declined and opposition has increased. I don't
| think there's much of a disconnect here though, since it
| doesn't seem there are many people with strong opinions counter
| to what Congress chose to do.
| gcanyon wrote:
| Anytime there are such large numbers of "undecideds" it's
| likely they are low-information, and an opportunity for Trump
| (or any unscrupulous politician, but really, Trump) to lie to
| them and turn them to whatever side they wish.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Since 170M Americans look at TT, I wonder of how much of it
| was TT propaganda itself.
|
| The amount of propaganda on TT is rather huge, though I
| won't say any different than US media, just more of it
| these days oriented to how 'good' China is.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| To be fair, self-promotion is a good kind of propaganda
| to broadcast. It inspires healthy competition.
|
| If tomorrow China becomes a global beacon of high-quality
| and affordable healthcare, maybe US will actually feel
| some pressure to fix its issues.
| LMYahooTFY wrote:
| The impetus for this is largely from Congress in both
| parties. Public support often doesn't align with
| congressional action and it doesn't stop them.
|
| Vote for your congress members.
| MiiMe19 wrote:
| >drumpf bad
| not_really wrote:
| Guess you were not part of the popular vote
| hatsix wrote:
| "Not Sure" != "ambivalent". It's a mistake to lump "Not Sure"
| and "Opposed" together and declare a majority, as the group
| as a while does not represent a specific stance. Any attempt
| at nuance for either side gets bucketed into the largest
| category.
|
| That group seems like the most interesting question... what
| sub groups do they fall into.
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| More people supported the ban than opposed it in multiple
| polls. You're leaving out the people who weren't sure when
| polled
| TomK32 wrote:
| I often wonder what value a survey has if those surveyed have
| not enough information and facts at hand.
| beeflet wrote:
| it's irrelevant in politics because they are still going to
| act on their own level of information regardless.
| sethammons wrote:
| we have lawmakers making reproductive laws who don't know how
| babies are made. Those making the laws don't have enough
| information on hand.
|
| https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/super-awkward-clip-
| republica...
| nextworddev wrote:
| So you are saying Trump went against 87% of lawmakers?
| sanderjd wrote:
| Yep.
|
| But that's why it isn't a direct democracy. Sometimes
| government needs to do things that are not popular.
|
| But of course this is always going to be an opportunity for a
| populist to take advantage of the disconnect. Sometimes, as in
| this case, that is damaging. But of course it's well within the
| rights of politicians to play that game.
| maeil wrote:
| >Edit: found one from Pew. "The share of Americans who support
| the U.S. government banning TikTok now stands at 32%." Sept 05,
| 2024. In contrast, 87% US lawmakers voted for the law that
| caused this.
|
| The relevant poll would be one right after the ban was enacted
| on bipartisan support. It's far too politicized now meaning
| that a huge percentage of people will simply support/reject it
| purely based off of "their candidate" being for/against it.
|
| This holds for both sides of the debate.
| hot_gril wrote:
| The timing and rhetoric from lawmakers make this ban really
| seem about Israel. Lawmakers and citizens are pretty
| disconnected on that in general.
| paulddraper wrote:
| If you exclude "not sure," it's 52% support banning. Also, the
| survey was not limited to voters.
|
| Note that a majority/plutority becomes more skewed when
| aggregating constituencies.
|
| Granted 52% -> 87% is still a big increase, but there you have
| it.
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| The problem with a poll is that the general public is likely
| not privy to all the information that the people in charge
| have. I think the best thing to do here is just come out with
| all of it, lay it on the table, and see what the public thinks
| then. If you have a good reason then show us.
| throwaway199956 wrote:
| That is exactly what the government has not done all these
| years. Why be tight-lipped if there is solid evidence and
| data, its not some issue of nuclear weapons/military-
| strategy.
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| I've suspected that they have evidence that China is using
| the platform for social manipulation, but we're using the
| same techniques on other countries and possibly
| domestically and the government doesn't want to make the
| general public aware of it. Or it could be that they don't
| have evidence of actual wrongdoing, but feel that the risk
| is too large to allow it to exist.
|
| Whatever it is, this has gone off the rails and the public
| is going to need a real explanation if they decide to move
| forward with the ban.
| tartuffe78 wrote:
| Did they poll AIPAC?
| 9283409232 wrote:
| Feels like they published this statement a day early as Trump is
| not yet president. Whoops.
| jmholla wrote:
| What statement? This entire article recognizes that Trump is
| not president yet.
| 9283409232 wrote:
| My comment was originally in another thread that was a
| statement from Tiktok on Twitter. It looks like this thread
| was merged with another one so my comment might not make
| sense now.
| robswc wrote:
| The straight up "shout out" in the pop-up, I almost couldn't
| believe my eyes.
|
| I don't think I've seen anything like it in a long time. I also
| don't think an American company would ever do that as it seems
| "unprofessional." Ironically, it probably got them huge bonus
| points so they know what they're doing.
| notahacker wrote:
| I mean, the promise to boosting Trump in the popup is probably
| literally what _got_ them the promise of an executive order,
| possibly with the suggestion that if they wanted to _stay_ on
| Trump 's good side they'd best ensure their algorithm was
| Trump-friendly in future.
| cycrutchfield wrote:
| Of course, everything he does is quid pro quo. Now he has a
| sword of damocles he can hang over their head to ensure he
| can get anything he wants in the future.
| scotty79 wrote:
| Besides, China doesn't mind propping Trump as they
| correctly see him as a simpleton who is going to delay USA
| development by a decade.
| cycrutchfield wrote:
| How remarkable that our major geopolitical enemies (with
| the exception of Iran) support our incoming president. He
| must truly be a great uniter that will usher in a new age
| of global peace.
| bdangubic wrote:
| he will usher new age of global peace as much as my fat
| neighbour will not eat the cake for his birthday
| whimsicalism wrote:
| not only has tiktok done this before, uber & lyft & doordash
| did it in california in the lead up to elections
| pests wrote:
| I have no issue with American companies trying to change
| American policies.
| mostlysimilar wrote:
| Corporations and their wealthy owners have an outsized
| influence on policies to the near total exclusion of
| everyday people. Not sure what future you're envisioning
| here but you might want to consider where you fall in the
| pecking order before bending the knee to blatant oligarchy.
| spacechild1 wrote:
| You have no issues with corporate influence on US politics?
| intended wrote:
| I think the commenter was choosing between american vs
| non american influence in US politics.
|
| Not between corporate influence and no corporate
| influence.
| ternnoburn wrote:
| I believe the patent was highlighting an additional issue
| and providing a pretty clear follow up question.
|
| Not equating the two questions.
| spacechild1 wrote:
| They literally said
|
| > I have no issue with American companies trying to
| change American policies.
|
| For me that's a naive stance that ignores the problem of
| corporate influence on politics.
|
| Apart from that, how is US corporate influence
| necessarily better than foreign corporate influence?
| Neither care about the US general public. Some US
| companies knowingly harm their own citizens (Philip
| Morris, Exxon, Purdue, etc.)
|
| One can argue the problem with TikTook is that it's
| controlled by the government of an adversary nation (from
| the viewpoint of the US), but it's not just the fact that
| the company resides in a foreign country.
| intended wrote:
| Don't misunderstand me - my interest is in effective,
| cooperative discussion.
|
| I clarified someone else's statement, like a busybody,
| because their position deserves to be supported or
| supplanted based on its own merits.
|
| The choice they set up was an ingroup vs outgroup choice.
| You are discussing fair systems.
|
| There's a common ground between both these positions, and
| I would have liked to see that conversation occur.
|
| For what it's worth, I can sympathize with a desire to
| support in groups, however fair systems are the practical
| way to achieve that.
| spacechild1 wrote:
| Thanks for the thoughtful response.
|
| > The choice they set up was an ingroup vs outgroup
| choice.
|
| What I wanted to point out is that it really is a false
| choice because it assumes that US companies have the
| interest of the general public in mind.
| bdangubic wrote:
| holy crap... wow!!!
| creato wrote:
| > I don't think I've seen anything like it in a long time. I
| also don't think an American company would ever do that as it
| seems "unprofessional."
|
| Have you been paying attention the last few weeks?
|
| NVIDIA: https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/ai-policy/ "As the first
| Trump Administration demonstrated, America wins through
| innovation, competition and by sharing our technologies with
| the world -- not by retreating behind a wall of government
| overreach."
|
| Companies aren't stupid. They know that in order to be
| successful in today's world, you have to personally fellate
| Trump. Thanks to the American voters for bringing us this
| reality.
| scotty79 wrote:
| This all reminds German companies about a 100 years ago, so
| much.
| intended wrote:
| "Sucking up" implies there's a meaningful choice--that firms
| or individuals can realistically be expected to show courage
| now. But voters chose this, knowingly. Blaming firms for
| bowing to public will misdiagnoses the issue and wastes
| emotional energy fighting a false battle.
|
| Whats the realistic alternative? Standing up to Trump? The
| president who has explicitly said he will retaliate against
| firms and individuals who oppose him.
|
| The same president who was re-elected even though everyone
| knew this was coming?
|
| If this bothers you, and you want to address it, focus on
| identifying the real root cause and work toward changing
| that.
|
| And if you genuinely believe firms would act differently,
| make the case. But let's be honest--how many rational people
| would stand up to someone who:
|
| - Faces no accountability, - Has the Supreme Court and
| legislature backing him, - Is in power for a second term, -
| Commands an incredibly effective political machine (Fox-GOP),
| - has die-hard voters behind him?
| pjc50 wrote:
| They're Chinese. They know how to handle a shakedown by Party
| officials: it needs both bribes _and_ flattery.
| moshun wrote:
| Damn, this is the simplest, most accurate breakdown on what's
| actually happening that I've come across. The incoming
| administration is pretty transparent in the bend toward
| corruption, and these folks know exactly how to manage that
| as a business challenge.
| raincole wrote:
| You could say that, but if it turns out to be working in the
| US...
| bramhaag wrote:
| The relevant part of the pop-up:
|
| > We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he
| will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he
| takes office.
|
| Additionally, an extract from TikTok's later statement [1]:
|
| > In agreement with our service providers, TikTok is in the
| process of restoring service. We thank President Trump for
| providing the necessary clarity and assurance to our service
| providers that they will face no penalties providing TikTok to
| over 170 million Americans and allowing over 7 million small
| businesses to thrive.
|
| What the fuck? That's some incredible bootlicking by TikTok.
| They've done a great job making Biden seem like the bad guy for
| banning TikTok, while Trump saves the day by rescuing them.
| This is especially ironic considering Trump was the one who
| wanted to introduce the ban in the first place until he gained
| 15M followers on the platform.
|
| [1] https://xcancel.com/TikTokPolicy/status/1881030712188346459
| kshacker wrote:
| Biden could have easily deferred the penalty phase by 30-90
| days. He did not, even after the blowback this past week.
| kelnos wrote:
| How? The law as written only gives the president the
| authority to give _one_ 90-day extension, only if certain
| conditions have been met. And those conditions have _not_
| been met.
| laidoffamazon wrote:
| This is the prologue to a potentially dark time in American
| history
| weaksauce wrote:
| world* history
| copperx wrote:
| Ah, the propaganda GUI element. I distinctly remember covering
| it in my HCI class. Right between 'How to Design Intuitive
| Interfaces' and 'How to Influence Favorability Ratings with
| Popups.'
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| I agree they know what they are doing by manipulating or
| perhaps secretly enriching Trump. He posted on Truth social
| that he is seeking 50% US ownership. That's very odd. Why not
| 51% so that there is US based voting control? Or full divesture
| from China as the law requires?
|
| And then there's the fact that the conditions for an extension
| aren't met as written in the law. There's no way he can certify
| to Congress that the conditions are met, which is why he's
| trying to use an executive order. But that's illegal.
| addicted wrote:
| They didn't need to turn off in the first place. The Biden
| administration had already said they wouldn't impose any fines.
|
| This was literally nothing but a political play intended to
| give Trump a boost.
| extheat wrote:
| The Biden administration _signed_ the thing into law. Of
| course they need to comply. And people are acting as if
| somehow TikTok decided to self-ban and have now un-banned.
| No, it 's only those with the app already installed that are
| able to continue to use it. It's still blocked on the app
| stores, and will presumably stay that way until tomorrow.
| arandomusername wrote:
| Then why did they sign the law?
| bamboozled wrote:
| When have you ever seen anything like it in the past ?
| Levitz wrote:
| After the ban, Pornhub displayed a message asking people to
| contact their state representatives. I reckon it's a self-
| interest thing.
| richrichie wrote:
| Cope and seethe!
| fassssst wrote:
| It's like America is rapidly turning into 90's Russia and
| people are cheering for it.
| amelius wrote:
| Biden was right about the oligarchs characterization.
| fullshark wrote:
| I'm wondering if it's just the facade has been removed.
| rvz wrote:
| So once again it took the incoming president-elect Trump and for
| Biden to lose to intervene and reverse this ban and give an
| extension to TikTok.
|
| If Biden or Harris won the election, TikTok would have been
| _completely banned_ with zero intervention at all as you have
| seen with how it went and Biden whilst still being president
| would have done nothing and it took Trump to stop it.
|
| Seriously the Democrats made themselves look very bad with this
| situation.
| watwut wrote:
| Trump literally originated it back then.
|
| Trump is not a president yet.
| rvz wrote:
| You realize that is even worse for the Democrats? So why
| didn't Biden stop it? He had plenty of time to do so and he
| did not and signed it.
| pavlov wrote:
| Congress writes laws and the president is supposed to
| implement and enforce them. It's like Americans have
| completely forgotten about this part.
|
| The TikTok ban was upheld by the Supreme Court only days
| ago. If Americans don't want this law, they should elect a
| different Congress.
| curt15 wrote:
| It passed the Senate by the safely veto-proof margin 79-18
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| That does not excuse signing a bill into law. If the
| president opposes a bill, he should veto it even if
| Congress will override the veto. To do otherwise is to be
| complicit. So to the extent that you think this bill is
| bad and shouldn't have been passed, Biden is to blame
| regardless of how strong the congressional majority was.
| pell wrote:
| The ban had bi-partisan support. So why should Biden stop
| it if he agrees with it? A major adversary (China) owns a
| main communication network in the US while the US and other
| Western countries are not allowed to operate such networks
| within China. You don't have to agree with this of course
| but it's not unprecedented for the US to restrict the reach
| of foreign governments. In the past radio waves were
| restricted in a similar sense.
| rvz wrote:
| > So why should Biden stop it if he agrees with it?
|
| That is my point. The Democrats made themselves look very
| bad with this situation and Biden did nothing and
| supported the bill anyway and just signed it.
|
| In fact he replaced Trump's original EO with a worse one
| which includes still supporting the TikTok ban and Biden
| signed that last year which made it so that if the
| Democrats won the election, then TikTok would have been
| still completely banned with no reversal whatsoever.
|
| In effect, those who voted for Biden or Harris also were
| voting for a TikTok ban, which that is beyond hilarious
| as everyone saw that he didn't halt the ban.
| pell wrote:
| I don't understand why this makes Biden look bad if he
| was for this ban in the first place.
| krainboltgreene wrote:
| Trump singed an EO that was reversed. Only one president
| showed interest in a law. Only one president whipped votes
| for that law. Only one president signed the law.
| pell wrote:
| The ban had bi-partisan support. Trump was initially for the
| ban and then changed his mind. On Aug. 6, 2020, Trump signed
| Executive Order 13942, which sought to ban TikTok in response
| to national security concerns. Courts struck it down.
|
| He expressed his changed opinion in 2024. Was it because he met
| with Jeff Yass who holds 7% of ByteDance (which owns TikTok)
| and is a major Republican donor? Who knows.
|
| But what is clear is that this is again morphing into a talking
| point against the Democrats even though all of this started
| with Trump initially.
| mrtksn wrote:
| Amazing stunt: The establishment tried to limit freedom of speech
| and Trump saved the day. Probably a pre-agreed sequence of
| events.
|
| Never mind that it was him who initially trued to ban it.
|
| Nevertheless a positive development.
| airstrike wrote:
| I don't think that's an accurate read. Everyone was playing
| chicken and the US won. TikTok will be up for sale again,
| except this time with way less leverage in negotiating a sale.
| A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote:
| ... I can't even. How did US win? OP effectively nailed all
| the facets in which it is overall the worst of all worlds.
| Few individual political players have won, but it certainly
| was not US or us.
| airstrike wrote:
| The US won because TikTok will sell.
| notfed wrote:
| "The US won because <wild uncited guess about the
| future>."
| airstrike wrote:
| Trump didn't overturn the Supreme Court's decision. He
| only gave TikTok a 90-day lifeline. They need a solution
| to be allowed to operate. Either they will have to cut
| ties with the CCP and operate truly independently--and
| provide assurances for that--or they will sell to someone
| and make billions.
|
| I know which of the two I'd pick, but yeah, I guess you
| can say they might also restructure out of the CCP's
| control, which I think is unlikely because China then
| just gets paid $0.
|
| Another alternative would be for lawmakers in this new
| congress to change the law they _just_ passed but given
| the Republican majority is very narrow and there is
| plenty of support for the ban across the isle, I find it
| hard to believe they will be able to do so. But sure,
| that 's also a possible scenario.
| A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote:
| << They need a solution to be allowed to operate.
|
| You are assuming a lot in that one sentence seemingly
| without realizing it.
| mikeweiss wrote:
| There was never a freedom of speech argument here, unless maybe
| you are china. There are endless similar platforms available to
| individuals to express themselves on. Ones that aren't owned
| and controlled by China... America's biggest technological
| rival.
| rzz3 wrote:
| There are people who think similar platforms exist and people
| who have used TikTok, unfortunately.
| atlintots wrote:
| What do you mean? YouTube Shorts and Instagram Reels are
| very similar.
| rzz3 wrote:
| If there's a genuine interest I'm happy to explain. Reels
| and shorts are severely different, even from a purely
| technical and feature-focused standpoint. They lack lack
| the ability to pause (I think YouTube allows it but reels
| no) or save to device, and (reels) lacks the wide music
| catalog that TikTok has. Neither product has a
| comprehensive video editing platform like TikTok does.
| Both lack the ability to push timely content and maintain
| freshness. Reels is fundamentally based on the social
| graph for recommendations, with some additional signals
| for things like hashtags. TikTok learns from content
| itself and recommends based on content. TikTok has a good
| mix of discovery content as well (I think it's
| approximately 10% discovery? Meaning, pushing you things
| it has no signal on to see if you like it or not, rather
| than only showing you things you like). Sharing and
| interacting are incredibly smooth and easy. The ability
| to stitch videos and do face to face replies, or easily
| do a video reply to a comment, encourage more face to
| face two-way conversation.
|
| Aside from the technical features and algorithmic
| superiority, the community on TikTok is completely
| different. Have you seen the comment sections on the apps
| you mention? TikTok has created a beautiful community,
| and it's a community that cannot be reached on the other
| two apps, regardless of their feature set.
| A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote:
| << Ones that aren't owned and controlled by China...
| America's biggest technological rival.
|
| And, you forgot to add, do not allow expression of thoughts
| that are not culturally accepted in US.
| patcon wrote:
| You think TikTok is beneficial or even neutral?
| qingcharles wrote:
| Simply, yes.
| mrtksn wrote:
| I think China is not a role model for freedoms, no one should
| follow their steps. Censorship is not going to solve your
| problems and you won't become China in terms of industry by
| by banning apps. You will become China sans industry.
| creato wrote:
| China's trade policies, unreciprocated, guarantees that all
| internet companies will be Chinese eventually, it's just a
| matter of when.
| whoevercares wrote:
| Yes, simply because there are mass number of people making a
| living there. Be a realist
| Airodonack wrote:
| This is such a fallacious, misdirecting argument. The speech
| itself was not targeted by the ban. It was the ownership. If
| the speech stayed the same then regulators would have been
| happy.
| ripped_britches wrote:
| For those saying there's no executive order yet or that Trump is
| not president yet, the point is that they received confirmation
| that there _will be_ an executive order, meaning they can rely on
| a 90 day extension of non-enforcement.
|
| So while there is some irony with Trump having previously
| supported the ban, the practical reality is that he and
| Susquehanna and the Republicans all are winning big on this one,
| from a political/financial lens.
| repeekad wrote:
| The issue is Trump doesn't have legal authority to issue an
| executive order delaying the ban, executive orders "execute"
| the law, delaying would be the opposite of the law, a law that
| was held up 9-0 as constitutional by the Supreme Court _face
| palm_
| whatshisface wrote:
| There is some precedent for doing this. State-level cannabis
| legalization rests on non-enforcement at the federal level,
| at which it remains scheduled.
| repeekad wrote:
| Sure, but there's no executive order saying we promise not
| to enforce it (I assume?), that would be counter to the law
| even if the absence of enforcement is a legal grey area
|
| Either way it feels like there are games being played, and
| the country is watching because tik tok is so heavily used
| by so many people
| whatshisface wrote:
| As far as I can tell, what happened is this law was
| passed in the heat of the moment (Gaza war), but it
| turned out to be massively unpopular and ineffective at
| shoring up US support for the outgoing administration's
| foreign policy, and even after its moment had passed the
| combination of the arguments raised by the lawyers for
| ByteDance and the phrasing of the very unique, very
| specific bill got it through the Supreme Court, so now
| everyone's been stuck with trying to figure out how to
| get rid of it.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| And notice how Marlboro didn't start selling cannabis
| everywhere? Apple and Google(and their legal teams) have to
| decide if not following the law on the nonbinding word of a
| 77yr old man's promise. The law itself allows companies to
| be held liable up to 5 years after each infraction.
| jmholla wrote:
| Yes he does. Form the article:
|
| > The law banning TikTok, which was scheduled to go into
| effect Sunday, allows the president to grant a 90-day
| extension before the ban is enforced, provided certain
| criteria are met.
|
| and
|
| > After the Supreme Court greenlit the law on Friday, the
| Biden administration issued a statement saying it would not
| enforce the ban, leaving that responsibility to Trump.
| pelorat wrote:
| The criteria is; they must have a plan to sell.
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| That's following the law. It doesn't require an executive
| order. But the law requires proving to congress that the
| conditions for an extension are met
| ASinclair wrote:
| The chance for the 90 day extension under the law goes away
| before Trump takes office. He can't legally give them a 90
| day extension.
| pjc50 wrote:
| He can just buy a sufficient stake to count as a
| "divestiture" under the law.
| pyridines wrote:
| I was dumbfounded too, but NBC explains in this same article:
|
| > "The law banning TikTok [...] allows the president to grant
| a 90-day extension before the ban is enforced, provided
| certain criteria are met."
| nickthegreek wrote:
| Those criteria have not been met and we are passed the
| deadline in which that extension could be applied.
| bsimpson wrote:
| [meta] why is this the only comment I can't vote on?
| mikeweiss wrote:
| Trump and team may be the biggest public relations masterminds of
| all time. They realize that the populous is fickle and easily won
| over with obvious stunts. Define the villains and play the hero.
| It keeps working for him over and over and over. Truly
| incredible.
| amazingamazing wrote:
| I really hate Trump, but the guy is a media (read: not
| political) genius. I doubt there will ever be someone like him
| in the Republican, or any party again.
| whatshisface wrote:
| A little over 100 years ago the massively popular party enemy
| #1 T.R. was running roughshod over the republican convention.
| jddj wrote:
| Also a fan of executive action over congressional consent.
| And the son of a wealthy father in new york.
|
| And opposed by a Democratic party which was very much
| controlled (to a fault) by its machine.
|
| That's roughly where the similarities end though. I think
| they'd have strongly diverged on key points such as a man's
| duty to his country in war, presidential pardons, and right
| in the *****.
| replwoacause wrote:
| Calling him a genius isn't quite accurate. He's not a genius
| anything. But he does have orbiters who know what they're
| doing. He's mostly just a puppet.
| y33t wrote:
| > Define the villains and play the hero.
|
| There's a quote I can't find right now that goes something
| along the lines of "If you let somebody define the terms of
| your reality, you've made a sorcerer out of them, unless you
| catch the bastard real quick".
|
| Trump to a T.
| andsoitis wrote:
| > There's a quote I can't find right now that goes something
| along the lines of "If you let somebody define the terms of
| your reality, you've made a sorcerer out of them, unless you
| catch the bastard real quick".
|
| Four quotes that capture the essence of not letting others
| define your reality or exert control over your perception:
|
| 1. "He who defines the terms wins the argument." - various
| thinkers.
|
| 2. "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."
| - Eleanor Roosevelt
|
| 3. "Until lions have their own historians, the history of the
| hunt will always glorify the hunter." - Chinua Achebe
|
| 4. "Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the
| world, he is responsible for everything he does." - Jean-Paul
| Sartre
| metabagel wrote:
| WWE President
| brisky wrote:
| It is easy to confuse a mastermind with somebody who is simply
| willing to break the law.
| spicyusername wrote:
| Man, the current democratic party just does not know how to solve
| problems in a way that people appreciate.
|
| Absurd that the Republicans are somehow going to swoop in and
| "Save the day" on an issue they themselves championed.
| dataflow wrote:
| > Man, the current democratic party just does not know how to
| solve problems in a way that people appreciate.
|
| What would have been a solution to the problem that people
| would have appreciated?
| silvestrov wrote:
| Publish the algorithm. Allow users to choose which algorithm
| they want to use.
| Hatrix wrote:
| Facebook?
| undersuit wrote:
| Yeah you can choose to use Facebook, Instagram, Whatsapp,
| or Threads freely. /s
| hackyhacky wrote:
| What does this even mean?
|
| There is no "algorithm": the policies of a service like
| Tiktok are spread throughout its entirety. The only
| meaningful way to "release the algorithm" would be to
| release the whole source code.
|
| Furthermore, releasing the source code wouldn't help, since
| regular people aren't able to understand what it means; and
| there is no way to verify that the released source code
| corresponds to what is actually being run.
|
| It would be great if there was some way to verify that a
| service you're using matches some published code, but we
| don't have that.
| Aachen wrote:
| > Furthermore, releasing the source code wouldn't help,
| since regular people aren't able to understand what it
| means
|
| Releasing the code does help. Joe can't open up his car
| and fix the engine control code, but the local repair
| shop can and they can also understand it and raise to a
| journalist "huh this manufacturer pushed a new version
| that'll make it stop driving if you service it at the
| workshop of a competitor" or whatever the car equivalent
| of this tiktok algorithm concern would be
|
| The second problem you mention, I fully agree with:
| verifying whatever they publish. Client source code, you
| barely even need because it'll just be a front end for
| what the servers decide to show you. Verifying that what
| they say the server code is, is really what the server
| runs, that's the hard bit. But claiming to be open could
| be a start; something we can find discrepancies in and
| push for further openness
|
| Whether this will solve the national security concerns
| and help with the youth mental health crisis that's often
| linked to social media, that's all way beyond my
| expertise and I have no opinion on the matter. Just that,
| in general, not everyone needs to understand everything
| in the world for it to be useful to publish
| dluan wrote:
| The code has been available for years. Bytedance
| published their recommendation engine as an arxiv paper
| in 2021 and the code is available on Github,
| https://github.com/bytedance/monolith. The power is in
| the weights of the live-trained model.
| braiamp wrote:
| A privacy law, for starters.
| mfost wrote:
| As if that would even have any effect in that situation. No
| amount of audits and rules would prevent TikTok from
| collecting data and manipulating the public opinion.
| dns_snek wrote:
| Why not monitor it? Create thousands of read-only
| accounts that "prefer" content with all kinds of
| ideological viewpoints and statistically analyze whether
| the algorithm is being biased to promote certain
| viewpoints. I'm not smart enough to implement something
| like that but it sounds like a solvable problem to me.
| accrual wrote:
| I thought about this too. In no way do I suggest it's an
| actual solution, but I wonder if some kind of reporting
| could be used as leverage to help appease US leaders
| towards a solution that doesn't require banning the app
| or handing it over to them.
| metabagel wrote:
| How does that prevent China from using TikTok to inject
| malware?
| jackson1442 wrote:
| [ citation needed ]
| metabagel wrote:
| I don't think I need a citation to say that it's feasible
| for China to inject malware via the TikTok app on
| people's phones. Would it be difficult? I imagine so.
| But, I think the risk is such that the onus is to prove
| that it's not possible, not the other way around. China
| is a hostile power and an authoritarian regime. It's a
| different risk calculus than Facebook, which is not
| controlled by a dangerous foreign adversary.
| dataflow wrote:
| How exactly does that prevent an adversary from spreading
| propaganda? And what makes you think privacy laws would
| prevent foreign spies from spying?
| hackyhacky wrote:
| The alleged national security implications of Tiktok are
| not based on spreading propaganda, but on gaining access
| to information about Americans. A privacy law would
| address that issue, as well as protected Americans'
| privacy from other companies, regardless of where they
| are based.
| dataflow wrote:
| > The alleged national security implications of Tiktok
| are not based on spreading propaganda, but on gaining
| access to information about Americans
|
| What? Doesn't the opinion itself literally say that the
| threat of "covert manipulation of the content" was one of
| the government's justification? Never mind the millions
| of times that Chinese control over the content people
| view has been brought up as a rationale both inside of
| Congress and outside? Haven't these been beaten to death
| already?
|
| https://reason.com/volokh/2025/01/17/speaking-with-and-
| in-fa...
| gWPVhyxPHqvk wrote:
| Where are you finding 60 Senators for that?
| rayiner wrote:
| My 12 year old daughter was cranky this morning about Tik Tok
| being banned, then walked in ecstatic it was working again. I'm
| like "I wonder if Trump fixed Tik Tok," and sure enough. She
| gave me a high five. My 6 year old son is already MAGA because
| the boys in his class love Trump.
|
| Like inflation, this was a problem Trump created and now he's
| getting credit for fixing it.
| quenix wrote:
| It's probably not a good idea to let a 12 year old use
| tiktok.
| qup wrote:
| Better tell every parent in America
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| do you not remember being 12?
| rayiner wrote:
| She watches videos about ancient Egypt, her friends lip
| syncing to songs, and knitting. The content on Tik Tok is
| way better than the trash on network TV or Hollywood
| movies.
|
| I consider the Chinese oversight a plus. It's much more
| sensitive to Asian values for the most part.
| wordofx wrote:
| There are no "Asian values" on TikTok. TikTok is banned
| in China.
|
| If it had values your 12yo wouldn't be on it as Douyin
| has an age restriction of 18+, and prenatal consent if
| 13-17. Under 13 is prohibited. It also has time
| restriction of 40 minutes per day for 13-14yo and only
| accessible between 6am till 10pm. Not only that content
| is highly censored and restricted.
|
| But keep living in a bubble that TikTok is totally fine.
| userbinator wrote:
| _prenatal consent_
|
| I don't think that means what you think it does.
| wordofx wrote:
| Auto corrected. Can't edit it now.
| __turbobrew__ wrote:
| 12 year olds having mood swings because their digital crack
| was banned for half a day. God help us all.
| zrail wrote:
| I don't have a 12 year old (yet) but my 8 year old has mood
| swings when they're too cold, too hot, have a headache, the
| tv remote doesn't work, their tablet runs out of time,
| their tablet runs out of battery, when they're hungry,
| thirsty, and/or tired (the preceding is non-inclusive,
| sometimes they have a mood swing for no perceptible
| reason).
|
| Kids are people. People have feelings.
| jajko wrote:
| Yeah, but the times I've seen parents actually
| address/redirect bad behavior or of their kids in
| constructive ways are few and far apart, many sort of
| gave up or go to the other extreme. Small kids lack a
| great deal of emotional empathy and can wear a decent
| adult down very fast if right buttons are pushed at right
| time, so thats tricky to say at least. But then again its
| the greatest achievement in most people's lives (to raise
| their kids well just to be clear) so some proper effort
| long term should be spent here.
|
| Good parenting consistently is hard, very hard and
| sometimes basically impossible, but the difference
| between parents who at least try hard to raise kids well
| and those who sort of gave up on their kids is striking
| (tiktok and other digital stuff is a good yardstick of
| overall state of this, when I see kids of other folks
| using it and clearly addicted I am losing all respect for
| those folks as parents, and its always a big bag of
| various failures and neglect coming along). Its
| heartbreaking to experience, especially the
| powerlessness.
| __turbobrew__ wrote:
| Yea if I see a 4 year old with an ipad in a restaurant I
| lose respect for the parents. Parenting is hard, and
| everyone fails at some point but there are certain things
| I have never comprised on and social media/digital crack
| at a young age is one of them.
| anon84873628 wrote:
| 4 year olds have always gotten some amount of TV time,
| right? Is it that horrible for a parent to give them the
| TV time at the restaurant so they aren't running around /
| screaming / bothering other patrons instead? (Which of
| course you can also judge a parent for, but then the only
| answer may be for one parent to have to leave with the
| kid).
|
| It doesn't mean the kid is also using the iPad at home
| for hours on end. Or consuming anything other than Bluey
| / Paw Patrol / Sing 2...
| kelnos wrote:
| > _so they aren 't running around / screaming / bothering
| other patrons_
|
| Going to a restaurant when I was a young kid was
| considered a treat and special occasion, and if I
| misbehaved, I was out of there immediately. I quickly
| learned to sit in my chair, eat my food, and not be
| disruptive.
|
| I think people in general these days act with a higher
| sense of entitlement, and that translates to parents
| believing that it's fine for them to go to restaurants
| because _they_ want to, ignoring whether or not it 's
| appropriate for their children, somehow also believing
| that they "deserve a break" and their kids' disruptive
| behaviors in public aren't their problem. But no, screw
| that: if your children won't behave at restaurants, don't
| bring them along. If you can't find a sitter, then you
| don't get to go either. (If you can't _afford_ a sitter,
| then you probably can 't afford going out to a restaurant
| either.)
|
| > _...to give them the TV time at the restaurant..._
|
| I would have less of a problem with this if the kid was
| using headphones (I know, risky for their ears at a young
| age if they also have control of the volume), or if the
| tablet could be kept quiet enough so I can't hear it at
| my nearby table. But that's rarely the case.
|
| But hey, sure, if you can give your kid TV time at a
| restaurant without me having to listen to it, I guess
| that's fine. I think that's a poor substitute for
| actually teaching kids how to behave in public, but I'm
| not that kid's parent, and that's just my opinion.
| rayiner wrote:
| Well this attitude is why millennials are both failing to
| have enough kids and miserable as parents.
|
| We had kids in our 20s and my daughter has been glued to
| her iPad since she was 2. Her grades are better than mine
| were at her age, she has artistic hobbies (makes jewelry,
| paints). She's maybe a tidge slower than I was on
| reading, but that might be pandemic.
|
| Note that Tik Tok is different than "social media" in
| that it doesn't really allow for the gossip and
| backbiting within enclosed groups that typifies say
| Facebook. The most emotionally upsetting thing for her
| seems to be normal girl-girl social conflict, especially
| through her iMessage group chat.
| jajko wrote:
| Whats far more important than academic skills are social
| skills, how she fares on that aspect? Thats where real
| threat of this lies, not general population having IQ 80.
|
| Life without good or at least normal social skills is
| pretty miserable in many aspects, almost can't be fixed
| once adult, and has much larger impact on what I call
| 'life success' than career can ever have.
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| Embrace monasticism.
| LinXitoW wrote:
| Yeah, as a 12 yr old, I would've reacted completely calmly
| to Counterstrike being banned, or ICQ being banned, or
| MySpace being banned, or, worst of all, my access to
| lingerie models from clothing catalogues being destroyed...
| noirbot wrote:
| Pretty sure I had a meltdown when my parents took away a
| copy of Lord of The Rings I was reading for the 4th time
| that week instead of doing my homework. Kids freak out
| about all kinds of stuff. Maybe it's more that 12 year olds
| are kids and not whatever bugbear you're worried about this
| week.
| oneeyedpigeon wrote:
| That's the relatively harmless bit! You left off "[banned
| for half a day], then being indoctrinated into supporting
| an anti-democratic despot for the rest of their lives".
| driverdan wrote:
| Take this as an opportunity to teach them about why they
| shouldn't trust politicians. Make sure you tell them about
| Trump being the original supporter of the ban
| https://www.npr.org/2020/08/06/900019185/trump-signs-
| executi...
| rayiner wrote:
| She already doesn't trust politicians, and knew that. We
| think he changed his mind because he was flattered by the
| girls lip syncing to his funny quips.
|
| But it remains the first time in her life that a politician
| listened to a concern she had, and acted on it promptly to
| fix the problem.
| maeil wrote:
| The problem that _that politician_ caused?
| WheatMillington wrote:
| I'm sorry, your SIX year old is MAGA? I mean maybe this is an
| America thing, but my 6 year old knows literally nothing
| about any politician. How are 6 year olds even aware of
| Trump?
| hackyhacky wrote:
| Trump isn't just a politician, he's a showman. He had a TV
| series for years. He has effectively hijacked US media to
| ensure that there is constant news about him.
| addandsubtract wrote:
| Knowing nothing about politics is on par for being MAGA.
| rayiner wrote:
| The presidential election is a public spectacle in America,
| with children's TV networks getting into it:
| https://www.nickelodeonparents.com/nickelodeon-kids-pick-
| the....
| anon84873628 wrote:
| Do you never drive through a neighborhood with signs all
| over the yards?
|
| Listen to radio or news programs while kids are around?
|
| If your kids asked about these things would you not try to
| explain?
| monetus wrote:
| Trump is famous to pre-teens in the same way Andrew Tate
| is, from what I can tell.
| Cornbilly wrote:
| Cult of personality
| oneeyedpigeon wrote:
| The funny clown man who looks weird, dances weird, and
| speaks weird? Of _course_ six year olds know about him!
| kenjackson wrote:
| Looks like you're getting downvoted, but this exactly matches
| my kids' HS friends who said "now I finally get MAGA - let's
| make America like it was before the Tik Tok ban!"
|
| There isn't too much teens really feel on a day-to-day basis
| with politics and this is one of them. I'm not a Trump fan at
| all but his ability to spin things like this and the stimulus
| checks will need to be studied.
| phatfish wrote:
| I doubt a study would be helpful for anyone else, except
| that he had a good read on when his chances of winning were
| best back before 2016.
|
| Aside from that his popularity -- and ability to lie
| shamelessly and have enough people ignore it and vote for
| him -- is wrapped up in the entity "Trump". His play book
| is age old.
| rayiner wrote:
| Trump gets away with lying because he also tells truths
| on important issues where others tell lies to force a
| false consensus. People are very sensitive to this stuff.
| kenjackson wrote:
| What are some examples?
| ronnier wrote:
| I'm just happy TikTok is back. It's a big loss for Reddit
| ruune wrote:
| Am I missing something? How? The users would've went to Meta
| or Google I assume
| ronnier wrote:
| People only have so many hours in the day to consume
| content.
| maeil wrote:
| India is the obvious case to look at here and people went
| to Meta.
| qwerpy wrote:
| The less people get sucked into the toxic Reddit bubble, the
| better.
| saturn8601 wrote:
| Reddit is a lost cause. They totally got the election wrong
| and the day afterwards they broke their mind trying to
| justify the loss with whatever conspiracy theory they could
| come up with. Combine that with overzealous mods and you'll
| eventually end up in a situation where the majority of
| people left are just bots. Bots talking to other bots.
| echoangle wrote:
| You can't talk like this about a platform based on the
| concept of independent Subforums. How did the Woodworking
| subreddit get the election wrong?
| maeil wrote:
| I'm a reader of r/allsvenskan, also don't quite remember
| them getting the election wrong.
| myko wrote:
| This comment after 4 years of "stop the steal" and "Joe
| Biden is a robot" as large points in mainstream
| Republican thought is comical
| markus_zhang wrote:
| What do they, or any elite gain/lose by gaining/losing the
| appreciation of ordinary people.
|
| Do you care what a cattle or a sheep thinks? Some may, but the
| majority don't give it a shit.
| groggo wrote:
| They do still need our votes. But they forgot that, so they
| lost. I voted for democrats but they got what they deserved.
| judahmeek wrote:
| What exactly do you think Democrats should have done that
| they didn't do?
| steveBK123 wrote:
| I vote democrat, but then I'm a rich, educated, knowledge
| worker coastal urban elite so I'm supposed to right?
|
| I think the hard answer is - the Dems need to actually do
| things that dissatisfy people like me if they want to
| actually win the masses - working class, blue collar, etc
| voter back.
|
| Currently they are focussed on everything other than
| class. Identity politics. Race, gender, sexuality,
| immigration status, etc. None of this is particularly
| threatening to people like me and is a moral good, but it
| should be secondary to actually helping the poor
| regardless of how they identify.
|
| Left wing parties elsewhere push for more redistributive
| policies than the Dems ever dream of here. Instead they
| do hand-outs to constituencies that aren't in dire need,
| and already vote Dem anyway. Student loan forgiveness, EV
| tax credits, etc.
|
| Meanwhile in UK & EU, even the vaguely upper end of
| middle class pay marginal tax rates that would make
| $1M/year US earners cry. This is where the revenue comes
| for the depth & breadth of their social programs.
|
| Should the US go that far? Absolutely not. It would
| stifle innovation, growth, and what makes the US far more
| successful than our rich peers. But Dems need to break
| free of the thinking that if we just tax a few
| billionaires, all our problems will be solved.
| dralley wrote:
| Left wing parties elsewhere are losing too, mostly
| because of immigration. Meanwhile the welfare states are
| collapsing in the UK, Canada, France and Germany because
| the birthrates and lack of economic growth can't sustain
| it.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| I think globally a lot of rich world left wing parties
| made similar rhetorical mistakes. Essentially leaning
| into identity stuff without acknowledging working class
| people's challenges.
|
| Also to be fair they've been in power globally for some
| time and so are seen as the status quo party, and largely
| ran as such. People are feeling economically squeezed and
| therefore voting incumbents out.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| So it sounds as if the left are attempting to cater to
| issues further up Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs than the
| majority of the voting populace think are important.
|
| That's interesting, because it feels like "the right" (in
| my experience and whatever left and right mean these
| days) wouldn't recognise or consider catering to anything
| above the two basic levels (and to be honest, the 'brutal
| truth' part of my own personality tells me that anything
| above those two basic levels is 'cream').
| steveBK123 wrote:
| Yes this is a good summation of the problem.
|
| People who worry about the price of groceries or basic
| car repairs to keep their older car on the road don't
| want to hear how privileged they are due to their race
| (they might not be a minority but they aren't rich) / how
| they are destroying the planet (they aren't flying 10x
| year) / that kids who took out loans for expensive
| private college deserve free money (they didn't even go
| to college or went to state school) / how democracy is at
| stake / etc.
| judahmeek wrote:
| Which mean that it is a messaging problem, considering
| that Democrats are more progressive economically...
| steveBK123 wrote:
| It's more than messaging when the rank & file democrats
| and elite voters walk, talk and breathe this line of
| thinking. And there are policy choices made downstream of
| it as well.
| myko wrote:
| > Identity politics. Race, gender, sexuality, immigration
| status, etc
|
| This is an interesting list that 100% reflects what
| Republicans in my state ran on and Democrats only
| mentioned them when on defense (except immigration, which
| they clearly took point on before trump torpedoed the
| bipartisan effort to work on it)
|
| > EV tax credits
|
| These were absolutely needed to kickstart the EV market,
| just like oil subsidies were needed to keep the American
| economy moving so people and goods could get from place
| to place.
| groggo wrote:
| not banned tiktok
| lm28469 wrote:
| When the "real problems" are TikTok access and who can enter in
| which public bathroom you know everyone loses, panem et
| circenses
| thomassmith65 wrote:
| But TikTik is an important forum for the people of the world
| to solve our thorny issues! In the days before social media,
| our world was a mess. Today we are awash in sage, well-
| reasoned discourse: a new Age of Enlightenment! What fools
| we'd be to tinker with this valuable information ecosystem.
| /s
| BriggyDwiggs42 wrote:
| I'm not certain, but I think there might also be some other
| issues people talk about.
| mvc wrote:
| Oh yeah "immigration". Can't wait for the immigration
| discourse in 10 years time, when people all over the world,
| rich and poor, christian, muslim and jew, white and black,
| are being displaced because they're homes are literally
| uninhabitable because the frequency of out of control
| weather events has gone up.
|
| Will you allow "climate refugees" into your neighbourhood?
| Will you be a climate refugee yourself?
| BriggyDwiggs42 wrote:
| Buddy, where the fuck did that come from lmao
| erentz wrote:
| Looking this up, is this [1] the bill? Cuz it turns out this
| bill was sponsored by a Republican and passed during a
| Republican controlled House in 2023, by a supermajority 352 -
| 65.
|
| People always blame Democrats for things that Republicans do.
|
| [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-
| bill/7521...
| ok123456 wrote:
| AIPAC made sure it had bipartisan support.
| starik36 wrote:
| There is always someone in the thread who wants to blame
| the Jews. Two in this one.
| ok123456 wrote:
| There are many Jews who disagree with what AIPAC does in
| the country and what Israel does.
|
| Would we permit a lobby for China to do the same thing?
| starik36 wrote:
| Because AIPAC is an American organization made up of
| American citizens funded by American citizens.
| GordonS wrote:
| And there is always a Hasbara drone who lies, deflects,
| and conflates Israel with Jewry so they can insinuate
| that any criticism of Israel == antisemitism.
| bitcurious wrote:
| AIPAC is an organization made up of American Jews, not
| Israelis.
| blackoil wrote:
| "American Israel Public Affairs Committee""
| GordonS wrote:
| That's only part of the truth though.
|
| AIPAC is funded by Israel, and by it's own description
| AIPAC is an organisation made up of pro-Israel zionists.
| Oh, and the "I" in AIPAC stands for "Israel".
| starik36 wrote:
| Lies once again. AIPAC is funded by American Jews.
|
| Nice try hiding your hatred.
| seanvelasco wrote:
| this is the sane comment here. the parent comment this
| comment replies to is the insane one. and yet this one is
| downvoted and the other is not
|
| a reply on this comment even accuse the commenter of
| being Hasbara
|
| HN is the world-upside down. a lot of people here really
| should just stick to tech
| ok123456 wrote:
| Let me guess, "it's too complicated."
| starik36 wrote:
| No. It's actually pretty simple. You are making the
| inference.
| wcunning wrote:
| It also passed a Democrat controlled Senate and was signed by
| a Democrat president, who then elected to not even attempt to
| enforce the law today, his one day to do so. Either of those
| could have blocked it. It's at the very least bipartisan and
| the talk at the time of passage was that the Dems could
| deliver on Rep promises. Neither side seems to want to be the
| ones holding the unpopular bag.
| Bilal_io wrote:
| And upheld by the the supreme Court in a unanimous decision
| nickthegreek wrote:
| You are correct. Our entire government looks like a clown
| show over this. National security issues that we couldn't
| see banned it and now it's still here. I better see some
| members of the legislature fight this misappropriation of
| power that was upheld by the Supreme Court. If a president
| can come in and hand wave away a law just passed and
| implemented(by a huge majority mind you), then the rule of
| law is gone. I hope that Cook and Pichai stand firm and not
| let these apps back into the store until the government
| fixes this shit show through the proper channels. Those who
| flip flop their votes should have their reasons spread
| across traditional and online media. If our entire
| government will flip flop on an issue so quickly after the
| Supreme Court suppressed the 1A a little further, I feel
| the corpo state has taken us another step towards the
| cyberpunk dystopia that I prefer to cosplay in my games not
| reality.
| anon84873628 wrote:
| Republicans probably love to see Trump ignoring Congress
| even if it's a law they passed. Now you've essentially
| got a large chunk of the population (youth especially)
| cheering that Trump saved the day by acting like a
| dictator. Gives him opportunity to do more of the same.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _who then elected to not even attempt to enforce the law
| today, his one day to do so_
|
| I don't think the US president is exempt from the tendency
| to avoid hard work on their last day on the job.
| divbzero wrote:
| The outgoing Biden administration actually stated that they
| wouldn't enforce the ban for just one day, choosing to leave
| implementation of the law to the incoming Trump administration.
|
| Efforts to save TikTok have been bipartisan ("Senate Democratic
| Leader Chuck Schumer said he spoke with Biden on Thursday to
| advocate for extending the deadline to ban TikTok.") and
| efforts to enforce the ban have also been bipartisan
| ("Democrats had tried on Wednesday to pass legislation that
| would have extended the deadline, but Republican Sen. Tom
| Cotton of Arkansas blocked it. Cotton, chair of the Senate
| Intelligence Committee, said that TikTok has had ample time to
| find a buyer.")
|
| https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/biden-wont-enforce-tik...
| Gormo wrote:
| The incentive structures inherent in modern politics encourages
| all politicians to alternately champion or repudiate unworkable
| solutions to problems that themselves are likely exaggerated or
| fabricated from whole cloth.
|
| The parties are just brands competing against each other to
| appeal to different segments of the same market, offering
| essentially the same product in different packaging. Getting
| your competitor to adopt a market position that you've already
| prepared a response to is a neat trick.
|
| This is par for the course, and I don't understand why anyone
| would expect anything different.
| matthewmacleod wrote:
| This just seems trivially obviously not true to me.
| Gormo wrote:
| I mean, it seems obviously true to _me_ , which is why I
| posited it here. Do you have a counter-argument you'd like
| to offer in response?
| jimmydoe wrote:
| DEM looks bad now bc they just lost power. DEM did not solve it
| earlier bc an unpopular party can't do hard/unpopular things.
| GOP may have a shot, if they will be as popular as they looked
| in November. End of day it's about popularity and power.
| nfw2 wrote:
| It seems like an oversight to me that all the discussion about
| political impact leading up to this has focused on consumers.
| Statements like "Gen Z likes TikTok, so banning it risks
| alienating them", "Gen Z will forgot about TikTok and move on
| to the next thing in due time", etc.
|
| I think this overlooks one key detail. The focal points of the
| new online world -- "influencers" -- rely on TikTok for the
| lion's share of their income. Taking away a fun toy might not
| radicalize someone but taking away their livelihood might.
|
| And even if these users are a tiny fraction of a percent, they
| wield outsized influence (obviously). They are the new media.
| Risking losing these people, many of whom have been largely
| apolitical, seems like a huge tactical error in retrospect, and
| one that Trump would predictably take advantage of if given the
| chance.
| TrackerFF wrote:
| Trump was banging the drum regarding banning TikTok, then
| changes his tune in the 11th hour, and will now use this to
| come out as the hero and savior. Not to mention how many
| republicans supported this.
| portaouflop wrote:
| I gotta hand it to him it's kind of genius
| Aachen wrote:
| But also scary how much people are willing to swallow
|
| Edit: wanted to elaborate but wasn't sure how to put it
| best. Then two comments down there is exactly what I'm
| looking for: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42759761
| So many people (in absolute numbers at least, maybe not in
| relative numbers) seem to just eat it up like kids eat
| candy
| fnimick wrote:
| Anecdotal, but I see a ton of people who were anti-trump
| and protesting just a couple years ago celebrating and
| thanking Trump for saving tiktok and making them happy
| again. It's wild.
|
| If someone banned youtube or HN, I'd be upset, but I
| wouldn't be depressed and suicidal over it like some of
| these people were publicly
| colechristensen wrote:
| The bill was cosponsored by 54, 32 of them were Republicans. I
| think the primary author was a Republican.
| xienze wrote:
| > Absurd that the Republicans are somehow going to swoop in and
| "Save the day" on an issue they themselves championed.
|
| Absurd that when Trump initially proposed this it was
| considered a stupid and racist idea. Now they're for it.
| dang wrote:
| Recent and related:
|
| _TikTok goes dark in the US_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42753396 - Jan 2025 (2187
| comments)
| Brystephor wrote:
| What's that saying? The best way to get a promotion is to cause a
| problem and then fix it?
|
| Political things aside, it's crazy to see so much of a flip-flop
| so quickly. Has there been any other behavior like this in the
| past where a company "shut themselves down" to make a big
| political statement and then almost immediately undid the shut
| down?
| yieldcrv wrote:
| Is it a big political statement to shut down a couple hours
| before the deadline of shutting down?
|
| The app stores removed the app in accordance with that timeline
| too.
| TypingOutBugs wrote:
| There was no deadline, the app stores didn't need to remove
| it.
|
| The Biden administration said it would be left to the Trump
| administration to review, they had no reason to shut it down.
| It's purely to force Trumps hand a bit.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| Thanks. So that was between friday night and today, that
| means it would also be true that Bytedance could not rely
| on the autonomous aspects of the US government to not
| create liability, unless given an explicit assurance.
|
| I wouldn't say following the law would be purely to force a
| hand, I would say multiple things can be true at once. They
| still had liability.
|
| Other government agencies, like the SEC, has been filing
| court cases all the way till the last minute even though
| they'll likely get dropped tomorrow. It is understandable
| to take a risk averse approach for a company.
| arandomusername wrote:
| > As of January 19, the Protecting Americans from Foreign
| Adversary Controlled Applications Act will make it unlaw-
| ful for companies in the United States to provide services
| to distribute, maintain, or update the social media
| platform TikTok
|
| https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/TikTok_
| v...
|
| Please do some research next time before spreading lies.
| TeaBrain wrote:
| That is simply a topical remark within the judgement
| denying the injunction. It isn't relevant to what is
| enforceable or being enforced. The Act in question
| doesn't contain wording that implies that TikTok would
| have been required to be taken immediately offline, as
| the act requires enforcement by the FTC, which hasn't yet
| moved on the matter.
|
| https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-
| bill/7520...
| arandomusername wrote:
| It clearly states it will be unlawful for companies (e.g
| oracle for cloud, google for app distro) to provide
| services to Tiktok
| TypingOutBugs wrote:
| From the White House Press Secretary:
|
| "It is a stunt, and we see no reason for TikTok or other
| companies to take actions in the next few days before the
| Trump Administration takes office on Monday. We have laid
| out our position clearly and straightforwardly: actions
| to implement this law will fall to the next
| administration. So TikTok and other companies should take
| up any concerns with them."
|
| Please do some research next time before accusing people
| of spreading lies.
| gpm wrote:
| The Biden administration said it wasn't going to initiate
| enforcement proceedings in the last 24 hours of their
| administration.
|
| It did not, nor did it have the authority to, waive the
| apps stores requirement under the law to do that. To remove
| the potential for future enforcement actions (up to 5 years
| in the future) punishing them for failing to comply with
| the law. Neither will Trump even once he is president
| unless and until amongst other things ByteDance signs
| legally binding documents that they will divest from TikTok
| within 90 days.
| Brystephor wrote:
| No. It's a big political statement to include political
| messaging and plead to political figures when you shut down.
| Then to praise those political figures afterwards is
| additional political messaging.
| Grimblewald wrote:
| No, many users are sharing the theory that the downtime was
| to allow meta or google to take over the backend. Content
| delivery is different on the app now. For example, ads being
| served during videos not between videos.
| Gormo wrote:
| > What's that saying? The best way to get a promotion is to
| cause a problem and then fix it?
|
| There's too much effort and uncertainty involved in actually
| creating a problem and then actually fixing it.
|
| It's much easier and more reliable to create the _perception_
| of a problem by promulgating lots of FUD, then engage in
| performative theatrics to nullify the FUD and proclaim the
| problem fixed.
| Brystephor wrote:
| What's the difference between the perception of a problem
| being present and the existence of a problem?
|
| If you create an issue, and solve an issue, indifferent of
| the issue being real, you'll be credited with solving the
| issue. It's ridiculous at this scale
| Gormo wrote:
| > What's the difference between the perception of a problem
| being present and the existence of a problem?
|
| Well, it would be the same as the distinction between real
| and imaginary in any other context.
| dcow wrote:
| Perception is reality
| dymk wrote:
| You can be passed out in the back seat but a car crash is
| still going to kill you
| dcow wrote:
| That's not what the saying means, obviously -_-
| Gormo wrote:
| But the meaning you're presumably referencing isn't
| applicable to this conversation.
| Gormo wrote:
| No, it very much isn't. Reality is reality, and people's
| perceptions of it are often quite incorrect.
| dcow wrote:
| The phrase is not a defense of some hyper relative
| worldview. It's commentary that the perception of the
| many facts, which of those are highlighted, which are
| ignored, which biases shine through and which narrative
| wins, etc., at the end of the day, _is_ the reality you
| must deal with. Reality is downstream of facts.
| hackyhacky wrote:
| > it's crazy to see so much of a flip-flop so quickly.
|
| Trump was against Tiktok before he was for it.
|
| He was also against crypto currencies before he released his
| own.
| elfbargpt wrote:
| I think it's obvious that US lawmakers were somehow convinced
| ByteDance would absolutely divest from TikTok if threatened
| with an ultimatum. They were never prepared for an actual ban
| and the resulting fallout. Now that it's obvious they won't
| divest (which should have been obvious the entire time), they
| flipped
| freeopinion wrote:
| Can you point to a lawmaker who has flipped?
| elfbargpt wrote:
| Here's what Chuck Schumer said:
|
| "It's clear that more time is needed to find an American
| buyer and not disrupt the lives and livelihoods of millions
| of Americans of so many influencers who have built up a
| good network of followers" [1]
|
| The deal was divest or ban, not look for "more time to find
| a buyer". My point is they were never prepared for an
| actual ban.
|
| [1]
| https://x.com/kenklippenstein/status/1880007290830688609
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| Here we have a group of people that have given up on
| their duties re: checks and balances because following
| orders is easier. What a surprise that they're spineless
| in other ways too.
| blitzar wrote:
| Won't somebody think of the influencers.
| anon7000 wrote:
| I think the bigger point is there are a lot of young
| people making really decent money on TikTok. (I know a
| few of them.) The result is a lot of push back from a lot
| of people who are effectively loosing their jobs. This is
| probably more clear to politicians now than it was a year
| ago, since the actual "threat" of the situation set in
| for more people.
| philippejara wrote:
| As popular as the platform is with the younger
| demographic and the voting preferences of said younger
| demographic it's political malpractice for democrats to
| not try to at least salvage some face in this whole
| ordeal, whether you think the blame is misplaced or not.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _they were never prepared for an actual ban_
|
| This is have your cake and eat it too politics. I can
| _pointedly_ say that Schumer's office isn't surprised
| Bytedance ran out its 180 days.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _US lawmakers were somehow convinced ByteDance would
| absolutely divest from TikTok if threatened with an
| ultimatum_
|
| I worked on the bill. Everyone assumed it would hit the ban,
| get an extension, and then either remain banned or get sold
| to Elon, Ellison or a Brexiteer.
| appleorchard46 wrote:
| > Has there been any other behavior like this in the past where
| a company "shut themselves down" to make a big political
| statement and then almost immediately undid the shut down?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdowns_in_the_Un...
| eru wrote:
| Well, different standards apply for government than for
| private companies.
| scarab92 wrote:
| Fiduciary responsibilities make it unlikely that many
| companies would risk it.
|
| There's always a chance you don't come back, and there's
| likely to be a loss of marketshare for simply being
| unavailable for a period and forcing users to trial
| alternatives.
|
| But, TikTok is not purely commercially focused. A majority of
| the voting stock of ByteDance is held by the Chinese
| government, who clearly see non-financial strategic value in
| controlling it.
|
| Otherwise, they likely could have negotiated a spin out the
| US operation, whereby they retain most of the equity upside
| but give majority voting control to a US buyer.
| kelseydh wrote:
| Can you imagine any other country making this demand and it
| being taken seriously? It is negotiation by means of
| extortion. Why are American tech companies entitled to the
| profits of an internationally used app?
| bluesnews wrote:
| They aren't demanding a sale. They are just saying they
| can't operate in the country if they don't sell.
|
| They have a choice to leave the country or follow the
| rules.
| Timber-6539 wrote:
| Let us cannibalize your app because it's so successful at
| doing X that we can't compete with you. It's a bizarre
| ultimatum for the owners of the app.
| wqaatwt wrote:
| Seems like the policies used by the Chinese government
| for decade are becoming more internationally popular (for
| better or for worse..).
|
| I can't really feel bad about when it's the same deal
| they offer Western companies. Well.. to be fair Google or
| FB couldn't even get anywhere close to where TikTok is.
| xcrunner529 wrote:
| Where you launch in a place where the government actually
| controls your company, well, that's a decision you made.
| Pyxl101 wrote:
| Well, that's pretty much how China behaves with respect
| to foreign companies operating in China. They all need to
| be joint partnerships with owners in China.
| kelseydh wrote:
| The world is more than just China and the United States.
| That was the point of my original comment. The United
| States here feels entitled to own and run an app used on
| every continent of the world. No other country could get
| away with demanding this.
| josephcsible wrote:
| > The United States here feels entitled to own and run
|
| It doesn't have to be the United States. It just has to
| be anyone other than Iran, North Korea, China, and
| Russia.
| fc417fc802 wrote:
| > The world is more than just China and the United
| States.
|
| But this particular situation is not. A Chinese
| controlled company that operates in the US. If you want
| access to $CC market you are subject to $CC's rules.
| Other countries do exactly the same thing (aside from
| China, GDPR comes to mind) so it's unclear what the basis
| for your complaint is here.
| scarab92 wrote:
| > The United States here feels entitled to own and run an
| app used on every continent of the world.
|
| This isn't correct. The US law only applies to the
| services provided within the US.
|
| ByteDance could spin out the US userbase while retaining
| the rest of the userbase. Many US companies already have
| to do exactly this for their Chinese userbase. Spin it
| off to a JV with a Chinese partner.
|
| I'm not aware of anyone doing this, but you could even
| have a content syndication model whereby the global
| TikTok and the US TikTok share a common pool of content
| and username reservations so that both services appear
| global to their users, but with separate companies
| controlling distribution of their own apps and the
| recommendation model used to serve content.
| linkregister wrote:
| India banned TikTok a few years ago. Brazil banned X
| until it agreed to take down posts in violation of
| Brazilian law. The European Union fines US-based tech
| companies frequently.
|
| "Entitlement" in the context of nations is irrelevant.
| Nations exercise power in accordance with their
| interests.
| saagarjha wrote:
| The latter two, in theory, apply to local companies too.
| The TikTok bans specifically apply to "foreign
| adversaries".
| lupire wrote:
| Domestic adversaries don't own any companies, for obvious
| reasons.
| kelnos wrote:
| That's false. The US law requires TikTok to be sold to a
| non-adversary. A US company could buy it, or some German
| or Spanish company, and either would fulfill the
| requirements to avoid a ban in the US.
|
| > _No other country could get away with demanding this._
|
| TikTok is already banned in India. Brasil banned Twitter
| for a while until they caved to Brasil's demands.
| wqaatwt wrote:
| Well.. SAP could buy it. Or some other European tech
| company that could afford it..
| scarab92 wrote:
| You can't claim this is unfair to China, when China
| requires foreign companies enter into joint ventures
| which give the Chinese partner majority voting share.
|
| The US is simply reciprocating.
| kelseydh wrote:
| I don't think it's unfair to China, I think it's unfair
| to European countries, Canada, Australia, and the rest of
| the world that uses TikTok who are watching the U.S.
| demand it is entitled to run and control TikTok.
|
| This would be like the U.S. forcing Spotify's Swedish
| headquarters to accept U.S. ownership.
| timhowwan wrote:
| Then Europe should grows some balls and ban TikTok. China
| is literally a foreign invader not just a foreign
| adversary, aiding in Russia's conquest of Europe. And
| trying to destroy Europe's car industry via state
| subsidized EVs
|
| India literally banned TikTok overnight when China killed
| Indian soldiers in 2020
| courseofaction wrote:
| You're really not going to enjoy history class when it
| comes to American empire
| kelnos wrote:
| I think most Westerners would prefer the US remaining
| dominant than ceding that position of power to China,
| regardless of the US's foreign policy monstrosities over
| time.
|
| And for those Westerners who do not, I think it would be
| useful to ask them why they think a country like China
| (or Russia, or North Korea) would be better for their
| interests than the US, even with someone like Trump in
| power.
| hnlmorg wrote:
| I'd prefer if there wasn't any dominant powers. But that
| goes against human nature it seems.
| kelnos wrote:
| Sure, that would be great. But we live in a world where
| that kind of thing is probably inevitable.
| kasey_junk wrote:
| Why do we assume that would be great? The last time we
| had no dominant power it lead to ww1...
| hnlmorg wrote:
| If anything, WW1 happened _because there were too many_
| empires rather than a lack of any dominant powers.
|
| Unless you're suggesting that what the world needs is a
| single dominant empire? Which would be an odd position to
| take because history has proven that monopolies are much
| much worse for abusing power.
|
| Maybe if/when we colonise other planets we can think of
| the Earth as a single government with countries acting
| like states (kind of like the EU but with less
| sovereignty for each state). However that's only going to
| happen if we work together and generally cooperation is
| viewed as counterproductive to empire building. So we
| come full circle back to my original point.
| alfiedotwtf wrote:
| Sounds like what a rapist would say about their victims
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| > I think most Westerners would prefer the US remaining
| dominant than ceding that position of power to China,
| regardless of the US's foreign policy monstrosities over
| time.
|
| I can't speak for most Westerners, but I fully believe
| the United States to be an empire in decline already. Who
| will take up that mantle once we're fully gone is an
| interesting question, I think China and India both could
| make a solid case for themselves.
|
| > And for those Westerners who do not, I think it would
| be useful to ask them why they think a country like China
| (or Russia, or North Korea) would be better for their
| interests than the US
|
| I don't really think about it in terms of "my interests."
| My ideal incoming superpower would be any superpower
| that's ready to deal with existential threats to our
| species like climate change, along with our global social
| ills like over-reliance on social media and the year over
| year alienation of everyone from everyone else. If that
| country comes with me needing to learn Mandarin then
| that's what has to happen.
|
| I'm highly disillusioned with both the "West" as an idea
| (which can include any number of countries depending how
| racist the speaker is feeling at the moment). I still
| believe in Democracy, representative or otherwise, but I
| don't see any of those in your "West" anymore. I see a
| collection of ailing, aged empires full of greedy old men
| stealing as much money as they can so they and their
| families can coast out the collapse they have engineered.
| I contrast this with China, which certainly has problems
| too, and the CCP gets up to some nonsense, but their
| ability to exude top-down control also makes them more
| able to actually solve problems instead of endlessly
| bickering about them. And with respect to the notions of
| individual liberty and freedom that I do want to see in
| the world, it's clear that the West is too focused on
| maintaining the rights of the individual to do what they
| so please, and not enough on maintaining the planet upon
| which they would do it. How free is anyone if we can't
| leave our homes due to smog or unlivable
| temperatures/weathers?
|
| Not saying it's an overall improvement. I am saying that
| the U.S. is on it's way out, and China is the likely
| incoming global superpower. We can do precious little to
| change this if we even want to, and I'm not rushing for a
| fire extinguisher here.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Who will take up that mantle once we 're fully gone is
| an interesting question, I think China and India both
| could make a solid case for themselves_
|
| With the exception of the USSR, every superpower's
| decline in history has involved a burst of violence.
| China or India won't take over if America collapses
| because America collapsing (versus slow fading over
| lifetimes) almost guarantees nuclear war resetting the
| table.
| lupire wrote:
| It's not very clear, but the US version is more freedom
| plus killing more people, and the Chinese version is more
| servitude plus killing fewer people.
|
| I think people who have seen one up close claim to prefer
| the other (but thets meaningless) while people who have
| seen both start to lean toward servitude, unless they are
| highly religious.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Since we all live in democratic regimes, maybe, just
| maybe, the will of the people should matter here at least
| a little bit? Banning TikTok is a deeply unpopular idea,
| across all party lines. It's only popular among the anti-
| democratic elites, from Trump (who first got this ball
| rolling), to Biden, to European leaders playing their
| "high-level" games.
| creato wrote:
| This is simply false, at least in the US. A small
| majority favor banning it. It's not huge, but it's not a
| "deeply unpopular idea".
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Here is a poll showing only 42% of Republicans and 24% of
| Democrats supporting the ban:
|
| https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2025/01/15/tiktok
| -ba...
|
| I was a bit wrong in calling it deeply unpopular _across
| party lines_ , but it's certainly quite unpopular
| overall, and deeply unpopular among Democrats.
| creato wrote:
| You're lumping "not sure" in with "oppose the ban". You
| could just as easily lump "not sure" with "support the
| ban" and conclude that _not_ banning it is deeply
| unpopular.
|
| Here's the actual poll:
| https://www.pewresearch.org/short-
| reads/2024/09/05/support-f...
| immibis wrote:
| If you're trying to argue that a majority favors banning
| it, then, obviously, all opinions other than "favor
| banning it" have to be lumped together as "don't favor
| banning it"
| saagarjha wrote:
| India still depends on Chinese imports and technology,
| regardless of how it feels about the country. The TikTok
| thing was an easy political stunt.
| Teever wrote:
| If banning Tik Tok is an easy political stunt then why
| has this spawned a couple several thousand comment posts
| in the last 48 hours alone?
| krapp wrote:
| Because if there are two subjects HN cannot resist
| pontificating on at length, it's social media/the modern
| web and Sinopolitics. Add a dash of red team/blue team
| sniping and it's the perfect storm.
| saagarjha wrote:
| Easy _in India_. I'm sure they also debated it at length
| there. But they went through with it and it largely did
| nothing.
| Ray20 wrote:
| > China is literally a foreign invader not just a foreign
| adversary
|
| TikTok ban is not about vengeance on China, it's about
| violations of own citizens' freedoms.
|
| > aiding in Russia's conquest of Europe
|
| Russia right now is weaker and has the least potential to
| conquer anything than literally ever before.
| kelseydh wrote:
| Every state to a different degree subsidizes its
| automobile industry.
|
| Living in Australia now with access to Chinese EV's is
| eyeopening. It's great for the consumer. To the extent
| you accept EV's as a solution for reducing GHG's, the
| cheaper prices are making it easier to end our reliance
| on oil. Americans don't realize what they are missing out
| on.
|
| Better than Tesla-quality vehicles for half the price.
| briandear wrote:
| Why exactly are they half the price? What are the
| externalities of Chinese EV manufacturing. They may be
| half the price, but I doubt they are half the cost.
| johnny22 wrote:
| Does the law said it has to be sold to a US entity? I
| think it just can't be run by "adversary"
| tgma wrote:
| You do realize many US companies are not practically
| allowed to operate in some European jurisdictions? Uber
| and Amazon come to mind.
| norman784 wrote:
| Aren't they for a different reason, like workers law
| protection?
| tgma wrote:
| Those are just examples. Whatever the reason for each,
| sovereign jurisdictions don't allow free access to their
| resources/markets just out of spite. That includes
| Europe.
| wqaatwt wrote:
| That's only partially true though. I don't think Uber
| itself is not allowed to operate anywhere. Rather it's
| business model is illegal in some cities/areas. Usually
| you can still use Uber to hire actual taxis there.
|
| However exact same rules apply to its European
| competitors like Bolt. Make it entirely unrelated to this
| situation.
| wqaatwt wrote:
| That has nothing to with them being US companies. Or are
| there any jurisdictions where Bolt/(other local company)
| is allowed to freely operate but Uber is banned?
| josephcsible wrote:
| But if the EU or Canada or Australia bought it, that
| would fulfill the terms of the law.
| 1659447091 wrote:
| It does not say they have to sell to the US. Only divest
| as to no longer be considered controlled by a `foreign
| adversary` of the United States.[0] The bill also gives
| this power to future administrations.
|
| It was literally called Protecting Americans from Foreign
| Adversary Controlled Applications Act.
|
| Not, All your app are belong to us.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protecting_Americans_fr
| om_Fore...
| linkregister wrote:
| What is your opinion on India's ban of TikTok a few years
| ago?
| mjevans wrote:
| More fair would have been a restriction based on some
| framework like...
|
| + Public forum or utility
|
| + Userbase greater than 1% of the adult population
|
| = Majority Ownership of corporate division and
| management, plus regulatory oversight, must be held
| within country OR a security partnered country (the
| easiest criteria for that might be they have an
| obligation to fight along side 'our' troops in some way).
|
| That way it isn't specific about any given platform or
| company, and it allows anyone trusted as an ally to
| comprise the ownership or legal jurisdiction.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| That's almost exactly how the law was written. Only the
| userbase was specified in absolute numbers (1 million
| MAU).
| yyyfb wrote:
| EU countries are asleep at the wheel on matters of
| national security and sovereignty. Spotify is not a
| matter of national security. TikTok, and social
| networking in general, has been one for some time now.
| Misinformation, conspiracy theories, actual conspiracies
| to overthrow govt, etc have all found renewed vigor
| thanks to social networks.
|
| US on the other hand now has its social media controlled
| by oligarchs, not much better maybe.
| alfiedotwtf wrote:
| If that's your position, then you would be fine if EU
| countries were to pull out all US telco infrastructure
| because of their previous abuses towards European
| citizens?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _would be fine if EU countries were to pull out all US
| telco infrastructure because of their previous abuses
| towards European citizens?_
|
| If I were the EU, I would. We hacked Merkel.
| lazide wrote:
| Well yeah, but she was _totally_ asking for it.
| yyyfb wrote:
| I'd be mindful that having a NATO partner be able to spy
| is maybe better than having Huawei spy if you have to
| choose, but yes, I think it's a risk that EU countries
| should be aware of and probably are more aware of than
| with social networks.
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| They're not. Why are you making that assumption? The US
| is saying that in order to access the US market they have
| to divest. They're free to sell at a fair market price -
| including to European buyers. They can also choose not to
| and leave the US market and keep operating elsewhere.
| They can also just sell the US business and keep
| everything else the way it is.
| wqaatwt wrote:
| To be fair being legally mandated to sell significantly
| reduces that "free market price". Technically it's
| certainly not "free" anymore..
| Roark66 wrote:
| Because it deals with an actual enemy pumping propaganda
| into your country's citizen's ears. It's a legitimate
| threat to national security. And no, not just the US does
| this. (I assume you mean free countries, not dictatorship
| like China, Russia or North Korea that ban everything
| they don't like).
|
| Europe banned Russian propaganda outlet RT a couple of
| years ago, on security grounds. It's just that US prefers
| the soft-soft approach. Don't ban them, let them
| "divest". No. It doesn't work. It should be banned end of
| story. I guarantee a genuine competitor from the US or an
| allied country would make an alternative quite soon.
| Would be so addictive and equally brain rotting? Probably
| not, so people who enjoyed it before would complain.
| Fine, let them go join Douyin or other Chinese platform
| and see for themselves how "freedom of speech"looks like
| in China.
|
| As for anyone who might come and say "they're not doing
| anything wrong". They are and you're naive for not seeing
| it. Every company in China is an arm of the state. As an
| example see how Bytedance released an ebook reader in the
| US with an AI assistant that tells you things like
| "nothing happened in 1989 on Tiananmen square", there is
| no genocide in Xinjiang, it is inappropriate to question
| and critique the Chinese communist party, China never
| attacked anyone,ever but it's perfectly fine to criticise
| every other single country on earth and it is ready to
| give you a litany of misdeeds any other country on earth
| ever did. Except China. Do you think a company like that
| owning what's essentially a monopoly on news for the
| young people is good? No it is not, and any sane
| politician would ban it long time ago. The fact Trump did
| this move worries me for his other decisions in future .
| rsingel wrote:
| Fox News, Twitter and Meta are far worse influences on
| American society than TikTok.
|
| And every big US platform is just a big siphon for the
| NSA when it comes to non U.S. persons.
|
| The stupidity and hypocrisy of this ban and unban is
| hilarious.
|
| It's the tech policy analog of the Iraq War (on the level
| of stupidity, loss of standing, inevitable consequences
| etc).
|
| Not saying this ban is equivalent to a decision that
| killed 1M+ people, lead to ISIS, and created the migrant
| crisis and more
| mcosta wrote:
| > The stupidity and hypocrisy of this ban and unban is
| hilarious.
|
| Your adversary does not care about morals, but will
| leverage yours in his favour.
| wqaatwt wrote:
| Surely this is sarcasm?
|
| Yes absolutely. China.
|
| You have to give away 50% of your local subsidiary just
| to operate there.
|
| And why do you think Google and Facebook don't even offer
| their services there?
| 55555 wrote:
| > You have to give away 50% of your local subsidiary just
| to operate there.
|
| I'm not sure how generally you meant to speak, but this
| is no longer true as a general claim.
|
| "As of November 1, 2024, China has removed all
| restrictions on foreign investment in the manufacturing
| sector, allowing foreign investors, including Americans,
| to own up to 100% equity in Chinese manufacturing
| enterprises."
| olalonde wrote:
| What's your source on that? Apple, Microsoft, Tesla and
| Amazon all operate in China and I don't believe they had
| to give up 50% of their local subsidiary. Google withdrew
| from China because it didn't want to comply with local
| laws (e.g. censorship).
| ta20240528 wrote:
| > hereby they retain most of the equity upside but give
| majority voting control to a US buyer.
|
| Keen to see this opinion when the Chinese government
| demands the same from Apple.
|
| 'cos we're all equal, no?
| kelnos wrote:
| The Chinese government carefully controls foreign access
| to its market already (unlike the US), and already bans
| quite a few foreign companies from operating on the
| Chinese Internet (again, unlike the US).
|
| I imagine Apple already complies with whatever they need
| to comply with in order to make the Chinese government
| happy.
|
| > _' cos we're all equal, no?_
|
| No, we absolutely aren't. The Chinese government has
| ensured for decades now that foreign businesses have only
| tightly controlled access to the Chinese people while
| Chinese-owned (i.e., easily controllable by the Chinese
| government) businesses have advantages not given to
| outsiders. (And those outsiders need to open up a Chinese
| subsidiary that is majority-owned by Chinese
| investors/companies.)
|
| On the other hand, most Western countries have given
| Chinese companies near-unfettered access to their
| markets.
|
| If anything, this TikTok ban is actually making things
| more equal, if only by a tiny bit.
| licenede wrote:
| Actually what's scary for Apple, and really for all
| companies with assets or factories still in China is that
| recently China prevented Apple from shipping its own
| equipments out of China to India. China is so fearful of
| even more unemployments that it is now willing to upset
| one of its largest employer.
|
| Foxconn stops sending Chinese workers to India iPhone
| factories In addition, equipment shipments are delayed,
| potentially disrupting next-generation iPhone production
| in India.
|
| https://restofworld.org/2025/china-foxconn-
| factoriesfoxconn-...
|
| You really have to be braindead as a COO if you do not
| have contingency plan to move stuff out of China this
| year.
| bilekas wrote:
| > If anything, this TikTok ban is actually making things
| more equal, if only by a tiny bit.
|
| I do t use tiktok and have no skin in the game as an EU
| resident, but setting a precedent for this kind of
| behaviour to permit clthe government to simply block
| anything it wants is basically following in CCPs
| footsteps, that's certainly not a good thing in my eyes.
| kelnos wrote:
| This is not a new precedent. The US government has placed
| foreign-ownership restrictions on media companies since
| before the public internet was a thing. The only
| difference here is that it's targeted at a specific
| company, but I'm not really up in arms about that, even
| though I think they definitely could have written the law
| without naming ByteDance or TikTok specifically.
| themaninthedark wrote:
| Not just media companies, the government block a Japanese
| company from buying US Steel. Not out of antitrust
| concerns but due to the foreign ownership aspect.
| xp84 wrote:
| Yup, and that was done against one of our most loyal
| allies.
| xcrunner529 wrote:
| Yep, but people don't pay attention to history anymore
| and their ignorance keeps us repeating it.
| HenryBemis wrote:
| Numerous examples of China-says-jump-everyone-says-how-
| high.
|
| NBA, any company that makes anything within China using
| slavery, the guy/actor/wrestler (the name escapes me
| right now) who had to learn Chinese to apologize. Take
| your pick of "precedent".
|
| 1bn customers = a lot of money. A company that will kiss
| the ring will do the right thing by its shareholders and
| a nasty thing against humanity. I am 200% sure that Apple
| has given the keys for all users/phones/servers in China
| to the gov/CCP and nobody complained.
|
| If North Korea had 1bn potential customers, we would be
| seeing Kim very differently.
|
| We are cattle. It's all a 1984-ish sham.
|
| Historically China has been so large and 'diverse' (not
| to be confused with DEI) (like India and Russia). It's
| not "one chinese person is just like anyone else". There
| are multiple Republics/States/etc. It takes an emperor to
| keep together an empire. And that usually requires
| (plenty of) violence.
|
| Communism is built to make people suffer, remove
| individuality and requires total obedience and personal
| reformation to be the 'good citizen'. You and me both are
| EU citizens. We are all different and we respect/accept
| each other. In China if you disagree, you disappear. They
| would very much like to do the same to the rest of the
| world. And one day they will, just not yet. I hope they
| implode before they do (like all empires).
|
| (apologies for the grim tone)(I suggest "Principles for
| Dealing with the Changing World Order by Ray Dalio":
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xguam0TKMw8)
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _NBA, any company that makes anything within China
| using slavery, the guy /actor/wrestler (the name escapes
| me right now) who had to learn Chinese to apologize. Take
| your pick of "precedent"._
|
| Houston Rockets GM and James Harden:
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Harden#Politics
|
| * https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-
| news/nbas-apo...
|
| * https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/27787634/james-
| harden-ap...
| Thorrez wrote:
| John Cena was probably the wrestler HenryBemis was
| referring to. Although he started learning Chinese a long
| time ago, not for the purpose of apologizing. A couple
| years ago he called Taiwan a country, then issued an
| apology.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/26/john-cena-
| very...
| yyyfb wrote:
| As an EU resident your govt likely exerts far more
| control over media (both domestic and foreign owned) than
| the US
| bilekas wrote:
| > As an EU resident your govt likely exerts far more
| control over media (both domestic and foreign owned) than
| the US
|
| Wild statement, so lets look at some data.
|
| https://fr.statista.com/statistiques/1337388/classement-
| pays...
|
| These are a list of the freedom of press in the EU with
| their corresponding indexes.
|
| Lets compare that to the US :
| https://rsf.org/en/country/united-states
|
| Index 2024 Score : 66.59
|
| Not looking good for your opinion but lets look at some
| more that are consumer privacy focused, which was my main
| point.
|
| https://iapp.org/resources/article/countries-at-a-glance-
| pri...
|
| IAPP isn't a bad source IMO but hard to evaluate their
| methods, but lets see.
|
| > Level of understanding about data collection and use
|
| Netherlands : Weak - 14% USA : Weak - 24%
|
| Not great, I could spend time finding more, but the
| summary is that the EU has regulations that require
| companies to limit the useage of consumers information
| and privacy. The EU is consumer privacy focused, wheras
| the US seems to be Enterprise & Organisation focused,
| also it's state level enforcements fracture enforcement
| even further.
|
| Lets look at the US CCPA vs GDPR :
|
| A crucial difference is that GDPR requires individuals to
| opt-in before businesses can collect data while there is
| no opt-in condition in CCPA.
|
| That should say it all.
|
| Edit : I forgot to add, outside of Sanctions the EU has
| no control to simply decide to ban a company when it
| feels like it.
| RHSeeger wrote:
| You start off sounding like you're arguing against the
| idea that the EU exerts more control over media than the
| US, but then most of what you said seems to support the
| fact that they do so.
|
| Am I misreading what your intent?
| bilekas wrote:
| I am saying the EU does not exert 'control' they protect
| citizens interests via regulations. Its a different
| model.
|
| Regulations are for the companies.. But they're not
| banned. It's a different model to the US.
|
| To clarify. Companies are not banned.. they're fined
| (often not enough) until they align..
| briandear wrote:
| Protecting people is always the justification. "We aren't
| restricting your freedom, we are protecting you." That
| governments seek to "protect" people from words on a page
| is wild to me.
|
| > regulations are for the companies. But they're not
| banned.
|
| So if they don't follow the regulations they simply keep
| paying fines indefinitely? Until they run out of money?
| Until the company goes out of business? We aren't banning
| those companies, instead we'll attempt to bankrupt them
| if they stay in our markets; unless they do what we say.
| In other words, extortion?
| bilekas wrote:
| I see your point, but those regulations are also given
| with full justifications, backed up by research etc.
|
| This tiktok issue was brought under 'national security'
| with what feels like a "Trust me bro".
| mrighele wrote:
| After the invasion of Ukraine, the EU blocked a number of
| outlets for spreading pro-Russian disinformation (RT,
| Sputnik for example) so this would be nothing new.
| mystified5016 wrote:
| Ah, but you see, pigs are in fact _more_ equal than other
| animals
| xp84 wrote:
| I feel like takes like these are coming from a place of
| extreme naivete, or worse, nihilism. Either people don't
| understand why it's problematic that our most influential
| social media platform among basically everyone age 0-30
| is fully controlled by the CCP, or people really think
| the CCP _wouldn 't_ use its ability to control any
| Chinese company to aggressively mold US public opinion in
| concert with their inevitable invasion of the democratic
| country Taiwan,
|
| or... the nihilistic option:
|
| People know China would engage in information warfare
| using TikTok in a situation like that, but they foolishly
| think the CCP is on even moral ground with free
| democracies so none of this matters, and we've gotta keep
| the funny musical memes flowing.
|
| For all one's misgivings about the US -- and there are
| many valid ones! -- before deciding these governments are
| equal, talk to a Chinese political dissident, if you can
| find one, since they sometimes disappear.
| usr1106 wrote:
| > unlike the US
|
| The US is not a master piece of freedom. Want to market
| or own foreign shares? Want to travel to Cuba? Have you
| gone through the crazy US border control process as a
| foreigner?
|
| Yes, China is absolutely worse. But the US is not a good
| example.
| kelnos wrote:
| I never claimed the US was perfect, just better. I think
| using it as an example is fine. No country is perfect by
| any metric; everything is a matter of comparison over who
| is better or worse on a particular thing.
|
| > _Want to market or own foreign shares?_
|
| ADRs work for that, no?
|
| > _Want to travel to Cuba? Have you gone through the
| crazy US border control process as a foreigner?_
|
| I agree those things are bad, but they have nothing to do
| with market access, which is the topic at hand.
| dboreham wrote:
| I have a London stock exchange trading account with
| Schwab. I think I opened it online. The only catch is
| that I can only deposit or withdraw funds via my US
| Schwab account.
| alfiedotwtf wrote:
| > The Chinese government carefully controls foreign
| access to its market already (unlike the US)
|
| Is there any reason you're skipping the past 40+ years of
| turmoil in the Middle East purely from the US trying to
| control oil fields? Because Iran would like a word with,
| and there's a hell lot of other countries behind them
| waiting their turn
| mingus88 wrote:
| Perhaps I misunderstand your point, but the US obviously
| doesn't have any issue meddling in other country's
| economies or political systems. The US also obviously
| allows foreigners to business in the US without many
| restrictions. Is this the "free market" I keep hearing
| about? I don't know.
|
| The OP was contrasting this with China, that does not
| allow foreigners access to their markets. As a regular
| American, quite honestly, I would like a bit of
| protectionism from the US, as I recently bought a house
| and had to compete with cash offers from Chinese banks.
| It's insane to me that we allow foreigners to buy
| property here, while our own citizens are being
| increasingly priced out of our own country.
| PittleyDunkin wrote:
| Well if we aren't going to get the actual fruits of
| capitalism I'm for damn sure going to fight it tooth and
| nail at home. Shit sucks and I can't think of anyone I
| trust less than an American capitalist.
| bhhaskin wrote:
| They already do and it has been that way since "opening"
| up their markets.
| tailsdog wrote:
| I'm pretty sure Meta apps, at least Facebook, are banned
| in China still. Apple complies with the Chinese
| government and removes banned apps otherwise it can not
| operate there. I think even Tiktok itself is banned in
| China, there is a special version just for the Chinese
| market so their consumers can not see global content.
| mitrevf wrote:
| Im pretty sure there is no ban per se. They just say:
| "either put your servers in our jurisdiction or gtfo of
| here", to which Meta and co. voluntarily decide to not
| enter the market. CCP still advertises as open to foreign
| companies though
| immibis wrote:
| So does Europe btw and they comply with that.
| tw1984 wrote:
| There is no such ban. Microsoft operates tons of services
| in China. Internet companies just need to host all
| Chinese in China using an approved provider. This is the
| exact same requirement extended to Tiktok, for ages US
| tiktok data is stored in Oracle cloud with full audit
| access by appointed American firms.
| yyyfb wrote:
| Parent talks about Meta, you mention Microsoft. They are
| not in the same business. Meta is in the social
| networking domain, which the communist party in China has
| treated for years as a matter of national security. The
| "color revolutions" and the "Arab Spring" gave them good
| reason to believe that online social networks were a
| driver of societal change too powerful not to control.
| And they control it very very tightly.
| tw1984 wrote:
| > Parent talks about Meta, you mention Microsoft. Meta is
| in the social networking domain
|
| Microsoft operated its own popular social network in
| China, called MSN Messenger. Tens of millions Chinese
| users were on that platform for like a decade until the
| release of mobile based WeChat.
|
| > which the communist party in China has treated for
| years as a matter of national security
|
| It is a matter of national security, we all saw what
| happened on twitter shortly before the 6th Jan 2021
| attack.
|
| https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/tweets-
| january-5-2...
|
| https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/tweets-
| january-6-2...
|
| That is the exact reason why everyone agreed that TikTok
| must host all US data and its deployed recommendation
| algorithm code in the US with 3rd party audit access by
| an appointed US entity.
|
| The only question here is why should Meta and Google be
| exempted from the exact same rules if they want to
| operate their services in China.
| FuriouslyAdrift wrote:
| MSN Messenger in China was run by MSN China, a separate
| company run by Chinese residents (as required by Chinese
| law). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSN_China
|
| They were defeated by the QQ app and shut down in 2014.
|
| https://technode.com/2014/08/29/microsoft-messenger-shut-
| dow...
| Angostura wrote:
| If I recall correctly, Apple isn't allowed to run iCloud
| services in China, they are run and controlled by a local
| company
| raincole wrote:
| Chinese government demands _a lot_ from US companies.
| Google left for a reason.
|
| Apple is quite a special case since iPhone ecosystem
| creates many jobs in China. If Apple managed to move jobs
| to India (or wherever cheap labor is), Chinese government
| will stop being nice to them.
|
| And even then, right now in China, iCloud service is run
| by Guizhou cloud, not Apple.
| JetSpiegel wrote:
| > Chinese government demands a lot from US companies.
| Google left for a reason.
|
| Yeah, and that reason was incompetence, it's not for lack
| of trying.
| bsder wrote:
| 1) China already exerts _massive_ control over all of
| their social medias via social credit censoring.
|
| 2) China absolutely did ban most external social media
| and forces those that remain to hold data locally.
|
| 3) China still has the Great Firewall that everybody
| forgets about.
|
| 4) "He does it too" is the argument a two year old uses
| and should be accorded the same level of respect.
| onethought wrote:
| Which specific owner is the Chinese government?
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _Fiduciary responsibilities make it unlikely that many
| companies would risk it._
|
| When you are owned/controlled by an authoritative
| government you have the responsibility to not get
| disappeared. Just ask Jack Ma.
| EDEdDNEdDYFaN wrote:
| lol perfect
| blahedo wrote:
| > _flip-flop so quickly_
|
| The timing and phrasing make it clear that this was planned and
| negotiated in advance, and the shutdown was just for show in
| order to be able to post a memo about how "President Trump"
| saved it. If actual negotiation had to occur, it would not have
| happened in the twelve hours between midnight and noon on
| Sunday morning.
|
| The point of the stunt was to persuade large numbers of younger
| folks that the Ds are the bad guys and Trump in particular is
| the hero. And it'll work as designed.
| iknowSFR wrote:
| What's the evidence of this? It seems highly plausible but do
| we have any proof besides speculation?
| willis936 wrote:
| My partner uses TikTok and was greeted with a message today
| saying that DJT saved the app. That isn't possible because
| he isn't president yet. It's all very embarrassing.
| lubujackson wrote:
| Also the CEO of TikTok is going to sit directly behind
| Trump at the inauguration. It's not even subtle and half
| the point is that it isn't subtle - bend the knee to
| Trump and you'll be taken care of, is the message. We
| operate just like Russia at this point.
|
| Also, expect to see that Facebook is partnering with
| TikTok on Monday morning. The head of the bill banning
| TikTok just invested 100 million in Meta... so I imagine
| there will be a followup announcement how Trump brokered
| some deal to Americanize TikTok or something.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| I got an internal ad on Facebook telling me to connect my
| TikTok account the other day.
|
| https://imgur.com/a/yCOpifC
| threecheese wrote:
| We've also started seeing TT ads on Reels, and a brand
| new blue-checked Facebook account appeared on TT
| yesterday and rapidly gained 100Ks of followers.
| pizza wrote:
| > Also, expect to see that Facebook is partnering with
| TikTok on Monday morning. The head of the bill banning
| TikTok just invested 100 million in Meta... so I imagine
| there will be a followup announcement how Trump brokered
| some deal to Americanize TikTok or something.
|
| Wait, if this is truly what this outcome was about, this
| seems.. huge? Can you share more information about that?
| throwawayq3423 wrote:
| I'm old enough to remember when selling out the American
| people to the CCP would have been a career ending
| scandal.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Selling them out to the Iranians? Pardoned and the person
| involved got a job on Fox News (Oliver North).
|
| Selling them out to the Russians? Well, it worked fine
| last time, a bunch of minor figures went to jail, but the
| boss remained untouched.
|
| So why not sell out to the Chinese? Remember, it's only
| illegal when a Democrat does it.
| 1659447091 wrote:
| > Also, expect to see that Facebook is partnering with
| TikTok on Monday morning. The head of the bill banning
| TikTok just invested 100 million in Meta... so I imagine
| there will be a followup announcement how Trump brokered
| some deal to Americanize TikTok or something.
|
| Well, that makes this interesting. The bill also allowed
| a 90-day extension if they found a buyer and were in the
| process of finalizing it.
|
| This may put this cringe ByteDance stunt and Meta/Zuck's
| pandering to Trump into more perspective. The Hero coming
| to save the day with a magical 90-day extension. As long
| as everyone plays their scripted part. On the other hand,
| it's probably just a funny timed coincidence that will
| pass in 3 months
|
| [added] The president would have to approve any sale of
| apps caught in this law
| mquander wrote:
| It's possible for people who aren't currently the
| president to do things.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| "Be President while the other guy still is" is not one of
| them.
| wat10000 wrote:
| There isn't enough time for the current President to
| enforce this. A convincing pledge from the incoming guy
| that he'll allow them to continue operating is all it
| would take. How you get a convincing pledge out of this
| guy, I have no idea, but apparently they believe it.
| Applejinx wrote:
| He's also telling them to buy a shitcoin. It's all very
| well believing he magically saved TikTok, but I think
| there's a lot that will be real hard to swallow. The
| cycles between FA and FO are getting really, really
| quick...
| deadbabe wrote:
| it turns out that sometimes what you find out is that
| nothing happens after you've fucked around.
| wat10000 wrote:
| And sometimes it's the rest of us who get to find out.
| anon7000 wrote:
| The current president already said he didn't intend to
| enforce the ban anyways.
| wat10000 wrote:
| That doesn't mean much when he's about to go.
| latency-guy2 wrote:
| TikTok operated in a way that did not need to happen.
| Biden's administration was explicit in that the
| enforcement of the ban were to be performed by the Trump
| administration. Trump signaled that he would sign an EO
| allowing a 90 day extension to the ban terms on Monday.
| TikTok are now operating based on this information.
|
| Who is currently in charge of the oval office is an
| irrelevant quality.
|
| Note that the ban was not really on TikTok, but the
| ownership. TikTok could be owned by many other parties in
| the world. It just can't be ByteDance or
| parent/subsidiary which has ties to China.
| root_axis wrote:
| > _Trump signaled that he would sign an EO allowing a 90
| day extension to the ban terms on Monday_
|
| How does that work? If congress passed a law banning
| TikTok how can the president just override it for 3
| months? What's to stop him from overriding it for the
| next 4 years?
| ruraljuror wrote:
| But that is essentially what is happening. There is long-
| standing convention for the president elect to not step
| on the sitting president's toes prior to inauguration,
| but Trump has been bucking that convention this time
| around. This is just an impossible to ignore example.
| GeneralMayhem wrote:
| Okay, fine, let's play this game.
|
| What did Trump do to get TikTok back online?
| coliveira wrote:
| It is very clear that it is Trump doing the negotiations
| around TikTok. The current administration is at this
| point powerless.
| moralestapia wrote:
| No idea and we might never know, but, do you think
| ByteDance would just lie about it?
| Maxatar wrote:
| He agreed to extend to TikTok an executive order that
| grants it a 90 day extension, as the law explicitly
| allows the President to do.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| Doesn't the law explicitly require TikTok to have a
| convincing deal in place, and to be able to show proof of
| that to Congress, before such an extension can be
| granted?
|
| At 17:05 in this video (and I believe discussed once
| elsewhere but I can't find it/don't want to rewatch it):
| https://youtu.be/pZkoV5UnPvw
| palata wrote:
| > as the law explicitly allows the President to do.
|
| I think this is debated, which is why Apple and Google
| may not bring back TikTok to the stores... at least
| that's what I read.
| Karrot_Kream wrote:
| Trump agreed to use a provision in the bill to offer a
| one-time 90 day extension on enforcement:
| https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-
| bill/7521...
| GeneralMayhem wrote:
| Yeah... there's no such provision. The only mentions of
| the president in that bill are:
|
| 1. In the definition of a "covered company". The bill
| itself already saus that TikTok is covered; this is only
| a provision to add _other_ companies to the list.
|
| 2. In determining what qualifies as "divestiture" to have
| the ban lifted. That's described as happening when -
|
| > the President determines, through an interagency
| process...
|
| "TikTok wrote me a big check and said nice things about
| me" isn't an interagency process.
|
| Moreover, just in case we've forgotten, *Donald Trump is
| not currently the president.* He has literally zero power
| until tomorrow afternoon. He can't grant pardons, he
| can't lift law enforcement decisions, and he can't write
| executive orders. The _promise_ of an executive order,
| _even if such an order would be lawful tomorrow_ (which I
| can 't understand how it would be), is not a legal
| document that can make something legal today.
| Karrot_Kream wrote:
| Since you ignored the passage I linked, let me qute it
| for you and the surrounding context if it helps you learn
| to read:
|
| (a) Right of action.--A petition for review challenging
| this Act or any action, finding, or determination under
| this Act may be filed only in the United States Court of
| Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
|
| (b) Exclusive jurisdiction.--The United States Court of
| Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have
| exclusive jurisdiction over any challenge to this Act or
| any action, finding, or determination under this Act.
|
| (c) Statute of limitations.--A challenge may only be
| brought--
|
| (1) in the case of a challenge to this Act, not later
| than 165 days after the date of the enactment of this
| Act; and
|
| (2) in the case of a challenge to any action, finding, or
| determination under this Act, not later than 90 days
| after the date of such action, finding, or determination.
|
| ^ That is where the 90 day stipulation came from.
|
| ===
|
| > Moreover, just in case we've forgotten, *Donald Trump
| is not currently the president.
|
| Right okay, what does one do with that information? It's
| common practice for Presidents to collaborate with their
| successors during the handoff period. Both the Biden and
| the incoming Trump administrations collaborated on the
| Gaza ceasefire, as way to help gradually transition
| power.
| flanked-evergl wrote:
| Bro is upset about Trump using a clause in a law, but has
| no problem with Biden and Kahmahlah declaring that
| something is part of the constitution based on absolutely
| nothing. Bro ... after what Biden and Kahmahlah did,
| there is no valid criticism that any Democrat can have of
| Trump. Anything short of abolishing the constitution, as
| Biden and Kahmahlah tried, is less bad than what Biden
| and Kahmahlah did.
| sethammons wrote:
| I missed that one: how did Biden snd Harris try to
| abolish the constitution?
| flanked-evergl wrote:
| https://www.npr.org/2025/01/17/nx-s1-5264378/biden-era-
| natio...
|
| > Biden says the Equal Rights Amendment is law. What
| happens next is unclear
|
| > In response to an NPR question about whether the
| archivist would take any new actions, the National
| Archives communications staff pointed to a December
| statement saying that the ERA "cannot be certified as
| part of the Constitution due to established legal,
| judicial, and procedural decisions."
| gnz11 wrote:
| That has literally nothing to do with attempting to
| abolish the US Constitution.
| flanked-evergl wrote:
| If a president can decree amendments, the Constitution
| means nothing. If you can break the constitution to
| change it, as Biden attempted, then how do you have a
| constitution?
| gnz11 wrote:
| I'm not sure what to say other than that you have a
| bizarre interpretation of the article. I mean in no way,
| shape or form is Biden trying to abolish the US
| Constitution.
| flanked-evergl wrote:
| The US Constitution does not allow the president to
| decree new constitutional amendments.
| sethammons wrote:
| paste your article into chatgpt and tell it your
| thoughts. I've very curious if you can convince it you
| have a valid point. More so, you may come out more
| educated and everyone wins
| myvoiceismypass wrote:
| The ERA was introduced in 1923 and passed by Congress in
| 1972.
| flanked-evergl wrote:
| If the ERA was dully ratified, then it would not need
| Biden to decree it law. If Biden can decree an amendment
| to the constitution as law, then the constitution has no
| meaning.
| fmbb wrote:
| It has been ratified though.
|
| Biden is just pointing that out, no?
| myvoiceismypass wrote:
| Why did you misspell the VP's name 3 times like that? It
| kinda makes your entire message seem very unserious.
|
| Now, how exactly did the outgoing administration "try to
| abolish the constitution"?
| sethammons wrote:
| > He has literally zero power until tomorrow afternoon
|
| For very weak definitions of power. Zuck didn't wait to
| bend a knee until the inauguration. Because power.
| throwawayq3423 wrote:
| I don't know but TikTok itself said it was because of
| him.
| tw04 wrote:
| It's actually illegal for people who aren't currently the
| president to negotiate as if they were.
| afiori wrote:
| Declaring your intent to create an executive order the
| next day is not a negotiation
| throwawayq3423 wrote:
| He's bragged several times that he saved TikTok. Trump
| also said the Israeli peace deal wouldn't have happened
| with him, which is an admission of breaking the law that
| states you cannot act as president without being
| president.
|
| But Trump already knows he is above the law, so none of
| this matters.
| immibis wrote:
| Israel already broke the peace deal btw, but as with a
| lot of Israel news, you'll be unlikely to see that
| reported on.
| myvoiceismypass wrote:
| That does not take away the fact that Trump was directly
| negotiating with Netanyahu before even won reelection.
| agumonkey wrote:
| I don't think I will be able to handle 5 more years of
| this without moving in a very remote place and limited
| information streams.
| throwaway173738 wrote:
| I'm going to go found a place I'll call Galt's Gulch for
| maximum irony.
| arp242 wrote:
| I'd pay good money for a newspaper that would go out of
| its way to avoid mentioning Trump, Musk, and all these
| other highly exasperating people, unless it's completely
| unavoidable (e.g. "Trump declares war on California").
| somenameforme wrote:
| If you mean because they used the term " _President_
| Trump ", that honorific is for life. See, for instance,
| the recent passing of President Carter for a million
| examples. If you mean because he couldn't have executed
| legal actions yet - he could have offered private and
| legally binding statements to all the major players -
| Oracle, Apple, and Google.
| magicalist wrote:
| > _he could have offered private and legally binding
| statements_
|
| No, he couldn't? It's not even clear he'll be able to do
| anything with an executive order when he is sworn in, but
| President elects certainly can't.
| somenameforme wrote:
| I don't know why you think he couldn't. A legally binding
| statement of intent to offer TikTok the 90-day window and
| work out a "deal" once in office would be more than
| sufficient justification for the heads of the various
| companies involved to ease enforcement until things
| become more resolved.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _A legally binding statement of intent to offer TikTok
| the 90-day window and work out a "deal" once in office_
|
| Would not be legally binding. The President cannot
| unilaterally bind the U.S., and he is free to make and
| break statements of intent.
| anon7000 wrote:
| Presidents are allowed to offer legally binding political
| favors in private?
| somenameforme wrote:
| Calling it a political favor is quite silly. He stated he
| was likely overturn it for months now, but the public
| indirect phrasing was probably not sufficient for the
| involved actors to feel was sufficient to act on, a
| private statement of definitive intent would be.
| spacecadet wrote:
| Oh maybe the very clear messaging in the app and by the
| inbound administration, who is heavily supported by tech
| elites. The same people who have been very open about their
| feelings towards opposition and who and what they support.
| No one will come out and claim this was the case, but its
| not like they are trying to hide it either.
| mihaaly wrote:
| Do you need to eat shit to know it is shit?
|
| Isn't it enough to see, smell, you have to touch and eat it
| repeatedly so you can conclude: yes, this is shit. You are
| now expert in shit eating and the professional opinion is
| that this is really shit, no mistake is made here!?
| kec wrote:
| If that's the case this was totally bungled, the app was down
| for less than 12 hours, overnight during a weekend. If they
| wanted maximum effect Trump wouldn't have tweeted until 5pm
| eastern to give people a chance to come to terms with the
| shutdown actually happening.
| jvm___ wrote:
| They want to be able to livestream the inauguration
| tomorrow on Tiktok.
| kec wrote:
| Sure, but TikTok coming back online around this time
| would have also allowed for that & been more effective
| propaganda for Trump as savior of the app.
| wumeow wrote:
| It gave people all of Sunday to react to the shutdown on
| TikTok ahead of Monday where the focus will be the
| inauguration.
| ajdude wrote:
| They shut down long enough to get attention but not long
| enough for people to find another platform
| mr_toad wrote:
| > If actual negotiation had to occur, it would not have
| happened in the twelve hours
|
| A spur of the moment decision would be more like Trump than a
| lengthy negotiation.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| He who can destroy a thing controls that thing. Expect the new
| administration to have great influence on tiktok policy and
| content.
| Grimblewald wrote:
| Already do and users are noticing. Ads have been introduce in
| a really obnixious facebook/instagram style and contebt
| moderation is more facebook/instagrem esq as well. It would
| surprise no one on the platform if meta has already aquired
| it, and it just needs to be announced.
| nico wrote:
| > a company "shut themselves down" to make a big political
| statement
|
| They were following the law. Anything else is just promises by
| people who are not exactly known for following through with
| them
|
| Shutting down because the law says it, and to prevent really
| big penalties, is not making "a big political statement
| aaronharnly wrote:
| The law did not require them to suspend the service.
| space_fountain wrote:
| The law requires Oracle who hosts their data companies that
| provide cdn services to stop working with them. The law did
| require them to suspend service, but not quite as soon as
| they did and nothing had changed legally
| margalabargala wrote:
| The law required them to choose from among several options,
| one of which was suspending the service. The law did not
| permit maintaining the status quo as an option.
| kelnos wrote:
| No, it does not at all require ByteDance to suspend
| service.
|
| It requires Apple and Google to stop distributing the app
| on their app stores, and it requires any US-based hosting
| providers that host TikTok services to stop providing
| those services.
|
| ByteDance could shut down any US-hosted services and
| serve from outside the US, and be entirely compliant with
| the law. The TikTok mobile app might become out of date
| and stop working (for people who already had it installed
| on their phones), but www.tiktok.com would continue to
| work just fine.
| modo_mario wrote:
| >and it requires any US-based hosting providers that host
| TikTok services to stop providing those services.
|
| And they were forced to use those hosting providers
| (oracle) by the US. It's not like investing loads to
| bring all the data over to singapore or so would serve
| them well either. They'd still lose the US business
| relatively quickly and with lower chances of turning
| things around like they might've. Why bother?
| margalabargala wrote:
| What do you mean, "no"? You agreed with me.
|
| The option you describe is another among the several
| options available.
|
| Unless you're saying that the service shutdown would not
| have brought Bytedance into legal compliance, which would
| be a novel assertion.
| space_fountain wrote:
| They shut down before the law required them to (by a few
| hours), and now they're back despite no changes in law or
| action by the president. Biden had already issued an
| executive order, nothing changed
| glenstein wrote:
| That would be my question also. You can't explain the
| shutdown as following the law if the law didn't change
| between the time of the shutdown and coming back on. It
| seems to me like the more accurate assessment here is an
| anticipation of policy changes, which however fruitful do
| not reflect any change in law, but perhaps some change in
| the degree of reassurance that the law won't be enforced.
|
| If it's not that, it may well be as the original commenter
| in this thread suggested a stunt to make a point.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| They shut down and reopened without any changes to the law.
| They are open now, despite the law being in effect.
| extheat wrote:
| They reopened with formal understanding that there will be
| an executive order tomorrow to suspend the enforcement of
| the ban. That is a big deal and it's something that they
| can point to to defend themselves in court should that
| happen. When President Biden signed the bill, it gave him
| the ability to extend the deadline by an amount which he
| declined to do (beyond saying "I'll let Trump admin deal
| with it"); and soon-to-be President Trump is saying he will
| do it tomorrow.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| I'm pretty certain an executive order cannot overrule a
| law. So they're just hoping to either get an actual
| reversal of the law while Trump is in term or just hoping
| nobody after him will care.
|
| It's like betting on jury nullification but without the
| benefit of double jeopardy protection. It's unclear if
| any of the US companies the law is aimed at will risk it.
| kelnos wrote:
| An executive order can't overrule a law, but it can
| direct the DoJ not to enforce a particular law.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| Which would be an EO counter the constitution and
| obviously not durable itself. In 4 years the next DOJ can
| just enforce the law on the books with 4 years of
| evidence of companies openly breaking it. It'd be a slam
| dunk case
| anon7000 wrote:
| The law allows the president to grant a one time 90 day
| extension. (In this specific case)
| kllrnohj wrote:
| Trump isn't president and the ban went into effect before
| he was. There's no legal extension possible anymore under
| this specific case.
| paulddraper wrote:
| > formal understanding
|
| I think you mean "campaign promise."
|
| No legally significant action has been taken between now
| and yesterday.
| somenameforme wrote:
| Are you privy to the private discussions between Trump
| and the heads of TikTok, Apple, Google, and Oracle? Or
| are you simply assuming there have been no such private
| discussions?
| comp_throw7 wrote:
| Trump isn't president yet, so any such conversations are
| not legally significant actions the way the person you're
| responding to meant.
| somenameforme wrote:
| Not actions, but legally binding statements of intent. If
| Trump offered a binding statement to the heads of all
| major players that he intends to offer TikTok the 90-day
| window and work out a "deal" once in office would be more
| than sufficient justification for these companies to ease
| enforcement until things become more resolved.
| comp_throw7 wrote:
| There is no mechanism by which Trump can offer a
| statement of intent that legally binds him to following
| that specific course of action after he becomes
| president.
| kelnos wrote:
| That's not how the law works, though. Let's say Trump
| goes back on his word and doesn't sign this executive
| order, and then ByteDance (etc.) get into legal trouble.
| If they can convince a judge/jury that they had a strong
| reason to believe that they'd be acting within the law as
| they believe it would have been executed by the incoming
| Trump administration, that could be a persuasive defense.
|
| That doesn't mean TikTok would be able to continue
| operating, but it could mean the parties involved
| wouldn't have to suffer penalties for their operation up
| to that point (past the ban date). But maybe it wouldn't
| work, and a judge/jury would throw the book at them. We
| just don't know until and unless it goes to court.
| somenameforme wrote:
| I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to argue?
| Obviously you understand that that if you create a
| contract stating that you agree to do [x] in the future,
| then you are indeed legally bound to that agreement.
|
| If you're arguing that qualified immunity would enable
| Trump to break the contract if he so chose without
| consequence, then that is probably true, but I see no
| reason that would imperil the companies having a rock
| solid defense against enforcement penalties in the
| interim period.
| anon7000 wrote:
| In what universe does this apply to the president? If the
| president promises a company to do X, it's not a
| contract. I'm not even sure the president is allowed to
| make a contract with a private entity to give them a
| political favor.
| somenameforme wrote:
| There is no law or precedent to prohibit someone from
| engaging in contracts because of holding public office.
| In fact there is even an ongoing movement to try to get
| more politicians to do exactly this so that campaign
| promises would be more likely to be executed. Again
| qualified immunity would probably make these contracts
| impossible to enforce _against_ a politician, but in this
| case the agreement would work as a defense if for some
| reason Oracle et al faced legal threats or fines for
| continuing to work with TikTok.
| Kubuxu wrote:
| You can create contract, but contracts require
| consideration, and I don't see how you do consideration
| in a case like this without it being a bribery.
| somenameforme wrote:
| Trump => Agrees to avoid interim enforcement against
| companies facilitating the operation of TikTok + legally
| clarify matters when he gets into office.
|
| Companies => Agree to temporarily facilitate the
| operation of TikTok until matters are further clarified.
|
| I don't see anything particularly controversial here.
| Retric wrote:
| It's federal law, and the president can offer a pardon
| allowing anyone to ignore federal law for as long as they
| remain in office.
|
| The courts on the other hand can permanently block laws.
| cyanydeez wrote:
| Also, the technical bit serms entirely on app
| distributors.
|
| This is the internet.
| mr_00ff00 wrote:
| This feels like a stretch, I don't think it's a pardon
| they are after. Pardons don't really work like that.
|
| TikTok I think was going for more of a shock factor.
| Maybe even without talking to Trump they have credited
| him as restoring it, might seem weird for him to "go back
| on it".
|
| Or maybe it's to put him in good light.
| Sparyjerry wrote:
| Trump issued a statement saying that he would issue an
| executive order after he became president that
| retroactively would dismiss any fines which satisfied
| both TikTok and the app hosting providers (Apple,
| Google).
| psyklic wrote:
| The President can offer pardons for criminal matters.
| However, he is required to uphold laws passed by
| Congress, particularly bipartisan ones affirmed by the
| Supreme Court.
|
| For example, why would the President have a veto power if
| he can simply post-facto ignore laws they pass?
| davidcbc wrote:
| He's only accountable to Congress (SCOTUS also affirmed
| that) and good fucking luck ever getting the required
| votes to remove him from office. He can do whatever he
| wants with impunity.
| paulddraper wrote:
| > He's only accountable to Congress (SCOTUS also affirmed
| that)
|
| No, SCOTUS ruled that the President is not subject to
| criminal prosecution.
|
| ---
|
| On many, many occasions, the courts have ruled executive
| actions invalid.
|
| On no occasion, have courts assigned criminal liability
| to a President.
|
| SCOTUS explicitly affirmed that as the rule.
| davidcbc wrote:
| I'm sure the SCOTUS that said "your crimes are legal"
| will stand up to him now
| roenxi wrote:
| SCOTUS pointed out that they weren't crimes committed by
| Trump. We then saw the political prosecutions of Trump
| backfire spectacularly in a way that strongly suggests
| that the balance of the US population agreed with the
| SCOTUS call that the prosecutors didn't have a case that
| Trump had to answer for.
| paulddraper wrote:
| IDK.
|
| My comment was just re "SCOTUS also affirmed that"
| rayiner wrote:
| It obviously irrelevant whether the law was bipartisan or
| not, and the Supreme Court never "affirmed" the law--it
| denied a preliminary injunction.
|
| As to upholding laws passed by Congress--just two days
| ago, Biden did his last round of student debt
| forgiveness, bringing the total up to $188 billion.
|
| I'm not trying to "both sides" this. I'm just saying that
| the standard you've articulated for how promptly the
| president needs to act on a law like this isn't the
| standard we apply in practice. The government tries to
| reach deals like this in lieu of enforcement actions all
| the time.
| derektank wrote:
| You're not wrong but the only real recourse for an
| executive that fails to uphold the laws created by
| Congress is an impeachment in the House and conviction in
| the Senate.
| missingcolours wrote:
| Theoretically that's true but in practice there is ample
| precedent for Presidents refusing to enforce specific
| laws. In one instance (DACA) the Supreme Court ordered a
| President to continue a previous President's official
| policy of not enforcing certain laws against certain
| people!
| Retric wrote:
| Don't confuse the oath of office for a binding agreement.
| The president is supposed to uphold the law, but they are
| only held accountable by impeachment.
|
| They even have broad immunity while conducting official
| acts up to and including breaking the law. https://en.wik
| ipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States_(2024)
|
| "Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024), is a
| landmark decision[1][2] of the Supreme Court of the
| United States in which the Court determined that
| presidential immunity from criminal prosecution
| presumptively extends to all of a president's "official
| acts" - with absolute immunity for official acts within
| an exclusive presidential authority that Congress cannot
| regulate[1][2] such as the pardon, command of the
| military, _execution of laws,_ or control of the
| executive branch."
| somenameforme wrote:
| The entire system is built on checks and balances. For
| instance even a simple district attorney can choose to
| effectively nullify laws within his jurisdiction by not
| prosecuting violations - something that has regularly
| happened in contemporary times. Even the final check -
| the lone juror - can also nullify laws by similarly
| choosing to acquit alleged violations regardless of the
| evidence.
|
| You could obviously create a far more functional system
| but it would probably be far less stable. The reason you
| have all these checks and balances, from top to bottom,
| is that the Founding Fathers were obsessed about the
| risks imposed by both a tyranny of the majority and a
| tyranny of the minority. And non-enforcement of something
| effectively comes down just a continuation of the status
| quo, making it difficult for any group to [openly at
| least] impose their will on others.
| singron wrote:
| That's actually one of the reasons the president has a
| veto. If the president doesn't want the law to pass, then
| there isn't much point in passing it unless Congress
| makes a show of force with the 2/3rds majority, which is
| also the majority needed to remove him from office.
|
| Similarly, one of the reasons the president has a pardon
| power is because he doesn't have to enforce those federal
| offenses. E.g. imagine that a president without pardon
| power instead offers "plea deals"/settlements for a $1
| fine or concocts vacuously lenient house arrest
| enforcement.
|
| The original constitution basically accepts that there is
| very little you can make a president do, and it instead
| formalizes what would otherwise be a gray area (it does
| have plenty about what he can't do). Some of this has
| changed over time especially as the judicial branch has
| granted itself more power.
| rayiner wrote:
| There's a bit of a "live by the sword, die by the sword"
| situation going on here.
|
| Presidents can't just ignore a law categorically
| (although they regularly do, e.g. DACA, DOMA, etc.) On
| the other hand, presidents can certainly decide not to
| prosecute a particular entity under a particular law.
| That's the heart of the executive power versus the
| legislative power.
|
| Here, Congress wrote an extremely specific law that
| applies basically to one company. Which isn't
| impermissible. But it's also not clear to me that
| Congress can insist on immediate enforcement of that law
| without crossing effectively usurping the executive power
| and directing the President to prosecute a specific
| company at a specific time.
| lupire wrote:
| Technically, the President + Executive can do whatever
| they want, including prosecute parts the Executive!),
| until the President is either impeached or replaced by
| election or incapacitation.
| rayiner wrote:
| Technically yes. But what I mean is that, even in terms
| of the spirit of the law, the situation is a bit murky,
| because Congress effectively wrote a law that requires
| the executive to prosecute a specific company on a
| specific deadline.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| > the president can offer a pardon allowing anyone to
| ignore federal law for as long as they remain in office.
|
| no, the president can pardon individuals convicted of a
| criminal law, which is not at all what you describe here
| Retric wrote:
| Most famously Richard Nixon received a pardon by Ford
| immediately after his resignation but before any
| prosecution. Also, it's any federal law, the exception is
| impeachment and nothing else.
|
| So, pardons can very much apply before conviction or even
| prosecution. They may not pardon someone for something
| that hasn't happened, but as long as there in office when
| the crime is committed that's more a technical issue.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States
|
| _After President Gerald Ford left the White House in
| 1977, close friends said that the President privately
| justified his pardon of Richard Nixon by carrying in his
| wallet a portion of the text of the Burdick decision,
| which stated that a pardon carries an imputation of guilt
| and that acceptance carries a confession of guilt.[6]
| Ford made reference to the Burdick decision in his post-
| pardon written statement furnished to the Judiciary
| Committee of the United States House of Representatives
| on October 17, 1974.[7] However, the reference related
| only to the portion of Burdick that supported the
| proposition that the Constitution does not limit the
| pardon power to cases of convicted offenders or even
| indicted offenders.[7][8]_
| chrisco255 wrote:
| > pardons can very much apply before conviction or even
| prosecution
|
| Is this really the case? Has this specific situation ever
| been ruled on by the Supreme Court? Burdick v. U.S.
| doesn't address "pre-pardons" or blanket pardons. Nixon
| was never prosecuted or tried.
| Retric wrote:
| The specific situation applied in Burdick.
|
| The court ruled they could reject a pardon given before
| prosecution thus avoiding the need to testify about
| someone else. It would be a moot point if the pardon was
| invalid.
| lupire wrote:
| To be clear "they" (who can reject a person) is the
| recipient of the pardon, not the court.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States
|
| But that's not the relevant part of Burdock for this
| thread.
|
| The relevant part is that an (accepted!) pardon does
| apply before indictment.
| vharuck wrote:
| Presidents can pardon classes of people. Carter pardoned
| all people guilty of evading the draft during the Vietnam
| War. So Trump could pardon everyone involved in certain
| companies or involved in a specific act.
| TeaBrain wrote:
| The law didn't require them to shut the service off for those
| who already had the app installed. It just prevented new
| updates or downloads. Shutting off the app immediately was
| just theater and reinstating the app with no changes to the
| law is just the second act.
| honorious wrote:
| The law says that US cloud providers are fined if they
| continued to provide services to Bytedance.
|
| As far as we know, Tiktok is operated on US servers by
| Oracle. While it might have been possible to find another
| cloud provider and move all US data there, I can see them
| not wanting to do that given that there was no point if the
| app isn't distributed in the US anymore.
| TeaBrain wrote:
| There's currently no evidence pointing towards Oracle
| shutting down cloud service to them though. TikTok
| appears to have just preemptively shut down the app
| before they were obligated to, complete with dramatic
| messages telling users what to blame and who to thank.
| dmix wrote:
| Even without following the letter of the law it's
| entirely rational behaviour for a popular market leader
| to foment outrage by fully blacking out services. 150
| million users (in the US alone) is a very powerful
| political influence. Politicians frequently fold for a
| few thousand vocal people complaining on the internet.
|
| It was a gambit used for net neutrality in 2014
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Slowdown_Day
| nightpool wrote:
| Of course it's rational behavior. Nico was the one
| claiming that they were just "following the law", that's
| what this subthread was about. If you agree that TikTok
| was making a political point by shutting down, then you
| agree with the person you're replying to.
| dmix wrote:
| Not everything on the internet has to be a binary
| argument.
| paulddraper wrote:
| Sure that may be smart to forward interest.
|
| Nico argued TikTok made the minimum change required by
| law.
| nthingtohide wrote:
| Such compromises happen between companies as well when a
| particular app is popular. Facebook and Uber accessing
| private java apis which meant Google couldn't change the
| internals as these apps are popular.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| I'm not sure this is correct. I see where you're coming
| from, but there was a clear date that the law was going
| to be enacted by, and tiktok simply followed that date.
| Pretty much everybody expected tiktok to be required to
| shut down. The law is clear that there are penalties for
| tiktok continuing to operate past that date, so it's not
| really surprising.
|
| They were telling users who to blame and who to thank
| because in this specific case, the blame and the thank
| are pretty clear. The Biden administration approved the
| ban, and the Trump administration reversed it. Blaming
| one and thanking the other is also hardly surprising.
| TeaBrain wrote:
| There's no evidence that they were obligated to shut off
| the app immediately at the time the law was enacted.
| javierluraschi wrote:
| https://www.reuters.com/technology/oracle-prepares-start-
| shu...
| TeaBrain wrote:
| Which is curious if the sourcing by The Information is
| legitimate, considering that the FTC hasn't yet begun
| enforcement.
| javierluraschi wrote:
| If your cloud provider tells you they are shutting you
| down on date X, you want to fight as hard as you can
| until X and then shutdown gracefully to have a chance to
| explain to your users why your system is going down. If
| you wait until you get shutdown, you have no way of
| pushing a graceful shutdown anymore.
| TeaBrain wrote:
| I'm saying that it is curious that Oracle would be acting
| before the FTC began enforcement, if this sourcing is
| actually accurate.
| hattmall wrote:
| Oracle has no interest in running afoul of the US
| government at all. Their internal culture in many ways
| views them like that of a quasi-government institute. So
| in thus case they probably are feeling responsible to
| actually be the ones enforcing the law.
| mullingitover wrote:
| I imagine shutting down ByteDance is not like flipping a
| switch. They have a mountain of infrastructure and
| "shutting down" could mean nuking the data or otherwise
| getting it out of their cloud entirely. If it has to be
| done by a certain date you'd need to start nuking things
| well in advance to be absolutely certain you're in
| compliance by the deadline. I'm surprised the shutdown
| happened as late as it did if this wasn't a completely
| staged crisis.
| echoangle wrote:
| That's a trivial problem to solve though. Just push an
| update to the app that shows the ,,we were banned"
| message if a specific API endpoint isn't reachable
| anymore (and general internet connectivity is still there
| of course). Then you can operate as normal until your
| servers are forcefully shut down.
| vlovich123 wrote:
| Help me understand then if they're following the letter
| of the law what changed with the law between the shutoff
| and now?
| roenxi wrote:
| Well, "the law" is a shorthand for "how the police
| behave" and there is a certain amount of realpolitik
| here. The basic argument here would be that the US
| Congress made a scary growling sound and TikTok folded
| immediately because the Congress is terrifying. But then
| Trump made more of a friendly sound and so they think
| they can operate a bit longer with some level of safety.
|
| There is no question that TikTok is a politically
| sensitive app and the US/China are very nearly in the
| funnel to a major war so a lot of the usual niceties are
| questionable. Previously the US has attempted something
| that looked a lot like a black-bag kidnapping of a
| Chinese industrialist [0]. I'd imagine that the TikTok
| people are acutely sensitive towards how the law is
| actually going to be interpreted and enforced in
| practice.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meng_Wanzhou
| vlovich123 wrote:
| This is basically the same tactic to the SOPA/PIPA
| protests [1]. I don't know why people are bending over
| backwards to pretend it was something other than a
| political stunt. Also, Trump's rhetoric has remained
| unchanged since well before this - a 90 day extension.
| They wanted to flex their muscle to show the US political
| establishment how many US users there were and how much
| sway they had to give them more leverage in their
| negotiations. That's about it.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_a
| nd_PIPA...
| wsatb wrote:
| The timeline doesn't add up.
|
| Jan 17: Biden administration says it will leave TikTok
| ban enforcement for Trump [1]
|
| Early Jan 18: Trump says he will 'most likely' give
| TikTok a 90-day extension to avoid a ban [2]
|
| Late Jan 18: TikTok makes app unavailable for U.S. users
| ahead of ban [3]
|
| Midday Jan 19: TikTok begins restoring service for U.S.
| users after Trump comments [4]
|
| They already knew what was going to happen. They also
| changed the message shortly after disabling it from
| "We're working to restore service in the U.S. as soon as
| possible, and we appreciate your support. Please stay
| tuned." to "We are fortunate that President Trump has
| indicated he will work with us on a solution to reinstate
| TikTok once he takes office. Stay tuned!" [5]
|
| [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/biden-
| administrat...
|
| [2] https://nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-
| likely-give-...
|
| [3] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/tiktok-makes-
| app-unav...
|
| [4] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/tiktok-says-
| restoring...
|
| [5] https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/tiktok-sends-notice-
| to-users...
| supriyo-biswas wrote:
| I believe Tiktok shut down the app in India in the same
| way without being "obligated to" either before the order
| came into effect, albeit without the dramatic messaging.
|
| (The latter part is probably because Tiktok's banning was
| not particulaly divisive within the population as it is
| in the US.)
| creato wrote:
| The dramatic messaging was entirely the point. India
| probably did not have an easily exploitable target for
| such a message, so there was no point in trying that
| there.
| murukesh_s wrote:
| I don't know exact figures, but when Tiktok was banned,
| Instagram was really popular - due to being pushed by
| Facebook, which was really really popular in India by
| then. None of my friends were on Tiktok, but all where
| there on Instagram. The reels thing was not popular but
| Facebook linked the account automatically and you just
| keep adding Facebook friends there as well.
|
| Tiktok had a better algorithm (to get hooked) but
| Instagram eventually caught up (with algo)..
| russli1993 wrote:
| Oracle did shut them down last night, if Google and Apple
| have to drop their apps on the apps store, Oracle and
| other providers have to drop them too. Btw, the app won't
| function even if parts of the infra is down. Btw,
| business is risk averse, they don't want to give any
| excuses for government to fine them. Bytedance should
| definitely shutdown everything and blocked all US users
| unless they have explicit, written and legally bidding
| instructions from the Justice Department. Only an
| executive order is enough. They asked Biden to give that,
| but Biden just smirked
| somenameforme wrote:
| Oracle was shutting them down shortly after the clock
| struck midnight Sunday GMT. [1]
|
| [1] - https://www.reuters.com/technology/oracle-prepares-
| start-shu...
| WrongAssumption wrote:
| Yes there is.
|
| https://www.reuters.com/technology/oracle-prepares-start-
| shu...
| fmbb wrote:
| Is anyone but politicians to blame?
| nickelpro wrote:
| That's not true, _distributors_ of the app are fined.
| Meaning, very specifically, app stores.
|
| From (2)(a)(1):
|
| > (A) Providing services to distribute, maintain, or
| update such foreign adversary controlled application
| (including any source code of such application) by means
| of a marketplace (including an online mobile application
| store) through which users within the land or maritime
| borders of the United States may access, maintain, or
| update such application.
|
| >
|
| > (B) Providing internet hosting services to enable the
| distribution, maintenance, or updating of such foreign
| adversary controlled application for users within the
| land or maritime borders of the United States.
|
| Possession of and providing non-distribution ( /
| maintenance / update) services to a "Foreign Adversary
| Controlled Application" are not in any way a part of the
| "Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled
| Applications Act". Operative services are specifically
| and intentionally excluded from the list, to ease the
| burden of enforcement.
| scarab92 wrote:
| Are you saying serving content to the application would
| not count as maintenance?
| nickelpro wrote:
| Legally, no, it doesn't
| lupire wrote:
| Are you a DOJ lawyer or Federal judge?
|
| If not, what is your basis for your conclusion?
| thelock85 wrote:
| I don't use TikTok but the "down" page mentioned you can
| still login to download data. What's the cost and scope
| of providing that feature without US cloud providers?
| Brystephor wrote:
| Did they shut down at the last moment necessary or did they
| shut down during what is likely a peak browsing time in the
| U.S.? Did they need to include messaging about political
| figures to notify the user of the reason of the ban?
|
| I understand that there was this law. It's a political
| statement because of the political message being sent out to
| the user base. The act of shutting down on its own is not a
| political statement.
| Osiris wrote:
| But now they are breaking the law by turning it back on.
| LastTrain wrote:
| But bringing the service back again today is not following
| the law, is it? Trump hasn't taken office yet. Curious if
| you've now changed your mind.
| immibis wrote:
| Someone else pointed out that "the law" is shorthand for
| "how the police behave" and that has certainly changed
| because of VP Trump's statements.
| modriano wrote:
| A) Behavior and statements are different things. B) Biden
| also said he wouldn't enforce the ban (and also, it was
| the last day of his administration, so enforcement by
| Biden wasn't even possible)
|
| This was a political gift to Trump, as the messaging in
| TikTok's app makes perfectly clear.
| immibis wrote:
| Police behave how government leaders want them to.
| Government leaders changing their statements changes the
| actual behaviour of police.
| hbn wrote:
| It seems like striking fear into the hearts of users to make
| them realize a ban is really on the table is in their best
| interest. They want to not be banned, and giving everyone a
| 48 hour show of users on the platform counting down to the
| end, then being really upset when they think it's gone is a
| great demonstration that people want their Tiktok.
|
| * Trump gets a free layup to look like the hero for unbanning
| it
|
| * Trump will think hard and heavy in the future about banning
| it again, knowing there's a lot of passionate young people
| that will reconsider voting for him next election if he does
|
| Seems like a smart move to me.
| isk517 wrote:
| I like how it is just a given that he is just going to
| ignore term limits.
| acomms wrote:
| Nothing in the law changed since yesterday. This is only
| theatre.
| Aloisius wrote:
| Trump going soft on China was predictable.
| MangoCoffee wrote:
| Trump's biggest backers, Elon Musk, Jeff Yass...etc. all have
| ties with China.
| swat535 wrote:
| People need to understand that politicians (dare I say
| everywhere?..) are just business man with dressing. They
| simply put up a show for people to win the votes and once
| they get elected, do whatever they can to make an extra
| buck. Trump, a convicted felon is certainly no different..
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| Was it? Apart from Elon's dependence on China market for
| Tesla sales, I didn't think so. Trump has been talking a lot
| about going hard against adversaries. The TikTok ban is
| something he supported. And it's more popular on the right
| than left.
| 1a527dd5 wrote:
| > Has there been any other behavior like this in the past where
| a company "shut themselves down" to make a big political
| statement and then almost immediately undid the shut down?
|
| OnlyFans did something similar:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnlyFans#Restrictions_on_porno...
| SilasX wrote:
| That wasn't a political statement. Per your link, it was a
| belief that that could not continue the credit card payments
| while staying in compliance with the law.
| _heimdall wrote:
| Union strikes may fit that bill.
| derektank wrote:
| The SOPA and PIPA protests were basically that
| hot_gril wrote:
| Epic Games sorta did this to Fortnite, but the reversal wasn't
| quick
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| It's like real life is playing like a shitty TV series.
| Constant cliff hangers, plot twists that never resolve....
| bamboozled wrote:
| Agree, and the velocity is amazing, it's really hard to keep
| up with the shenanigans. In my opinion, it will have a
| negative impact on the economy, education, birth rates etc.
|
| Government should stay out of the way, and I don't want to
| hear about it every ten seconds, on the other hand, I don't
| want to have to read the news every five minutes to audit
| what they're doing.
| paulddraper wrote:
| > Has there been any other behavior like this in the past where
| a company "shut themselves down" to make a big political
| statement and then almost immediately undid the shut down?
|
| A number of internet services (e.g. Wikipedia) shut down
| temporarily on Jan 18, 2012 as a political statement against
| SOPA.
| chucknthem wrote:
| Uber has used this tactic many times in their early days. It
| mostly worked because citizens got used to cheap rides and got
| mad at their government for taking it away.
| stuckkeys wrote:
| moonshine stopped working also. I guess it was under the same
| parent org. They all back to working now.
| throwawayq3423 wrote:
| > Political things aside, it's crazy to see so much of a flip-
| flop so quickly
|
| Trump has never had any issue he has not been on both sides of.
| He has no ideology, he does what benefits him in the moment at
| any given moment.
| fundad wrote:
| According to the people I work with, all they care about is
| kids in cages. They value "tough talk" on immigration above
| anything else. Being influenced by Russia or China don't even
| register.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _it 's crazy to see so much of a flip-flop so quickly_
|
| I wish people would understand that Trump has no ideology. Over
| a span of decades, Trump has been critical of liberals and
| conservatives, often at the same time. He's praised
| conservatives and liberals, often at the same time. His
| political positions are aligned with whatever benefits him the
| most.
|
| He doesn't care about making life better for the middle class.
| He doesn't care if immigration restrictions are relaxed or
| tightened. He doesn't care about whether or not transgender
| people have access to health care or can or can't serve in the
| military. He only cares what positions on those issues will
| benefit him and his friends at any given time. And if tomorrow
| holding the opposite position will benefit him more, he'll
| switch, just like that, and somehow convince his base that's
| what _they_ believe too.
|
| Trump is the one who was championing the idea of a TikTok
| divestiture or ban, back when he was president the first time.
| He's only changed his mind on that because opposing the ban is
| better for him now.
| nostromo wrote:
| The goal was always to get TikTok divested of Chinese
| ownership, not to ban it.
|
| The ban was the stick and selling it for a lot of money was the
| carrot. ByteDance surprised almost everyone in choosing the
| stick.
| tw1984 wrote:
| > ByteDance surprised almost everyone in choosing the stick.
|
| shortly after Trump tried to force bytedance to sell its
| shares during his first term, the Chinese government passed
| laws to include the recommendation systems used in social
| media into the export control list. bytedance thus won't be
| able to sell tiktok without approval from the chinese
| government.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Does anyone have a citation for this? Probably higher
| quality if it's in Chinese even if I have to machine
| translate it. Because that would be a clear pointer of
| suspicion.
| tw1984 wrote:
| 2020 report by nyt, paywalled of coursed
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/technology/china-
| tiktok-e...
|
| the official export control list in Chinese
|
| https://www.most.gov.cn/tztg/202312/W02023122162085884139
| 4.p...
|
| it is on the 29th page, with export control number
| 086501X, item 18.
| pjc50 wrote:
| OK, that's pretty convincing. And it's interesting how
| much other stuff is in there like OCR for Hanzi!
| myko wrote:
| > The goal was always to get TikTok divested of Chinese
| ownership, not to ban it.
|
| Seems like the goal pivoted recently - the goal is to keep
| TikTok Chinese and have them supporting the corrupt regime
| taking over the US, similar to other foreign adversaries have
| in the past
| B-Con wrote:
| It had to have been a PR move.
|
| The Tik Tok in-app notes for "shutting down" and "we're back"
| both referenced Trump by name. I doubt they would do that
| without his explicit consent.
|
| Trump beamed his name and heroics directly into the eyeballs of
| 50m people before he even took office. That wouldn't have
| happened without the brief blip going dark.
|
| Odds are good he said he'd pardon them (which is a whole
| different story) but ensured they'd go dark for a few hours,
| either by withholding his guarantee or by directly coordinating
| it with them.
|
| This is Trump. It's always about him. If we haven't learned
| that we haven't learned anything.
| tw1984 wrote:
| like your conspiracy theory, lots of entertainments in it.
| nprateem wrote:
| Ha ha are you serious? Trump is a fragile-egoed narcissist.
|
| He's not even in power and already everyone's sucking up to
| him.
| flipbrad wrote:
| I dont think we know the actual range of motives for shutdown.
| Oracle may have forced it, for instance.
| palata wrote:
| > What's that saying? The best way to get a promotion is to
| cause a problem and then fix it?
|
| In Trump's world, I think you should cause a problem, blame
| somebody else, and then fix it.
| JoshTko wrote:
| Not exactly the same but ChatGPT's firing and rehiring of Sam
| Altman seems to be in the same vein
| HWR_14 wrote:
| In 2012 a coordinated action by 100,000 sites (including major
| platforms like Reddit, Wikipedia and Google) all went dark for
| 24 hours to protest SOPA, which was successful in killing the
| bill. Some only changed the color scheme and added a message
| but others shut down.
| tekknik wrote:
| > which was successful in killing the bill
|
| the protests had no bearing on the outcome of the bill. most
| of us didn't even know they were taking place.
| evolve2k wrote:
| Sorry what?! I was in Australia and even from here it was
| obvious it was happening. Maybe go back refresh your mind
| on old HN posts. Sorry not meaning to be rude but the
| digital protests of the day were very significant. Lots of
| media coverage and site blackouts and banners and average
| punters waking up to the interruption. Stacks was going on.
| You can even watch Internets Own Boy doco where it's
| covered.
| tekknik wrote:
| having lived through that period and relying on the
| internet to do my day job i didn't notice.
|
| also if you look at the history of the bill, there is no
| mention of public opinion at all. They shelved the bill
| due to lack of agreement.
| lolinder wrote:
| Well, speak for yourself, not "most of us". On 01/18/2012
| the HN front page was basically nothing but SOPA/PIPA
| content:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/front?day=2012-01-18
|
| As for your claim they had no effect, that's not what the
| sources from the time say--on the day of the protests 13
| senators announced their opposition, _including 5 former
| co-sponsors_ :
|
| https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/01/pipa-support-
| col...
|
| When you lose five co-sponsors in one day and that day
| happens to coincide with the internet shutting down, I
| don't find it very credible to try to claim that there
| was internal dissent all along.
| cableshaft wrote:
| I very much noticed. It was all over pretty much every
| major site. I'm surprised to hear of anyone online that
| day that didn't notice.
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| What am I missing.
|
| Trump as a private citizen, can't issue a statement and
| automatically over-turn a law.
|
| If someone wants to enforce the law, they still can. It's still
| on the books, and Supreme Court upheld it.
| hedora wrote:
| Heh; I thought you were talking about trump the first few times
| I read this.
|
| He appointed a bunch of corrupt Supreme Court judges, and they
| upheld an obviously unconstitutional law (bill of attainment).
| Now, on his first day in office, he gets to be a hero by
| unilaterally deciding not to enforce the law.
|
| So, moving forward, (1) we should expect increasingly unjust
| and draconian laws, and (2) as long as you do what Trump asks,
| you can break whatever federal laws you want.
|
| (Zukerberg, Bezos and Trump have already gotten in line for
| this.)
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _Political things aside, it 's crazy to see so much of a
| flip-flop so quickly._
|
| "Rep. Mike Waltz calls out the Biden campaign's TikTok account:
| 'They should be ashamed'":
|
| * https://www.foxnews.com/video/6346831867112
|
| Waltz chosen as Trump's national security advisor:
|
| * https://www.npr.org/2024/11/11/nx-s1-5187098/trump-
| national-...
|
| And currently "Trump security adviser doesn't rule out
| continued Chinese ownership of TikTok":
|
| * https://www.reuters.com/technology/trump-security-adviser-
| do...
|
| So -\\_(tsu)_/-
| spandrew wrote:
| 100% it's what happened. And the craziest part is that it
| worked because Biden went along with it. It's easy enough to
| argue Trump played hardball to negotiate for any divestiture
| that may occur; because that was his goal all along. The
| narrative/pundits can spin this easily in his favour.
|
| Either because they gave in to the ploy, or because they were
| unable to close a TikTok deal, the Democrats look incompetent
| here. And Trump gains favour in the younger demo (that he's
| already pretty strong in) _AND_ with SMB because he gave TikTok
| more time.
| dowager_dan99 wrote:
| oh - and his true audience all along: an American oligarch is
| about to get at least half of TikTok for a steal.
|
| Anyone doing graft, corruption or just questionable wealth
| accumulation in the millions or single billions is going to
| look like small ball for at least the next four years.
| spandrew wrote:
| Yeah it's just decent strategy on their part (I hate to
| say). Even if they don't profit directly off of the TikTok
| deal they look like absolute bosses for being able to
| "give" Americans what they wanted all along.
| ein0p wrote:
| Masterful PR move by Trump. Two ways to win, no way to lose: he
| gets control of the narrative there (if not TikTok itself, via
| one of his cronies), and he shows how totalitarian the
| "democrats" are.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| > and he shows how totalitarian the "democrats" are.
|
| and by that you are including the massive majority of
| republican legislators who also sit on intel committees also
| voted for it with resounding vigor?
| ein0p wrote:
| Yes, they too would like to show how totalitarian the
| "democrats" are. Jokes aside, the buck stops with the guy who
| signs the bill into law. Too bad the guy signing the bill
| didn't even understand what he was signing this time due to
| his profound dementia.
| Buttons840 wrote:
| The TikTok debate has always been about the balance between
| national security and free speech.
|
| We found a compromise. TikTok will remain, all of its national
| security risks will remain. Also, the law that tramples free
| speech is upheld by the court, but will be blantently ignored and
| unenforced.
|
| Everybody loses. This outcome is worse than anyone could have
| conceived.
| vasco wrote:
| Soldiers were already sharing videos of aircraft carriers on
| Rednote which hasn't gone through the whole shenanigans of
| paying Larry Ellison to host it on Oracle Cloud and so on. The
| national security risk is the US military apparently not being
| able to convince its own soldiers to be thoughtful about
| cybersecurity.
| whatshisface wrote:
| How does it matter where those videos were shared? Material
| is either classified or unclassified, it doesn't matter if
| the WarThunder forums (for example) are moderated by US
| nationals or not.
| vasco wrote:
| It's not about where the videos are posted, it's about
| having apps that collect exact GPS position of smartphones
| that soldiers carry while the position of the ships they
| are on is classified. The fact that there's videos is just
| the "proof" that they have installed such apps that
| exfiltrate things like their location, for example.
|
| Famously, soldiers wanted to use strava in secret military
| bases:
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/28/fitness-
| tracki...
| whatshisface wrote:
| If you want to secure sailors' phones you are going to
| have to do a lot more, and at the same time much less,
| than ban or transfer the ownership of one single app that
| happens to be used by over a hundred million civilians.
| redwall_hp wrote:
| GasBuddy (and Life360) just sold that same location data
| to brokers, which Allstate bought and used to adjust
| premiums. Practically every app that is given access to
| location info is selling it, and it's widely available to
| anyone with the money to buy.
|
| Maybe we should have some sort of General Data Protection
| Regulation law instead of hand-wringing about social
| media.
| ssl-3 wrote:
| GasBuddy, at least, said that they could (read: would)
| sell the location data that they collected after opt-in.
| It was part of the agreement.
|
| I can't imagine a world where it would be illegal for two
| parties to agree to sell the location data that one of
| them generates.
| woodson wrote:
| That's the world we live in today. Under many countries'
| privacy laws, it's not legal to sell PII to a third party
| that you collected for a specific other purpose (e.g.,
| fulfilling the primary purpose of the app). The problem
| is that they do it anyways.
| ssl-3 wrote:
| What problem?
|
| If I agree to let FantasyCorp sell my location data, and
| then they follow through with our agreement and actually
| sell it, then there's no problem here that I can see.
| Kye wrote:
| Are ship locations classified? I doubt China has
| difficulty keeping track. They have satellites too.
| pjc50 wrote:
| They almost certainly are while on deployment, despite it
| being really obvious where a ship is.
| Atotalnoob wrote:
| Oceans are vast, sometimes there are clouds and storms.
| echoangle wrote:
| Clouds and storms don't really help you with a SAR
| satellite.
| wcunning wrote:
| The Onion Router was invented by the Navy to make ship
| location tracking hard with visibility of some of the
| network, so it's classified at times. More importantly,
| just because you have satellites doesn't mean that it's
| easy to pick all of that out all the time or to be
| entirely certain of which ship/which mission, etc. Making
| it harder is better even if it can't be made impossible
| outside of subs.
| catlifeonmars wrote:
| App usage not only leaks location, but number of troops;
| something which is not readily detectable by satellite.
| echoangle wrote:
| Wouldn't the crew of a ship be pretty constant though,
| for this example?
| catlifeonmars wrote:
| The crew would be relatively constant, but ships also
| carry attachments that are based on the types of missions
| they are going to complete. So the actual number of
| passengers would vary.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| Generally, no. Specifically, yes.
|
| https://news.usni.org/category/fleet-tracker
|
| The more valuable signal from app data would likely be op
| tempo and what phase of a deployment / mission a ship is
| in.
|
| Aside from inferred reasons for changes in patterns of
| behavior, one going emcon and suddenly dropping all users
| off an app means something.
|
| Also, modern satellites are great, but even carrier
| battle groups are _really_ small in the Pacific.
| Gormo wrote:
| Why are soldiers allowed to bring GPS-enable consumer
| smartphones along with them on top-secret deployments in
| the first place?
| catlifeonmars wrote:
| It's not top secret deployments, it's any deployments.
| All deployments need to maintain a level of operational
| security. Also if you expect a bunch of people in the
| 18-29 age range to go without internet for 9 months to 2
| years, you're kidding yourself. The tradeoff is between
| operational security and morale and if you're in military
| leadership, you really don't want unhappy troops on your
| hands.
| Gormo wrote:
| I mean, I _do_ completely expect deployed military
| personnel to adhere to rules and limitations that are
| much more rigorous than those they 'd experience in
| civilian life.
|
| I'd be astonished if I learned that soldiers on duty were
| totally free to do as they please the expense of
| operational security simply because that's what people in
| their broad demographic category are accustomed to.
|
| I'd be equally astonished if I found that military
| recruitment was based on enlisting cross-sectional
| samples of demographic categories, without regard for the
| capacities and attitudes of the specific individuals
| seeking to join. I know for a fact that people are
| rejected for enlistment for all sorts of reasons.
|
| And I'm sure that the military can find ways of enabling
| deployed personnel to use the internet without
| sacrificing security or oversight -- for example by
| requiring them to use secured military-issue computers
| and smartphones, or by having an inspection or vetting
| process for hardware and software when soldiers want to
| use their own devices.
|
| I hope you also acknowledge the absurdity of suggesting
| that the government should apply essentially the same
| restrictions to the whole of society that the military
| couldn't apply within its own sphere of control.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| You're constructing a straw man without being curious
| about the things you yourself are missing.
|
| Or in HNism, you're "Why don't they just..." without
| considering the reasons those solutions might be more
| challenging than they first appear.
|
| I suggest you read parent comment about balance and
| tradeoffs inherent in forward deployment again.
| Gormo wrote:
| > You're constructing a straw man without being curious
| about the things you yourself are missing.
|
| Could you point out the straw man in question? I feel
| like everything I posted above is a direct response to
| arguments I gleaned from your previous comment, and
| certainly didn't intentionally attribute any argument to
| you that I didn't think you were actually making.
|
| > I suggest you read parent comment about balance and
| tradeoffs inherent in forward deployment again.
|
| I've reread it a couple of times, and I'm afraid I'm not
| seeing any hidden propositions in it that I missed the
| first time around. Could you be more explicit about what
| you're getting at?
|
| My comment about finding ways to enable internet access
| in a more controlled way was specifically targeting your
| argument about the security vs. morale tradeoff, and my
| point about the absurdity of trying to make that tradeoff
| for society as a whole in a scenario where you imply the
| military can't make it for its own operations still seems
| to apply here.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| > _Could you point out the straw man in question?_
|
| >> _I 'd be astonished if I learned that soldiers on duty
| were totally free to do as they please the expense of
| operational security_
|
| The post you were replying to didn't suggest anything
| about total freedom. You're exaggerating their words to
| make your argument easier.
|
| >> _I 'd be equally astonished if I found that military
| recruitment was based on enlisting cross-sectional
| samples of demographic categories_
|
| Given initial enlistment age ranges between 17 and 30/40
| [0], you get cohorts from specific generations.
|
| Kids who are 17 now were born ~2008, which is just
| starting to be kids with smartphones and mobile devices
| their entire lives.
|
| No cross-sectioning required: just upper and lower age
| limits.
|
| >> _And I 'm sure that the military can find ways of
| enabling deployed personnel to use the internet without
| sacrificing security or oversight_
|
| I'm going to assume you're honestly ignorant of military
| networks and field device management at scale.
|
| The military runs segregated networks. Secure networks
| require approved devices; those devices are _extremely_
| locked down. There are often also public internet
| networks for MWR reasons. Unmanaged devices can be used
| on those networks. Furthermore, in most non-naval
| deployments, terrestrial cellular data networks are also
| accessible.
|
| >> _for example by requiring them to use secured
| military-issue computers and smartphones, or by having an
| inspection or vetting process for hardware and software
| when soldiers want to use their own devices._
|
| Military IT is already overloaded managing the vast
| number of secure devices and networks, so having them
| manage consumer devices in any way is a non-starter.
|
| For scale context, the DoD PKI includes ~4 million active
| CAC cards. [1]
|
| Unmanaged consumer devices + CAC are also often used for
| less-privileged interaction with the military (e.g. HR
| functions).
|
| > _My comment about finding ways to enable internet
| access in a more controlled way was specifically
| targeting your argument about the security vs. morale
| tradeoff_
|
| And the responses that you're getting are that these are
| non-trivial problems for real-world reasons.
|
| Furthermore, you seem to have a lack of understanding
| about how much it sucks to be stuck in a forward base,
| and how important maintaining morale is to command
| authority and force effectiveness.
|
| PS: Also, look at user names. I'm not the author of the
| original comment you replied to.
|
| [0] https://www.usa.gov/military-requirements
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Access_Card
| catlifeonmars wrote:
| > And I'm sure that the military can find ways of
| enabling deployed personnel to use the internet without
| sacrificing security or oversight -- for example by
| requiring them to use secured military-issue computers
| and smartphones, or by having an inspection or vetting
| process for hardware and software when soldiers want to
| use their own devices.
|
| Of this we are in 100% agreement. It's totally doable,
| but I am observing that today it is not a solved problem
| in the US military.
|
| > I hope you also acknowledge the absurdity of suggesting
| that the government should apply essentially the same
| restrictions to the whole of society that the military
| couldn't apply within its own sphere of control.
|
| I'm a little confused about the wording of this but I am
| reading this as saying that the military should be able
| to apply its own standards that are stricter than what
| civilians are accustomed to. I agree, and it does. But
| I'm suggesting that it doesn't happen in a vacuum and
| that enforcement is never perfect. A blanket ban on
| personal devices (I'm positive this has been tried
| before) would both be unpopular and difficult to enforce.
| It would be a mistake to discount the cost of poor
| morale. And it would be a mistake to ignore the outsized
| effect that poor morale has on middle management -- the
| ones who are responsible for enforcing said rules.
|
| I hope it's clear that my commentary is entirely
| descriptive and not prescriptive. Full disclosure: I'm
| former US military enlisted and also currently working in
| a space adjacent to improving operational security.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| Because consumer smartphones are a cheap and logistics-
| light way to improve morale on deployments.
|
| It's not easy to put a McDonald's in the middle of the
| desert.
| Gormo wrote:
| I'm sure there are many other cheap and easy ways to
| improve morale on deployments, but that many of those
| options are eschewed and/or only offered with oversight
| because they would otherwise risk operational security.
|
| I'm not sure what to make of the argument that the
| military is unable to find any alternative to consumer
| smartphones without even RMM implemented as a means of
| providing for troop morale, therefore the government
| should regulate social media for the entirety of society
| as a means to ensure the security of military maneuvers.
| This just sounds _nuts_ to me.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| I'm going to try to put this in as few words as possible.
|
| >> _Why are soldiers allowed to bring GPS-enable consumer
| smartphones along with them on top-secret deployments in
| the first place?_
|
| That was your original question.
|
| It wasn't 'Should we ban TikTok to enhance military
| security?'
|
| When people answered your original question with relevant
| points, you reached back to banning TikTok.
| Gormo wrote:
| This entire conversation is about the TikTok ban. My
| question about why deployed troops are allowed to use
| social media apps on consumer devices was in response to
| preceding comments insinuating that banning TikTok is
| justifiable in light of its potential to damage
| operational security if military personnel are using it
| in the field, and was targeted at understanding the
| implied premise that the problem couldn't be solved by
| much more proximate, narrowly tailored approaches.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| You probably should have phrased your question
| differently, then.
|
| It sounded like you just didn't understand why soldiers
| are allowed to bring GPS-enable consumer smartphones
| along with them on deployments.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| By that measure they should ban the war thunder forum before
| tiktok
| gscott wrote:
| Plus these apps track you everywhere so the Chinese have your
| GPS and you're on the aircraft carrier. No need for fancy
| satellites they can just have that data and track the
| military and other government employees 24/7. I guarantee you
| no American company can track Chinese military or Chinese
| employees 24/7 wherever they're at this is a one-way deal
| it's not good for the US.
| gazchop wrote:
| This isn't the only risk. There is also the problem of
| radicalising people. This has been a big problem in Europe.
| david_allison wrote:
| It's hopeless to expect every member of the military to be
| thoughtful about cybersecurity. If they'll openly share
| nuclear secrets & base protocols publicly, anything is fair
| game.
|
| https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2021/05/28/us-soldiers-
| expos...
| rchaud wrote:
| This is why Blackberry used to sell phones without cameras
| and microphone switches, and enterprise-centric OS images.
| Crazy that regular iOS/Android phones leaking data 24/7 to a
| million 'partners' are freely allowed at military locations.
| Pictures and video uploaded to social media include EXIF data
| with geolocation!
| oooyay wrote:
| > The national security risk is the US military apparently
| not being able to convince its own soldiers to be thoughtful
| about cybersecurity.
|
| That's not really a new problem. The problem is as old as
| time, even before the internet:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_lips_sink_ships
|
| When I was deployed in 2011 we didn't carry cell phones
| because:
|
| 1. Jammers will render your antenna unusable or potentially
| damage your device.
|
| 2. The country that controls the infrastructure now has the
| inside scoop on who you are, what you're doing, and where you
| are. Even if they country is an ally, it only takes a few
| individuals to start mass exfiltration.
|
| TikTok was turning into infrastructure for social dialogue
| except that it had a new capability compared to the cell
| phones of 2011: it could be manipulated at scale, and quickly
| with the combination of algorithms and outrage culture.
| whoevercares wrote:
| Everybody loses? The fact that TikTok remains available to
| millions of users is a significant benefit, especially for
| those who rely on it for creative expression, community
| building, and small-business promotion.
| ninetyninenine wrote:
| He means net loss to the status quo in reference to the
| entire fiasco. I had TikTok before... I still have TikTok...
| what rights were trampled in the process of bringing about
| zero change to me using tiktok?
| snovv_crash wrote:
| Tiktok now exists at the whim of the sitting president,
| whoever that may be. This means that the USA is one small
| step closer to a dictatorship.
| LPisGood wrote:
| That's only true if Tik Tok remains operating in
| violation of the law.
| snovv_crash wrote:
| This has nothing to do with tiktok and everything to do
| with shifting power in the US political system towards
| the executive.
| scotty79 wrote:
| It's interesting how most commenters seem to forget about
| TikTok users. Every interest is taken into account, China,
| USA, intelligence services, TikTok "competition". Users
| somehow never enter the picture for most people in any other
| way than as gullible idiots getting exploited by the
| aforementioned parties.
| tomrod wrote:
| In this model, users are the consumers and therefore aren't
| under consideration for malfeasance by suppliers.
| scotty79 wrote:
| Are they irrelevant?
| YurgenJurgensen wrote:
| Well, they're TikTok users. They only have a five-minute
| attention span, so they'll forget about any consequences
| pretty quickly.
| logicchains wrote:
| Because they aren't TikTok users, simple as that. If the
| Trump admin was going to ban Reddit for being partially
| Chinese owned, they'd be up in arms.
| Yoric wrote:
| Aren't we all, to a large extent?
|
| I mean, yeah, I would be slightly annoyed to lose ${social
| network}, but in truth, my life would be hardly impacted.
| dr_kiszonka wrote:
| That's true. Unfortunately, it is also highly addictive, esp.
| for kids and teens.
| llm_trw wrote:
| The us opium wars:
|
| Where the fights isn't over selling opium to the us masses,
| but about who gets the profits from the sales.
| iTokio wrote:
| Here, have my upvote.
|
| I might not share your views but it is important to defend
| this side of the debate to get the full picture.
|
| It's easy to reduce TikTok to its negatives and forget that
| ton of people do get value from it. Obviously for content
| makers but even for watchers, entertainment and sense of
| community do have values.
| redwall_hp wrote:
| I strongly dislike vertical video and find channel-flipping
| physically uncomfortable, and my life would probably be a
| little bit better if I didn't hear that around me all the
| time, but I will staunchly defend what I believe to be a
| violation of the first amendment.
|
| I'm not sure why people seem to have more narrowly defined
| their idea of freedom of speech to be "the freedom to shout
| futilely into the void," when it's a two-way street. The
| government telling booksellers they can't sell a book to
| people isn't just a violation of the author's rights, but
| the right of other people to seek and acquire that book.
| (Hence the clauses in the amendment about anssociation and
| abridgment of press.)
|
| The whole situation is very Fahrenheit 451. Which is kind
| of ironic, since Bradbury would have probably hated TikTok
| and assumed it would be the television-flavored precipice
| leading to books being destroyed.
|
| Captain Beatty would be proud of all of the would-be
| firemen itching to torch everything they don't like,
| oblivious to the simple corollary that someone else doesn't
| like what they like.
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| I would say yes, everybody. TikTok is _very bad_ for our
| society. It has had profound negative effects on people 's
| ability to pay attention to things. I don't know that I'd say
| the solution is legalistic in nature, but the continued
| existence of that platform is a cancer on humanity.
| perihelions wrote:
| - _" Everybody loses. This outcome is worse than anyone could
| have conceived."_
|
| The outcome is *exactly* as anyone with a modicum of sense
| expected.
|
| _" Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a
| little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"_--
| often paraphrased (sensibly!) as _" deserve neither and *will
| lose both*."_ As you say: we've lost both--who could have
| predicted that? Yeah; well.
|
| https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
|
| There's nothing really novel about the instant situation. It's
| a classic, on repeat.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| That quote has to do with taxation.
| FFFXXX wrote:
| https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-
| famou...
| Xelbair wrote:
| and is relevant for more than original intent.
|
| censorship, and similar constraints on free speech, just
| hide the problems of society so you are unable to act on
| possible threats as a policymaker.
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| The liberty in that example being raising enough taxes to
| properly fund our government so people can just go about
| their lives.
| llm_trw wrote:
| You can no more riase taxes to properly fund government
| than you can fill a bucket with no bottom.
|
| One only need to look at the Harris campaign to see that
| the political class in the us is fundamentally innumerate
| as well as incapable of making a cost benefit analysis.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| One only needs look at any administration after 1980.
|
| https://www.thebalancemoney.com/us-deficit-by-
| year-3306306#t...
|
| The only presidential administration that produced a non-
| deficit budget was Bill Clinton's second term (~97-00).
|
| Probably because Ross Perot mostly self-funded a third
| party campaign centered around the national debt and had
| received 8% of the vote (and 19% in the previous
| election).
| danieldk wrote:
| You are missing the point. Benjamin Franklin's quote is
| about taxation (well at least some people argue):
|
| https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-
| famou...
|
| People quote it in the wrong context.
| nightski wrote:
| I just took the liberty to delete TikTok and remove it from
| my life regardless if it comes back.
| dv_dt wrote:
| Thats funny, I took a look at publicly available harms from
| various social media apps and deleted Meta apps.
| DougMerritt wrote:
| ?Por Que No Los Dos?
| galangalalgol wrote:
| Why stop at two? X seems to just be crazy person x says
| crazy thing y, so no problem adding that to my dns
| blacklist, fb and insta are as you say, just as obvious
| as tiktok. SEO results are dominated by AI vomit blogs,
| nothing to see there so searech engines are useless. LLMs
| seem to be mostly ok for finding things right now, I'm
| sure they will figure out how to mess that up soon enough
| though. YouTube is really useful for figuring out how to
| fix my <insert thing broken in my house>. But other than
| that is just the prototype the other stuff was based on.
| For news I look at news sources that cost money, wsj,
| economist etc. because then there is at least a chance
| that I myself am not the product. For finding music I ask
| local musicians who they like and follow those referrals
| a few deep. For seeing funny pet antics I look at my
| pets. To learn more about tech I come here and follow
| links.
| SCPlayz7000 wrote:
| Unlike TikTok, X is an American social media platform. By
| default, It is protected under free speech rights. TikTok
| is Chinese and doesn't get to play that card. End of
| story.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| That doesn't keep them off my dns blacklist though. Seems
| like whatever card tiktok played was good enough to get
| tomorrow's administration to change course.
| phatfish wrote:
| If the Democrats field a candidate that is willing to
| debase themselves with a stupid dance that goes viral, I
| feel there may be a change of heart. Assuming Trump
| doesn't manage to run for a third term.
| moritzwarhier wrote:
| I think that potential EU legislation can and should take
| this as a cautionary tale.
| ninalanyon wrote:
| How so?
| umanwizard wrote:
| Banning foreign tech can be massively unpopular and give
| a huge tailwind to populists who promise to unban it.
| moritzwarhier wrote:
| I was thinking:
|
| 1. Banning media based on alleged (or real) foreign
| interference is a very thin line
|
| 2. Banning and "unbanning" media based on vague
| accusations can be exploited for self-serving economical
| or political interests, which long-term hurts any kind of
| credibility of media as a whole. And, like it or not: we
| depend on media. We're not living in self-sufficient
| communes, at least most of us don't.
|
| 3. What made TikTok an issue in the first place: foreign
| interference (see 1) and problematic content, the policy
| causes for this probably include insufficient moderation
| and lack of court accountability. Then there's the
| question of algorithmic bias: I think this is not a
| simple question, e.g. is Instagram Reels technically the
| same or if not, what are the most important differences
| between their recommendation algorithms?
| LinXitoW wrote:
| The EU has the advantage that their politicians don't all
| own gigantic shares in any social media companies (because
| the EU doesn't have any), so they are afforded the rare
| luxury of actually voting for the good of the people.
| That's why the EU has decent data privacy laws.
|
| The TikTok ban would've been far less problematic if they
| had created legislation for all companies that curtailed
| data trading and increased user privacy. But that was never
| the goal.
| watwut wrote:
| That quote was about making the state stronger and able to
| demand more from citizends.
| metabagel wrote:
| Different outcome if Harris wins the election though.
|
| Is it possible that TikTok solved their problem by purchasing
| $6 billion worth of Trump's meme coin?
| hbarka wrote:
| B I N G O
| DeepYogurt wrote:
| > Is it possible that TikTok solved their problem by
| purchasing $6 billion worth of Trump's meme coin?
|
| Yep
| ANewFormation wrote:
| He's making tens of millions of Americans (especially
| including those who may not have otherwise been political)
| quite fond of him, bringing back a platform that has
| definitely been a net positive for him overall, undoing one
| of his predecessors 'achievements', and so on.
|
| He came out against a ban on TikTok long ago (after
| initially being in support) and made it clear he'd work to
| reverse it the second the ban bill started gaining
| momentum.
| bink wrote:
| So he can make a call and cancel a border security bill,
| but can't make the same call to cancel the TikTok portion
| of the spending bill before it passed?
| cmorgan31 wrote:
| Did he not start this entire process during his own
| presidency? It's spectacle for the masses and real tv
| scripts being played out in the White House.
| metabagel wrote:
| That could simply be a side benefit and not worth Trump
| making a "deal" to rescue TikTok from an existential
| threat. Icing on the cake.
| arcticbull wrote:
| Not free speech. Amplification of speech and to an extent
| freedom of association. Speech is not being criminalized --
| you can say the exact same things on a different forum. And
| the entity being constrained is a foreign actor [edit] with
| likely state security apparatus ties.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| > And the entity being constrained is a foreign actor
|
| Genuine question from a non-American: does the 1st
| amendment only apply to US citizens?
| arcticbull wrote:
| The First Amendment enjoins only the US government.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| By its wording, no, because it applies to "Congress".
| _Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
| of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
| abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
| right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
| petition the Government for a redress of grievances._
|
| A later amendment is held to have "incorporated" this
| prohibition against the state governments as well, though
| that amendment doesn't actually specify anything in
| particular. _( "No State shall make or enforce any law
| which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
| citizens of the United States; nor shall any State
| deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
| due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
| jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.")_
|
| It is frequently argued that some act of the government
| violates the free speech rights of foreigners living
| abroad, which is to say that whatever it was the
| government did fell into the class of behaviors
| prohibited by the first amendment. People tend to find
| that argument weird; I don't know what its batting
| average is.
|
| Summing up, nothing extends rights to foreigners, but
| since the first amendment is a prohibition on the
| government rather than a grant of rights to certain
| protected people, foreigners arguably enjoy equal
| protection.
| perihelions wrote:
| The 1st Amendment applies to US citizens' freedom to
| read/receive communications from non-US citizens (or i.e.
| read books by non-American authors). That's not under
| dispute: the current SCOTUS ruling both acknowledges, and
| sidesteps, that.
| SCPlayz7000 wrote:
| Emphasis on US citizens
| gpm wrote:
| It's not just US citizens, but per the supreme court
| "foreign organizations operating abroad possess no rights
| under the U. S. Constitution". In USAID v. Alliance for
| Open Society International specifically with regards to
| the first amendment.
|
| ---
|
| However TikTok US here is a domestic organization
| operating domestically merely controlled by a foreign
| organization operating abroad, which complicates matters.
| It has rights.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Courts and laws don't need to stop their analysis at "is
| it a corporation registered in the US." It is a foreign-
| controlled organization, therefore it is treated as a
| foreign organization. If you have ever dealt with the
| defense contracting apparatus, you will know this is how
| it works.
| Nifty3929 wrote:
| The US constitution does not apply to citizens - it
| applies to the government.
|
| Citizens in the US are implicitly allowed to do whatever
| they like, subject to laws that the government enacts.
| The constitution describes those areas where the
| government is allowed to pass laws. All other areas are
| off limits to the government, and left for the people to
| do as they like. To emphasize the point, the amendments
| specify certain areas that the government is extra-
| especially-not-allowed to create any laws about, like
| speech.
|
| The extent to which this is observed today is quite
| dubious. There are lots of laws that the US government
| passes which have little to do with anything the
| constitution allows them to do - but they kinda hand-wave
| around that and gesture toward something, like the
| "commerce clause" or whatnot as justification.
|
| But in theory - for any law passed - it is
| unconstitutional unless you can say exactly where in the
| constitution it is explicitly allowed.
|
| * Having written all that, I will add that "government"
| above means the US Federal government, not all the other
| ones. State, local, have a lot of latitude to make
| whatever laws they want, unless a federal law
| specifically prohibits it.
| nwiswell wrote:
| > * Having written all that, I will add that "government"
| above means the US Federal government, not all the other
| ones. State, local, have a lot of latitude to make
| whatever laws they want, unless a federal law
| specifically prohibits it.
|
| This is not entirely correct. In general many elements of
| the Constitution are incorporated and apply at all levels
| of government. It even outranks state constitutions where
| the two conflict.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_o
| f_R...
| parineum wrote:
| In other words, states have a lot of latitude to make
| whatever laws they want, unless a federal law
| specifically prohibits it?
| cgriswald wrote:
| No, those aren't other words for the GP's statement.
|
| The Constitution, its Amendments, and decisions of the
| Supreme Court are not 'federal laws'.
| nwiswell wrote:
| No, in other words, states and local governments are also
| bound by the Constitution in many of the the same ways
| that the federal government is.
|
| The major difference is the Tenth Amendment, which sets
| the states apart by specifying that any powers not
| "delegated to" the federal government are reserved
| exclusively for the states. (In practice courts have
| found many "implied powers" that are not explicitly
| enumerated).
|
| Federal laws are distinct from the Constitution.
| umanwizard wrote:
| Even if it did, that doesn't matter here, since it's
| American TikTok users whose speech is being suppressed.
| orwin wrote:
| So, usually in a representative democracy (republic or
| not), the judiciary power is supposed to check and limit
| the other two (to avoid a tyranny of the majority). You
| can have that done in two way: with "case law", the only
| way in some countries (like the UK): basically if a law
| is enforced against a minority, it will be enforced
| against the majority. Other countries added a
| consitution. Its use is to limit the executive and
| legislative power of the government: the legislative
| power is supposed to prevent the law/executive order from
| existing or being executed, and base that decision on the
| constitution.
|
| TL:DR: no, it doesn't even apply to US citizen, only to
| US government.
|
| PS: "tyranny of the majority" for some is a definition
| fascism, i disagree, to me it isn't even proto-fascism,
| it lack a weird mythos about internal enemies and a few
| other mythos. It's closer bonapartism, or cesarism at
| worst. To be clear i think it is a precondition to have
| fascism (I.E as long as your case law/consitution is
| enforced for everybody the same way, you aren't a fascist
| state).
| mmooss wrote:
| That may be why freedom of the press is also guaranteed.
| eviks wrote:
| > Speech is not being criminalized -- you can say the exact
| same things on a different forum.
|
| Yes, it's being suppressed. Criminalization is just one of
| the many coercive ways to censor something, but states have
| many tools in the box...
| metrix wrote:
| > Speech is not being criminalized -- you can say the
| exact same things on a different forum.
|
| s/criminalized/supressed/ and message still holds true.
| You can still say the exact same things on a different
| forum.
| eviks wrote:
| It only holds true if you ignore the substance of the
| right, the message holds true even if no one can hear you
| in that other forum!
| umanwizard wrote:
| Free speech is satisfied in every country, then, because
| you can sit at home alone and scream whatever you want at
| your wall without consequences.
| umanwizard wrote:
| To respond to a comment which has now been deleted:
|
| I don't care about the First Amendment specifically. The
| US constitution is not magical divinely inspired
| scripture. I care about the underlying principles of
| freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and freedom of
| association, regardless of how well or poorly those are
| reflected by a specific written law.
| stouset wrote:
| You can literally go to any other competing platform and
| shout the same thing from the rooftops.
| umanwizard wrote:
| No, you can't. TikTok was the only mainstream platform
| where pro-Palestinian content was allowed to go viral.
| MisterKent wrote:
| Allowed or encouraged?
|
| This is the problem.
|
| We can't be certain that a foreign actor couldn't
| destabilize our faith in our government by pushing pro-
| palestinian content.
|
| A small push on a platform can snowball since creators
| take the stances that don't get them cancelled or want to
| mimic the popular opinion
| jay_kyburz wrote:
| I'm a 50+ average Joe who only watches Australian state
| media (ABC) and I've seen plenty of content that I find
| shocking from both Israel and Hamas and I came away with
| sympathy for the Palestinians caught in the middle.
|
| Does that count as pro-Palestinian?
| motorest wrote:
| > No, you can't. TikTok was the only mainstream platform
| where pro-Palestinian content was allowed to go viral.
|
| Reddit shows pro-palestinian/anti-israel propaganda in
| the front page on a daily basis.
|
| Also, the fact that Israel's invasion of Palestinian
| territories was an anti-Biden propaganda point that was
| boosted pretty hard doesn't exactly prove that the likes
| of China aren't pushing propaganda to destabilize the US.
| There was clearly a coordinated effort to force-fed the
| idea that Biden was pro-genocide and a warmonger, and
| Trump was the only possible candidate to push peace in
| Ukraine and Palestine.
| sensanaty wrote:
| Lol where do you even get something so easily disproven
| like this? I care for neither Israel nor Palestine, but I
| see more or less equal coverage of both sides (not so
| much my side, funnily enough) on every platform.
|
| Reddit is both anti-Israel and anti-Palestine depending
| on the sub. News channels will be one or the other
| depending on the slant and there's plenty on both sides.
| Most of instagram is people from both sides shouting at
| each other about how the other gets more
| representation/are more evil. Same with facebook. I don't
| use Twitter or any Twitter clones, but I assume Mastodon
| has a Palestinian slant while Twitter probably has a
| slight Israeli slant (shitposting aside). Even on
| HackerNews you'll see both stances often. I guess 4chan
| would have my stance, since they hate Israel because
| antisemitism but also hate Arabs.
|
| Do people just make shit up like this for a laugh? I
| really don't get it, yet see it so often espoused.
| rockemsockem wrote:
| Code is speech. By saying you can't distribute a particular
| app in the United States you're restricting speech.
| lxgr wrote:
| "Code is speech" is absurdly reductionist in most cases.
|
| Yes, the government censoring Tiktok's source code on
| Github would be a freedom of speech violation, but that's
| not what this is about, is it? See also: Tornado Cash.
| Publishing code facilitating money laundering is fine
| (you'll find the code still on Github!); running said
| code to facilitate money laundering isn't.
|
| Or to go with an even more extreme example: Writing code
| for a self-aiming and firing gun is speech [1], running
| said code on a gun in your driveway isn't.
|
| The fact that we are still debating such basics of the
| First Amendment here is baffling. This is almost as
| trivial as the other well-known limitations in my view
| (shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater etc.)
|
| [1] At least at the moment, and as far as I know; I think
| we might see this type of speech being restricted in the
| same way that some facts about the construction of
| nuclear weapons are "innate state secrets".
| rockemsockem wrote:
| I think it is largely about this.
|
| American companies (Google and Apple primarily) have been
| told by the government that they cannot distribute
| binaries running certain code to Americans. That seems
| like the real 1st amendment issue to me and I was quite
| surprised to learn that ByteDance only claimed that their
| own 1st amendment rights were being infringed on (which
| personally I find to be flimsier).
|
| EDIT: Tornado cash was taken down from GitHub though, so
| you don't have a point here
| lxgr wrote:
| Huh? It's up as a public archive on tornadocash/tornado-
| core as we speak.
|
| > American companies (Google and Apple primarily) have
| been told by the government that they cannot distribute
| binaries running certain code to Americans.
|
| Yes, in the same way that American companies and
| individuals are routinely prohibited by the government
| from distributing other binaries to Americans, most
| notably anything that circumvents DRMs as regulated by
| the DMCA.
|
| I really don't think the people that drafted the First
| Amendment had apps in mind when they thought of "speech",
| and would probably consider them something more like
| machinery (a printing press, a radio (not a radio
| station!) etc.) Interpreting Tiktok as a type of
| newspaper (which are widely protected even in democracies
| without an equivalent to the First Amendment) is much
| less of a leap of faith compared to considering an iOS
| executable speech.
| rockemsockem wrote:
| Interesting, I didn't follow the tornado cash case super
| closely, but I do recall it being taken off GitHub for a
| short time.
|
| So I would also argue that restricting DRM bypassing
| software is a violation of the 1st amendment and, more
| importantly, that it's a bad thing to restrict.
|
| We'll never know what they would have thought, but I'll
| add that actual plans for machinery are definitely
| speech. We certainly do restrict these plans, with ITAR
| most notably, and I think it's reasonable to draw that
| line somewhere.
|
| Note that I never said banning TikTok was as bad idea,
| just that it restricted speech by way of limiting
| distribution (which oddly looks unconsidered in the
| supreme court case), which it absolutely does. I'm
| uncomfortable with this level of power being granted to
| the government, but given that TikTok is obviously a
| spying/malware delivery tool by a foreign borderline
| hostile government I think it's probably warranted.
|
| I think not being somewhat disturbed by the United States
| government restricting distribution of an application is
| a bit weird TBH. That's a huge power to have and can
| definitely be abused, especially if it's made easier to
| do so in the future.
| layer8 wrote:
| The code isn't the main issue here, it's the online
| platform. The apps were only banned as a means to access
| the platform, not fir the code they contain. The code
| would be largely useless without the platform
| infrastructure and data storage behind it.
| sensanaty wrote:
| Does this apply for malware? Trojans? Websites that host
| child pornography?
|
| Or does it just apply to the brainrotting addiction
| machine that shoves 800 videos a minute at teenagers?
| rockemsockem wrote:
| Note that I didn't say I thought the ban was unwarranted
| tunesmith wrote:
| If your loud agreement with a lie is disseminated far more
| widely than your loud agreement with a truth, does it feel
| like you have free speech?
| jfengel wrote:
| I've never understood that quote. Is it ok to give up
| essential liberty to gain a large, permanent safety? If so,
| how large and how permanent does it have to be to qualify?
|
| I'm also a little unclear on which liberties are essential,
| versus those that are merely nice to have. We all give up the
| liberty of driving on the wrong side of the road, and nobody
| seems to mind.
| csoups14 wrote:
| I also find it comical that banning TikTok is the red line
| for folks when the NSA and other government agencies have
| been acting with impunity when it comes to harvesting data
| for decades now.
| ANewFormation wrote:
| People don't care about most things because there are a
| practically infinite number of things one could care
| about.
|
| But when you ban something 9 figures of people happily
| use, with some small chunk of that even being people
| making a living off of it, people will care about that
| because it directly and visibly affects them.
| citizenpaul wrote:
| Bread and circus.
| kaoD wrote:
| If I were an US citizen this would be the most worrying
| aspect to me.
|
| Are the congressmen so incompetent that they didn't see
| this coming? This backfired horribly for them in multiple
| ways... unless this was somehow part of a master plan my
| simple mind can't comprehend?
|
| Did it somehow not backfire and I'm just being led to
| believe so?
| cmorgan31 wrote:
| It's literally pay to play with the new administration
| which is why it doesn't feel coherent. He's being courted
| by Meta to ban and TikTok to not ban.
|
| The elite have always known the value of media and
| propaganda. TikTok could easily sway electorate decision
| making in the same way as Meta, X, and YouTube. The US
| oligarchs have no control over a sizable social media
| platform. The data security and privacy concerns are
| theater. The very same logic we use for TikTok applies to
| our own apps and social media. The only distinction is
| the false premise they have our interests in mind.
|
| Are congressmen this incompetent? Yes. Are they bought by
| adversaries? Yes. Are they just humans who are as equally
| manipulated as you? Yes.
|
| Did Trump get more money? Yes. Plan success.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| The assumption (whether right or wrong) is that the NSA
| and other government agencies are at least doing it to
| keep Americans safe. And I think there's an assumption
| (again, whether right or wrong) in the general public
| that the NSA doesn't harvest the data of Americans
| themselves - or if they _are_ harvesting the data of
| Americans, then they 're Americans who are up to no good.
| stouset wrote:
| I would say moreso it's that the NSA is at least on some
| level beholden to the will of the U.S electorate.
|
| Foreign governments not so much.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| That's a great point, I'd agree with that.
| LPisGood wrote:
| The issue isn't data harvesting, and it's unclear to me
| why people getting this wrong.
|
| The issue is a foreign government having access to that
| data, to installed software on millions of phones, and
| foreign control of the primary information source for
| tens of millions of Americans.
| JasserInicide wrote:
| _when the NSA and other government agencies_
|
| Because, and I hate to say it, they're _our_ snooping
| government agencies. I 'd rather it be them that have
| access to all my data than the CCP apparatus.
| perihelions wrote:
| You're analogizing the freedom to access the internet to
| driving on the wrong side of the road?
| umanwizard wrote:
| The point of the analogy wasn't to say those two things
| are the same. It was _reductio ad absurdum_ , a totally
| valid proof technique in math and logic.
|
| If person A says "X implies Y", then person B points out
| that X would also imply obvious nonsense Z, it doesn't
| mean that B is saying Y and Z are the same, or even that
| Y isn't true. They're just pointing out that X is too
| general to possibly be true.
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| The context here was Indian raids. Some rich land owner
| wanted to pay a one time fee. Benjamin Franklin was saying
| a 1 time fee wasn't enough - and it would only offer
| temporary safety rather than ongoing safety higher taxes
| would offer.
|
| This essential liberty was freedom from being killed.
| Pretty fucking essential.
| jfengel wrote:
| That's quite interesting. I'd expect a lot of people to
| say "the freedom to keep my money" is absolutely
| essential.
|
| We give up that right in exchange for the permanent
| safety that a government is supposed to grant. Life is
| presumably more fundamental than money, but if it's the
| only truly essential liberty, there is a lot of room to
| give up others.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| On the broadest strokes it makes sense. We gave up the
| liberty of truly owning the land so the government can
| build houses on them. From there we more or less are rented
| the land and almost everyone pays a tax for it.
|
| Homeowners have some power. But if the government really
| needs to (modern example includes building a new railway),
| They can elect to forcibly pay you and seize it (eminent
| domain).
|
| >We all give up the liberty of driving on the wrong side of
| the road, and nobody seems to mind.
|
| Auto transportation was never a right to begin with. As
| inconvenient as it is, you are free to walk wherever you
| want without trespassing. Even across a road. But there's a
| line when you start to simply endanger others by say,
| walking on a road at 5 mph.
| LPisGood wrote:
| The free speech argument is ridiculous to me. The content
| wasn't at issue; the ownership of the platform was.
|
| You can legally the same content anywhere else, and Tik Tok
| would not be under fire if it were not owned by one of a
| handful of countries.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| >The content wasn't at issue
|
| You sure about that one? (https://www.axios.com/local/salt-
| lake-city/2024/05/06/senato...)
|
| Obviously the transfer of ownership was always about the
| content, and implicitly the fact that if a Chinese company
| owns it, the US has no control over it. Opinion making in
| the US is always implicitly enforced, not explicitly.
|
| There's a great bit of an old interview with Noam Chomsky
| talking to an American reporter in which the reporter asks
| Chomsky: "You think I'm lying to you, pushing a US agenda?"
| and he responds: "No I think you're perfectly honest, but
| if you held any other beliefs than you do you wouldn't be
| sitting in that chair talking to me"
|
| this is the platform version of that concept.
| LPisGood wrote:
| Frankly, I'm not taking seriously an Axios article.
|
| The content wasn't not outlawed; the platform was not
| outlawed.
|
| Some aspect of the platform's ownership has been
| outlawedd. That's pretty different.
| umanwizard wrote:
| You didn't respond to the point at all and just repeated
| your original point.
| LPisGood wrote:
| I responded directly to this
|
| > Obviously the transfer of ownership was always about
| the content
|
| Perhaps I should have quoted it so that it was clear.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| You didn't even engage with what I said. You dismiss
| statements of a US senator because of the paper that
| reports them?
|
| Please address the actual argument, namely that in the
| US, when you hand platforms to people like Zuckerberg,
| you don't need to do any actual censoring because
| American business leaders change their political opinions
| in line with the sitting administration the way other
| people change T-Shirts. That is the point of the sale,
| anybody who is not utterly gullible can see it from a
| mile away.
|
| On a Chinese owned TikTok Americans get information
| presented to them, whether intentionally or
| authentically, that the US powers that be do not like.
| There is no other security argument, data was already
| managed by Oracle in the US, the app was technically
| separated from its Chinese equivalent Douyin.
| LPisGood wrote:
| I engaged directly with what you said. Namely,
|
| >Obviously the transfer of ownership was always about the
| content
|
| I'm struggling to see why you say I didn't.
|
| > you don't need to do any actual censoring because
| American business leaders change their political opinions
| in line with the sitting administration
|
| I think this is blatantly not true. Instagram, reddit,
| and others host a TON of anti-current-administration
| content.
|
| Now, I'd like to discuss your assertion that there is no
| other security argument with a series of questions. I do
| not believe even a casual observer can uniformly answer
| "no" to the following;
|
| Do you think it is likely that CCP has access to the data
| obtained by Tik Tok on US phones?
|
| Do you think the US government warnings and security
| audit results were based on real concerns and findings?
|
| Do you think it is a national security risk for millions
| of Americans to run CCP controlled code on their phones?
|
| Do you think CCP is able to control the Tik Tok
| recommendation algorithms to promote their interests,
| possibly at the expense of American interests?
| Barrin92 wrote:
| > I do not believe even a casual observer can uniformly
| answer "no" to the following;
|
| The only one I wouldn't uniformly answer "no" to is the
| last one as there's no real evidence for the first two
| and that one is at least in principle possible but what's
| important is that private American citizens running
| entertainment apps on their personal phones isn't a
| "national security issue".
|
| Running TikTok on government phones in Langley probably
| is so banning an app like this from government devices is
| fair enough, but the interest of any individual American
| is that they have free access to services, domestic or
| foreign, even if it's literal propaganda because they're
| the ones who are supposed to make that judgement. Hell
| even if it's Red Star OS from North Korea and they want
| to run it on their personal computer, they should be able
| to.
|
| American interest isn't a synonym for interest of the
| state department, because if that's the case you're
| living in a security state (ironically like China) and
| not a free country.
| tunesmith wrote:
| There's a metaculus prediction of whether TikTok will be
| lawfully banned on 1/20, and they were 99.9% confident it
| would be in effect.
| (https://www.metaculus.com/questions/31247/tiktok-ban-in-
| effe...)
|
| I personally picked 40% because I couldn't image a change of
| this sort being consistent with today's political reality.
|
| That said, the fine print of that prediction can be
| interpreted that the ban is "in effect" even if it not
| enforced and has no legal liability. I doubt all the
| predictors were hanging their hat on that fine print when
| they predicted, though.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| Except that no one voted to give up this liberty nor purchase
| this "safety". The oligarchs determined that they wanted to
| purchase power and "elected" to take our liberty.
| gregw134 wrote:
| "The law banning TikTok, which was scheduled to go into effect
| Sunday, allows the president to grant a 90-day extension before
| the ban is enforced, provided certain criteria are met"
|
| Sounds like they're operating within the law
| codingdave wrote:
| From the ruling:
|
| "The Act permits the President to grant a one-time extension
| of no more than 90 days with respect to the prohibitions'
| 270-day effective date if the President makes certain
| certifications to Congress regarding progress toward a
| qualified divestiture."
|
| Sounds like he needs to work with Congress on at least a
| basic level for this to be within the law, not just make his
| own decision and declare all is good. And there is the small
| detail that he is not President, at least not today.
| bigtunacan wrote:
| TikTok has already received multiple "interest to acquire"
| letters, including the one from Perplexity that would keep
| all existing investors fully intact.
|
| Having that along with a republican majority in both the
| congress and the senate this isn't going to be difficult
| for Trump to fulfill the requirements of the law.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| That is not enough to satisfy all 3 certification
| requirements as required by this law.
| lazide wrote:
| Do you get the impression that the incoming
| administration cares about the law?
|
| As long as there is a fig leaf/smokescreen, and TikTok
| makes the right noises and contributions, they'll be
| fine.
|
| If anything, Keeping them technically in violation of the
| law is the leverage the administration will want to keep
| so they can squeeze TikTok whenever they want.
| kristjansson wrote:
| He has to kinda gesture towards in-progress plans to comply
| with the law to grant that exception, but that's not a huge
| hurdle.
| gpm wrote:
| The law never required that they shut down, so in a
| tautological sense they are.
|
| However, with regards to the absurd justification. The
| president (still Biden) hasn't granted any extensions, nor is
| the president even able to grant an extension without
|
| > certif[ing] to Congress that-
|
| > "(A) a path to executing a qualified divestiture has been
| identified with respect to such application;
|
| > "(B) evidence of significant progress toward executing such
| qualified divestiture has been produced with respect to such
| application; and
|
| > "(C) there are in place the relevant binding legal
| agreements to enable execution of such qualified divestiture
| during the period of such extension.
|
| There is no evidence that Trump will be able to lawfully do
| any of those, and he has to do all, after he becomes
| president again.
| pjc50 wrote:
| > "(A) a path to executing a qualified divestiture has been
| identified with respect to such application;
|
| > There is no evidence that Trump will be able to lawfully
| do any of those once he becomes president,
|
| He can buy or be gifted a partial ownership stake?
| gpm wrote:
| ByteDance has been rather vocal that they aren't
| interested in divesting like that. He could be, there is
| no evidence he will be, and it's not something he can
| cause to happen.
| Aloisius wrote:
| "Qualified divestiture" means "no longer being controlled
| by a foreign adversary."
|
| Minority or even majority ownership change isn't enough
| as long as the CCP still has control.
| buzer wrote:
| Isn't selective enforcement in general within any law in the
| United States? There are plenty of laws that get broken all
| the time and it's up to police & prosecutors/AGs to decide
| which cases they actually want to enforce.
| pjc50 wrote:
| > This outcome is worse than anyone could have conceived.
|
| This is the maximally stupid outcome, so I suppose we should
| have seen it coming. I guess the conclusion is going to involve
| Trump taking an ownership stake in TikTok, possibly by swapping
| it for $TRUMP cryptocurrency or Truth Social shares something.
| roughly wrote:
| I think people are not quite ready for the level of klept
| we're about to see.
| pjc50 wrote:
| The klept will probably escalate until a fellow billionaire
| gets hit. It's going to get really weird.
|
| We can blame the state of New York for this, who convicted
| Trump of falsifying business records and then handed him a
| sentence of .. nothing.
| xnx wrote:
| > then handed him a sentence of .. nothing.
|
| Nothing yet:
| https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czr72m57e1jo
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czr72m57e1jo
| lazide wrote:
| Which is why he is never going to voluntarily step down,
| and has made it clear he is never going to voluntarily
| step down.
| foobazgt wrote:
| There would literally be an instant revolution by 50% of
| the US upon such an act. Let's please avoid the
| inflammatory rhetoric.
| lazide wrote:
| Have you not listened to what he has clearly said?
| Including plans to pardon folks for Jan 6th?
|
| Don't worry, I'm sure there will be some kind of
| 'emergency' this time.
|
| There was no 'instant revolution' on Jan 6th. Near as I
| can tell, if that capital police officer hadn't shot the
| woman climbing the barricade...
|
| But then I watched it live on CSPAN, so I got to see it
| for myself instead of being able to be told afterwards
| that I didn't see what I saw.
| wrs wrote:
| This despite the brilliant defense argument of "that
| wasn't fraud because everyone should have known I was
| lying"...which was also the Fox News defense...and is
| presumably how the executive branch officially works as
| of tomorrow.
| rayiner wrote:
| What should be the penalty for mislabeling a payment to a
| pornstar in the records of your own family owned company?
| catlifeonmars wrote:
| Nothing unless you're running for public office. The
| rules are understandably different when you're beholden
| to the people. Personally I'm ok with this distinction.
| Politicians should have to give up some rights that
| private citizens have and be held to a higher bar to
| guard against the tendency towards corruption that comes
| with greater influence and power.
| rayiner wrote:
| He wasn't running for public office at the time.
|
| And _maybe_ we should have a law that punishes
| politicians for paying money to cover up affairs. But we
| don 't have that. Trump's prosecution was, instead, a
| triple bank shot combining _three different_ vaguely
| written laws in a combination that makes the Double Irish
| with Dutch Sandwich look straightforward.[1]
|
| As CNN's head legal analyst Elie Honig explained: "The
| charges against Trump are obscure, and nearly entirely
| unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor -- in New
| York, or Wyoming, or anywhere -- has ever charged federal
| election laws as a direct or predicate state crime,
| against anyone, for anything. None. Ever."
|
| https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-was-
| convicted-...
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Sandwich
| kemayo wrote:
| Yes he was. The payment in question happened after he
| launched his campaign -- in late October of 2016.
|
| [EDIT to respond a bit to the now-expanded parent, which
| was only a single sentence when I replied]: I do totally
| agree that the hush money prosecution was a bit of a
| stretch, and wouldn't have happened if Trump wasn't
| famous. You're just wrong about it applying to a time
| when he wasn't running for office.
| rayiner wrote:
| Except the charges related to business records dated
| February 14-December 5, 2017.
| kemayo wrote:
| My recollection is that the prosecution was a combination
| of the mis-labeling of the payments, and the mis-labeling
| being in service of concealing a (federal) crime. Said
| different crime being the original hush money payment,
| which happened during the campaign. I.e. if he hadn't
| done something illegal while running for public office,
| there'd be nothing to charge him with.
|
| Now, it'd be better if he simply got prosecuted for the
| initial crime. Absolutely agree there. But I'm not sure
| that "I can avoid prosecution for campaign misdeeds by
| committing them and then waiting to pay people back until
| _after_ the campaign " would be a great precedent.
| rayiner wrote:
| Hush money payments are not illegal, even for candidates.
| Congress has an $18 million slush fund for settling
| claims of sexual harassment: https://docs.house.gov/meeti
| ngs/JU/JU00/20240613/117426/HHRG.... Those all have NDAs.
|
| The judge summarized the case for the jury as follows:
|
| > The allegations reflect in substance, that Donald Trump
| falsified business records to conceal an agreement with
| others to unlawfully influence the 2016 presidential
| election. Specifically, it is alleged that Donald Trump
| made or caused false business records to hide the true
| nature of payments made to Michael Cohen, by
| characterizing them as payment for legal services
| rendered pursuant to a retainer agreement. The People
| allege that in fact, the payments were intended to
| reimburse Michael Cohen for money he paid to Stephanie
| Clifford, also known as Stormy Daniels, in the weeks
| before the presidential election to prevent her from
| publicly revealing details about a past sexual encounter
| with Donald Trump.
|
| That summary implies that paying off Stormy Daniels "to
| prevent her from publicly revealing details" about the
| affair was the unlawful act. But under what law? And why
| wasn't he just charged with that law directly?
| kemayo wrote:
| The judge actually summarized it in vastly more detail
| than you say there. Take a look at the jury instructions
| if you want to see exactly what the theory was: https://w
| ww.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People%20v.%2...
| (starting around page 29, or again around page 44)
|
| Basically, the crime alleged was violating a NY election
| law saying that you can't try to influence an election
| through "unlawful means". They provided a sampling of
| said unlawful means: violating federal campaign
| contribution limits, falsifying _other_ business records,
| and violating state tax laws about how the reimbursement
| to Cohen was handled. The jurors didn 't have to
| unanimously agree about which of those things they think
| he actually did.
|
| The reasons to not charge him for those separately would
| seem to be respectively: 1. that's the feds job, 2.
| statute of limitations expired for the non-felony
| falsifications during his presidency when he couldn't be
| charged with anything, and 3. Cohen _directly_ committed
| the tax crime so all Trump 's guilty of is conspiracy to
| commit a really niche bit of tax misrepresentation that
| didn't actually cost anything.
|
| The unambiguous bit is that he definitely falsified
| business records, and so the squabble is over whether
| he's guilty of a misdemeanor or a felony. It was
| apparently persuasive to the jury that he did the felony
| version.
| rayiner wrote:
| > Basically, the crime alleged was violating a NY
| election law saying that you can't try to influence an
| election through "unlawful means".
|
| That just gets you back to the temporal problem we
| started with. As you say, the only "unambiguous bit" from
| the jury's implicit fact-finding "is that he definitely
| falsified business records." But he did that _after_ he
| won the election. How can you influence an election
| through unlawful conduct that happened after the election
| was resolved?
|
| Insofar as the case was framed as election manipulation,
| you need some conduct prior to the election. Which is
| why, as you observe, the prosecutor had to add a _third
| layer_ of uncharged alleged crimes:
|
| > Basically, the crime alleged was violating a NY
| election law saying that you can't try to influence an
| election through "unlawful means". They provided a
| sampling of said unlawful means... The jurors didn't have
| to unanimously agree about which of those things they
| think he actually did.
|
| Putting aside that each of the predicate crimes is deeply
| flawed ( _e.g._ federal prosecutors investigated and
| declined to bring the campaign finance charge), you can
| 't rest your triple-layer cake felony theory on a base of
| uncharged predicate crimes and tell the jury they don't
| have to agree as to the predicate crimes:
| https://www.justsecurity.org/96654/trump-unanimous-
| verdict. This is exactly the sort of thing judges are
| supposed to keep from being submitted to the jury.
|
| It's personally embarrassing that lawyers at my former
| firm helped architect this travesty. If this harebrained
| legal theory had been used to convict a sex trafficker or
| murderer, lawyers at that firm would be falling over
| themselves to represent the defendant on appeal _pro
| bono._
| roughly wrote:
| > The klept will probably escalate until a fellow
| billionaire gets hit.
|
| The klept will not spare the billionaires. There's a
| reason Meta's entire public posture has changed since Nov
| 6, there's a reason the WaPo didn't publish an
| endorsement. This isn't a class thing - Trump is not a
| billionaire defending his fellow billionaires, he's a mob
| boss in charge of the state.
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| He's a jester in a royal court peopled by billionaires.
| llm_trw wrote:
| On the contrary, we've even following the Pelosy trading
| scheme for quite a while.
| OKRainbowKid wrote:
| This would go way above insider trading for mere
| millions.
| llm_trw wrote:
| Try billions. Pelosy alone is worth around half a
| billion.
| roughly wrote:
| If Trump walks away from all this as a single-digits
| billionaire, I'll consider this all to have been business
| as usual.
| parineum wrote:
| I'll go ahead and take the doomsaying with a grain of salt
| and expect, roughly, the exact same thing as last time.
|
| Spare me the, "but this time it's different" without any
| good reason to expect it.
| roughly wrote:
| I genuinely hope you're right.
| chvid wrote:
| Plus Trump got all major social media in his pocket.
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| What outcome are you talking about comrade? Oceania has always
| been at war with Eastasia.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| No there's going to be some obvious winners. Trump is going to
| force a 50% sale to a US based JV. That JV will be run by /
| benefit some of his biggest goons.
|
| So Trump & his circle win !
| herval wrote:
| > The TikTok debate has always been about the balance between
| national security and free speech
|
| And now about how the sitting president can profit from
| brokering it
| ck2 wrote:
| Free speech?
|
| Can you talk about the Tiananmen Square massacre on TikTok and
| show the few videos of people who were disappeared?
|
| Are they accessible in the country that owns TikTok?
| extheat wrote:
| If I want to run what someone else has determined as
| "malware" on my computer, as far as I'm concerned, I should
| have the absolute right to do it. Same for spyware. Why?
| Because I don't want the government to make the determination
| for what is right or wrong for me on my own property. If the
| US government wants to block apps on their property, then
| they can go ahead and do that. But the moment it extends to
| my own property, it's quite ridiculous to think people are
| going to bend over backwards and comply with what's good for
| you. Especially in the context of some vague national
| security threat, why am I supposed to be subversive to the
| CIA?
|
| How can you complain about the CCP banning foreign social
| media and censoring when you have your own government willing
| to do the same thing -- in the name of Protecting the
| Democracy?
|
| It's not about privacy or data or whatever the facade is. The
| crime that we are committing is none other than allowing
| ourselves to be fed information that could threaten the
| United States. So, therefore, even according to the SCOTUS,
| if Congress plasters the magical words "national security" in
| their laws, then the Constitution takes a backseat and we too
| can be like China/Russia/Iran. Will we start banning VPNs
| next--which circumvent our new found love for censorship? I'd
| not be surprised.
| zugi wrote:
| > Can you talk about the Tiananmen Square massacre on TikTok
| and show the few videos of people who were disappeared?
|
| Yes, see www.tiktok.com/channel/tiananmen-square . Or read
| https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/tiktok-us-ban-
| congress... . Or just go search for it.
| psychlops wrote:
| That is hilarious! Did you even look at the Tiananmen
| Square channel before posting it? Or do you think that's
| what happened?
| zugi wrote:
| Can you be more specific about what you mean? The search
| summary for that page says:
|
| > The Tiananmen Square Tank Man is an iconic image that
| emerged from the protests and subsequent military
| crackdown that occurred in Beijing, China, in 1989. The
| protests, primarily led by students demanding political
| reforms and greater freedoms, took place in Tiananmen
| Square, a prominent public space in the heart of the
| city.
|
| I'm not a TikTok user, it was down earlier but clicking
| now I see the famous tank man video, an article about
| Chinese censorship of AI, etc. Do you get something
| different?
| psychlops wrote:
| Totally fair point, my results could be different. To me,
| the salient point of Tiananmen Square is the massacre
| (and wider spread protests). That aspect has been
| suppressed. I see video clips talking about how the
| content is available, but no content. I also see many
| clips denying that anything happened.
| purple_ferret wrote:
| >Everybody loses.
|
| Huh? Trump singlehandedly bringing TikTok back for tens of
| millions of malleable voters. Sounds like a pretty huge victory
| for him!
| logicchains wrote:
| It's an absolute win for the content creators who relied on
| TikTok for their livelihoods and the small businesses who
| relied on it for marketing. And for Gen Z, for whom content
| creation is one of the few viable ways to earn a good income
| now that tech grad hiring has completely collapsed.
| YurgenJurgensen wrote:
| It's kind-of not. A ban would have given them all the
| opportunity to go wherever their audience went. The demand
| for their content wouldn't simply disappear, it'd just be
| displaced to some other platform. And said other platform
| would almost certainly be less capricious and better for
| creators than TikTok.
| epolanski wrote:
| This 4 years gonna be good. Trump #1 was amateur time, this
| time they come prepared to bring havoc.
| andrethegiant wrote:
| The answer is to not use TikTok.
| agilob wrote:
| This is exactly what all Europeans watching US politics
| expected. No more, no less.
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| It was never about that balance. It was always about populism.
| pluc wrote:
| Trump wins, everyone loses.
|
| Get used to it.
| xyst wrote:
| "National security" is such a bs term for US govt to avoid
| transparency. It comes from the post 9/11 era of FISA courts,
| PATRIOT act to justify wide net domestic surveillance and
| wiretapping.
|
| To me, the whole banning of TT is political theater aimed to
| divide the US while existing tech oligarchs consolidate power
| and money.
|
| Just look at the message TT broadcasted. Blatant pandering of
| incoming administration.
| aceazzameen wrote:
| I agree. This is a forced consolidation that will only
| strengthen American tech oligarchs and the new
| administration. It's also coup on the culture of the younger
| generations similar to what happened to Twitter.
| noqc wrote:
| This isn't about free speech. Tiktok's statement actually
| provides all of the necessary context. China pays influencers.
| The tiktok ban is not about what you are allowed to say, but
| who is allowed to pay you to say it. This is a very different
| question.
| dp-hackernews wrote:
| Chase Hughes:
|
| "Manipulation Playbook: The 20 Indicators of Reality Control"
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3AN2wY4qAM
| vkou wrote:
| It's worse than that. The platform is now beholden to the
| president for its survival.
|
| If you're wondering how Russia slipped from a flawed democracy
| into an aurocracy, it was because Yeltsin fixed the 1996
| election, by holding an axe over the head of the press. He made
| it very clear that anybody who wants to keep their broadcast
| licenses will need to shill for him.
|
| It's how a drunken autocrat with an 8% approval rating,
| credited for both hyperinflation _and_ mass unemployment, who
| launched a coup (that killed a few hundred people and caused a
| constitutional crisis) ended up getting re-elected.
|
| And then at the eleventh hour, after firing his cabinet, again,
| he declares Putin his successor and resigns over a $10,000
| bribery scandal.
| nickburns wrote:
| This is not an outcome. The legal process is but still well
| underway. In the United States, we abide by the rule of law.[1]
| That's _really_ what separates us from China.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
| belter wrote:
| "TikTok CEO attending Trump inauguration" -
| https://thehill.com/policy/technology/5089151-tiktok-ceo-don...
| leptons wrote:
| >Also, the law that tramples free speech
|
| I'm not sure how so many people misunderstand the difference
| between "free speech" and "app controlled by hostile foreign
| government".
|
| The people speaking on TikTok have not lost their right to free
| speech, they still are free to use a multitude of other
| channels that amplify their speech. No speech was blocked, only
| the app controlled by a hostile foreign government was blocked,
| and there are no provisions in a any legal framework that says
| we can't stop a hostile foreign government from controlling
| what people in this country see.
| nipponese wrote:
| I just don't get how free speech translates as accessibility to
| post on a commercial platform.
| konschubert wrote:
| Everyone lives and dies by the KING now.
| fny wrote:
| Can someone please explain how the law tramples free speech?
| Isn't it completely legal to shut down a stadium or arena?
|
| Additionally, why have we all forgotten that China does not
| allow any of our social media companies within their borders?
|
| If we're in the business of free trade, there's no reason to
| let them operate a social media company in the US until they've
| opened their market to us.
| gedpeck wrote:
| _... the law that tramples free speech is upheld by the court_
|
| This law does not trample free speech. Your view of what free
| speech means as it pertains to U.S. law is wrong.
| timewizard wrote:
| > balance between national security and free speech.
|
| This is an absurd framing. Free speech cannot implicate
| national security. If a social media platform controlled by a
| foreign government can manipulate the people so easily then you
| have a much larger and ignored problem.
|
| > all of its national security risks
|
| Which are zero. What you actually experience a risk from is the
| shabby way Google, Microsoft and Apple have put their platforms
| together. Designed to earn them money while utterly destroying
| your privacy.
|
| > This outcome is worse
|
| You're already in trouble. This outcome is a symptom of a much
| larger problem. The conversation around this is completely
| detached from reality.
| uludag wrote:
| There's something in this argument about national security,
| that if taken to its logical conclusion, would result in a
| world most people would consider upside-down:
|
| If social media owned by foreign companies is a national
| security threat, then wouldn't that essentially make FB, X,
| YouTube a threat to like every other nation? Why not throw
| wikipedia in too? So now any nation can legitimately see any
| other source or collector of information as a national security
| threat and ban it at will? Taken to the logical conclusion,
| every nation should be enveloped by its own _digital borders_.
|
| To me, it's the popular sentiment alone, for example people
| feeling sad and upset TikTok's gone and feeling happy that it's
| back, that's preventing this dismal future, otherwise
| governments would block apps on a whim. And this I'd say is a
| win.
| theobreuerweil wrote:
| This seems not to be an opinion that other people hold, but I
| never saw social media as "free speech" given that some third
| party can decides which parts of what you say get promoted.
|
| If you sent letters to people via a middleman who decided which
| of those to forward onwards, you'd see that as censorship. I
| appreciate that that's an over-simplified example - it's meant
| to be a reductio ad absurdum. But control of the algorithm
| effectively regulates free speech, IMO.
|
| Also (for clarity) the fact that China happens to be involved
| is not relevant to my point!
| weare138 wrote:
| What also bothers me is there's a simple solution to all this.
| Just pass comprehensive consumer data protection laws and
| regulations _all_ companies operating in the US are required to
| follow. But you don 't see anyone proposing that for some
| reason...
| mrkramer wrote:
| I would like to ask Chinese president Xi Jinping when will Google
| and Facebook be available in China and all the rest of the
| Western social apps. Can I get any clarity and assurance? Thanks.
| Gormo wrote:
| Reminds me of the ultimatum I gave my dog last week: I told him
| that if he didn't stop pooping on the floor, I would punish him
| by pooping on the floor myself.
| BitterCritter wrote:
| I think that's a bad metaphor, though I don't particularly
| know what you're trying to say.
| SOTGO wrote:
| I think they're trying to say that you don't respond to bad
| behavior (China banning apps) with your own bad behavior
| (US banning apps). If America is opposed to the way China
| handles social media then we shouldn't seek to emulate them
| Supermancho wrote:
| > I think they're trying to say that you don't respond to
| bad behavior (China banning apps) with your own bad
| behavior (US banning apps).
|
| This presumes an assumption. I don't consider the banning
| as a lever for ensuring US controls Tiktok as bad
| behavior. America has a vested interest in snooping on
| and having direct control over popular mediums of
| communication. Giving Chinese ownership access to the
| methods used (like the physical devices, et al), is a
| security issue. It's a cold war game that seems a little
| sophisticated for this day and age (somehow). The lack of
| understanding explains a lot of these wandering
| conversation about tangents.
| Gormo wrote:
| > America has a vested interest in snooping on and having
| direct control over popular mediums of communication.
|
| So this is the sort of statement that needs to be whacked
| a couple of times with a rolled-up newspaper.
|
| The US government does _not_ have a vested interest in
| doing things expressly prohibited to it by its own
| constitution.
| Gormo wrote:
| My dog is a dog. He doesn't see anything wrong with pooping
| on the floor, so he won't be fazed if I do it too:
| threatening to poop on my own floor is not going to get him
| to stop doing it. If I follow through with my threat, not
| only will I be doubling up on the problem of poop on the
| floor, I'll also be behaving in a way that is far more
| improper and unacceptable for a me than it is for my dog,
| because we do not hold human beings to the same standards
| of behavior and hygiene that we expect from dogs.
|
| China is an authoritarian dictatorship. Their government
| does not see anything wrong with violating the rights of
| their citizens, so they won't be fazed if we do it too:
| threatening to restrict access to social media in the US is
| not going to get them to stop doing it in China. If we
| follow through with our threat, not only will we be
| doubling up on the problem of illegitimate political
| restriction on public discourse, we'll also be behaving in
| a way that is far more improper and unacceptable for the US
| than it is for China, because we do not hold constitutional
| republics to the same standards of rule of law and respect
| for individual rights that we expect from authoritarian
| regimes.
| sarchertech wrote:
| And yet you conveniently leave out the part where clearly
| the Chinese government desires that TikTok continue to
| operate in the US (under their control). Denying someone
| something they want is nearly the definition of
| punishment.
|
| The analogy only works if the US response to banning US
| social media was to do something similar like banning
| Russian social media that had no impact on China.
|
| As for whether the ban is legitimate or not, The Supreme
| Court _unanimously_ ruled that it is. We've banned
| foreign governments from owning television stations for
| decades.
| Gormo wrote:
| So, by your way of thinking, if there was a chance that
| pooping on the floor myself _might_ discourage my dog 's
| bad behavior, I should go right ahead?
|
| It's not quite correct to say that the Supreme Court
| ruled that the ban is legitimate. It narrowly ruled that
| the immediate first amendment challenge wasn't sufficient
| to invalidate the law under intermediate scrutiny. The
| only thing they were evaluating was whether the impact of
| the ban was biased toward any particular content, which
| it isn't.
|
| They didn't rule on the overall constitutionality of the
| act, whether its first section amounts to a bill of
| attainder, whether the forced divestiture would amount to
| a fifth amendment taking, whether it violated the broader
| freedom of the press under the first amendment, or
| anything else. Those questions might well be evaluated
| later.
| sarchertech wrote:
| >whether its first section amounts to a bill of
| attainder, whether the forced divestiture would amount to
| a fifth amendment taking, whether it violated the broader
| freedom of the press under the first amendment
|
| The petitioners made those challenges as well. 3 lower
| courts denied them, and SCOTUS chose not to overturns the
| law based on those challenges, thus upholding the
| constitutionality of the law.
|
| Based on your the argument, because SCOTUS didn't rule on
| the constitutionality of the ban with respect to the 2nd
| amendment, they didn't actually declare that it was
| legitimate.
|
| So yes technically you are correct, but SCOTUS certainly
| choose not to declare the law illegitimate, which is the
| most legitimating thing they are ever going to do.
|
| >So, by your way of thinking, if there was a chance that
| pooping on the floor myself might discourage my dog's bad
| behavior, I should go right ahead?
|
| It's just a bad analogy. Come up with a better one.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _So, by your way of thinking, if there was a chance
| that pooping on the floor myself might discourage my dog
| 's bad behavior, I should go right ahead?_
|
| No, I think the way of thinking is that it's irrelevant
| whether or not China (the dog) does it. If you want to
| deny the Chinese government the ability to use a Chinese-
| owned social media platform in a certain way, then you
| ban it. This isn't a tit-for-tat situation at all; the US
| is doing something it believes is beneficial for itself;
| it's not simply pooping on the floor which would serve no
| benefit.
|
| The overall point is that your analogy doesn't fit the
| current circumstances, so stop using it to argue against
| the TikTok ban.
| Gormo wrote:
| The role of the US government isn't do things it believes
| are beneficial for itself. It's to administer the law
| consistently with the constitution. When it behaves in
| arbitrary way and implicates the rights of its own people
| in order to pursue geopolitical ambitions on the global
| stage, it is metaphorically pooping on the floor.
| sarchertech wrote:
| The constitution explicitly gives the government the
| power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. Nothing
| about this is arbitrary, it is merely the government
| catching up with new technology and bringing regulation
| of that technology closer in line with regulation of
| existing technology. Foreign governments or companies
| controlled by foreign governments have been prohibited
| from holding radio licenses since 1934.
| kelnos wrote:
| I think you're perpetuating a false equivalence, though.
|
| The Chinese government kicks out foreign social media
| because they want to censor a laundry list of topics and
| have near-direct control over discourse.
|
| If we assume poor intent, the US wants to kick out TikTok
| in order to prop up the market share of US/Western-owned
| social media companies.
|
| But if we assume better intent, the US wants to kick out
| TikTok in order to deny the Chinese government the
| ability to run unfettered political/social influence
| campaigns on US citizens. (Instead they'll have to play
| cat-and-mouse games on Western-owned platforms.)
|
| Even if _both_ intentions are there, I think this is much
| better justification than what the Chinese government
| does.
|
| While the action may be similar, intent matters.
| Gormo wrote:
| You're talking about intent, but I'm not sure I
| understand the relevance of intentions here. We're
| evaluating behavior, which remains the same irrespective
| of what intentions motivated it. I think it goes without
| saying that the Chinese government and the US government
| will invoke quite different rationalizations to explain
| their behavior, but I'm not sure that any
| rationalizations are sufficient to justify behavior that
| is bad in itself.
|
| Or, more simply: no, intent does not matter -- you are
| responsible for the damage that proceeds from your
| purposeful actions regardless of what ideas were in your
| head at the time. Ends are not sufficient to justify
| means.
| NicuCalcea wrote:
| China isn't your dog. What if you invited your neighbour
| over, and they pooped on your floor, repeatedly. And then
| they said you're not allowed into their house.
| Gormo wrote:
| If all of that happened, I still don't think I'd be
| motivated to poop on my own floor.
| kelnos wrote:
| That's fine, because that's not what the US is doing to
| China.
| Gormo wrote:
| No, "pooping on the floor" is the US government is doing
| _to the US_ , regardless of whether its ultimate aim is
| to punish China.
|
| I am not willing to give the US government discretionary
| authority over what software _I_ have access to in order
| to advance its geopolitical ambitions in relation to
| China.
| maeil wrote:
| Did you know that foreign companies are banned from owning
| more than 25% ownership of a tv and radio broadcast licenses
| in the US? I'm sure you've spent much effort looking into and
| trying to repeal those laws too.
| rchaud wrote:
| Zuckerberg already tried in 2015, went on a tour, gave
| obsequious speeches, spoke in Mandarin and asked Xi to give his
| unborn child an honorary Chinese name. Refused on both
| occasions.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S20BoxH8W9g
| piyuv wrote:
| Guy really doesn't have a spine
| timewizard wrote:
| Just as soon as they allow the Chinese government censors to
| control what is and is not available on the platform.
|
| How you see his position as different from ours is an
| astounding result driven by American imperialist propaganda.
|
| None of these entities are on your side. Highlighting a false
| dichotomy does nothing.
| juunpp wrote:
| The propaganda works well indeed. People taking sides is
| perhaps the saddest part of this story since the politics can
| be well understood with just a little review of history. You
| put it well in saying that none of the two are on your side.
| Wake up, sheeple; stand for principles, not one or the other
| government.
| kccqzy wrote:
| Well fifteen years ago Google _was_ available in China. And at
| that time, while the masses simply used Baidu, among the
| educated it was well known that Google delivered better
| results. And that was because Google capitulated to the
| censors. The government had a direct hotline into the Chinese
| offices of Google and could demand the search engine
| immediately ban certain keywords or results. At that time Baidu
| 's censorship was quite a bit more heavy-handed than Google's.
| It was Google that grew tired of this arrangement and decided
| to quit. They first moved the operations to Hong Kong, and then
| later the Chinese government decided to block the Hong Kong
| version of Google.
|
| As a former Google employee, during my employment I found
| plenty of internal blog posts from the China team at that time
| about this arrangement. It was amazing to me that a lot of
| these internal blogs simply weren't deleted because people
| forgot about it and storage was so cheap.
| creato wrote:
| A quick google suggests that in 2008, Google's search market
| share in China was ~45%. That's pretty significant.
| BriggyDwiggs42 wrote:
| Could you potentially see an issue with both countries
| disconnecting their economies and communication networks? As we
| do this, I worry a war gets easier to start.
| eunos wrote:
| When Google and Facebook agree to also base their servers in
| China and follow Chinese censorship law.
|
| You're welcome.
| sekai wrote:
| The people pretending that the TikTok law is a speech issue are
| ignoring that no one was requiring TikTok to change their content
| at all. The law was written to allow for 0 impact on users if the
| CCP-connected parent company simply divested.
|
| Their preference to shut down instead of receiving tens of
| billions of dollars would be a clear violation of a company's
| fiduciary duty to shareholders for any normal company. But
| ByteDance's allegiance isn't to their shareholders.
| skizm wrote:
| I'm not defending them here, but the laws in China prevent a
| sale, so technically they have a duty to uphold China's laws
| first before upholding their fiduciary responsibility. Same
| with any American company and following American laws.
| pjc50 wrote:
| > the laws in China prevent a sale
|
| First I've heard of this.
|
| The conflicting legal obligations remind me of the Microsoft
| "safe harbour" case, which is becoming a lot more relevant
| and still isn't really adequately resolved.
| adastra22 wrote:
| They're confusing the US TikTok subsidiary with ByteDance
| parent organization. They were only required to sell the
| subsidiary.
|
| Ironically this would be enforcing the very same law that
| exists in China, where all companies have to be majority
| Chinese owned.
| rfoo wrote:
| I believe the law mentioned here isn't focused on which
| organization it is. The law itself basically said you
| can't export recommendation algorithm. Yes, in the very
| similar wording as in "you can't export certain GPU
| chips".
| adastra22 wrote:
| Which is fine. The whole point of the divestment was to
| NOT use the CCP-controlled recommendation algorithm.
| ants_everywhere wrote:
| I think that's a major part of the concern. Their first duty
| is to the Chinese Communist Party. Historically all sources
| of information in communism have to serve the goals of the
| party above all else, and this is tightly controlled.
| BriggyDwiggs42 wrote:
| The CCP doesn't run a communist nation.
| janalsncm wrote:
| Yeah they're communist like FedEx is federal.
| ants_everywhere wrote:
| Yes I'm aware this trope is applied to every communist
| country that's ever existed. I've never been in a
| conversation where it added anything.
|
| It's like saying the Pope isn't Christian. It's really a
| hidden statement about gatekeeping.
| BriggyDwiggs42 wrote:
| It's not a hidden statement about anything. China is not
| communist; communist means something. North Korea isn't a
| democratic republic; that also means something. We can go
| into definitions if you want, but I think this is trivial
| to observe for China.
|
| Edit: I think the distinction is important because the US
| has a tendency to label things communist before it goes
| to war with them, whether cold or hot.
| beepbooptheory wrote:
| But then how can you use it the other way around, to say
| that it is bad?
| ants_everywhere wrote:
| I think the same way we can talk about monkeys or
| squirrels. It's a family tree of related ideas. But
| there's no official checklist of features it has to have.
|
| To give an example for comparison, a lot of people want
| to say socialism is about workers controlling the means
| of production. But that doesn't come close to covering
| all of the things that were called socialism that existed
| before someone proposed that definition.
|
| With communism it's similar but at least I'm not aware of
| any one jingle that people are pushing as the one true
| definition.
|
| But there are definitely lots of people who want to say
| they understand Marx better than everyone else and the
| Soviet Union doesn't count as communist because of x.
| China doesn't count as communist because of y. Etc etc.
| it's a way to preserve an identity as a communist without
| having to admit there are any downsides.
|
| For what it's worth I'd argue that capitalism is even
| less well defined and I've heard it used to describe
| every economic system that's ever existed including all
| communist countries.
| BriggyDwiggs42 wrote:
| >it's a way to preserve an identity as a communist
| without having to admit there are any downsides.
|
| That's not what I did, and I'm not a communist. I'm
| specifically talking about China because people use the
| label, deeply incorrectly, to portray them as a
| threatening other, as though they work in a super
| different way to us and threaten our way of life.
|
| > But there are definitely lots of people who want to say
| they understand Marx better than everyone else and the
| Soviet Union doesn't count as communist because of x.
| China doesn't count as communist because of y. Etc etc.
|
| Im no scholar, but I'm pretty damn certain you can't have
| a strong free market, alongside the consequent wealthy
| capitalists, under communism. Words have meanings, and
| that's not what anyone or their mother would think of as
| communism.
| maeil wrote:
| Guess the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is also
| democratic then.
|
| See, names are meaningless.
| corimaith wrote:
| Yeah, worse, the CCP runs a neoauthoritarian state built
| in the exact same vein of Project 2025, only with
| "chinese characteristics".
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| China is technically a multi party democracy, however the
| CPC does control the PLA (imagine if Republicans
| controlled the military, and that would be like China).
| ants_everywhere wrote:
| This is well outside my area of expertise, so please
| correct me if I'm wrong. But my understanding was that
| the legal parties are all subservient to the CCP and
| acknowledge their primacy.
|
| So functionally maybe a little like Albertson's is the
| only legal party, but if you prefer your region can have
| a subsidiary of Albertson's like Safeway or Shaw's.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Officially no, effectively yes. It is not like they have
| meaningful elections, so a lot of power brokering is done
| behind doors. They do, however, provide minority parties
| with a quota of seats, although they effectively don't
| have decision making power (like the governor of a
| province vs. the CPC chairman of the province).
| BriggyDwiggs42 wrote:
| China is authoritarian no doubt, but clearly there are
| different forms of authoritarianism. Monarchy isn't
| communism either. In principle, communism can't exist
| under an authoritarian state, since that would create two
| classes; you'd be looking at some kind of socialism.
| Either way, I'd just point out that China has a brutal
| capitalist market. I feel like that kinda precludes
| communism.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Communism is whatever someone says it to be, so it isn't
| a very meaningful label. The term socialism is used a lot
| more than communism these days, although the party hasn't
| changed their name.
|
| If you read Marx, communism isn't possible to achieve
| until after capitalism has run its course, so the way
| things are in China ATM are perfectly at harmony with
| that.
| BriggyDwiggs42 wrote:
| Communism has a definition. In the same vein, when
| someone says "democracy," you can know roughly what they
| mean without knowing, eg, is it a representative
| democracy, is it a republic, does everyone vote together
| on all issues in a town square. Communism has basic
| characteristics involving the abolition of private
| property (not the same as property) and class. China has
| moved away from socialism to a kind of state capitalism
| over decades, and I don't remotely understand why we'd
| call it communist.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Again, if you read Marx he claims that successful
| communism comes after capitalistic development. The
| communist party can take communism as an eventual goal
| instead of as a necessary truth right now, since the
| latter has always ended in disaster and the former puts
| off communism until later. The communist party is most
| definitely focused on communism as a goal, its goal is
| turn China to communism when its ready, China is not
| communist ATM.
| BriggyDwiggs42 wrote:
| Yes, that's why I said at the outset that the CCP doesn't
| run a communist country. That's also a pretty funny idea;
| the CCP is cultivating a brutal capitalism to encourage a
| worker revolution into socialism against, uhh,
| themselves? By this logic the US is communist.
| dawnerd wrote:
| They're majority owned by non Chinese investors. I don't see
| how china law would have any say.
| skizm wrote:
| Google "Golden Share CCP ByteDance". CCP has direct
| influence over how ByteDance is run.
| acje wrote:
| Shares aren't the sole mechanism for influence though. In
| Russia there are open sixth floor windows one could fall
| out of. In China you could disappear to a camp for a few
| months. Shares are kind of soft in comparison.
| wordofx wrote:
| lol no.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| Chinese laws are whatever Xi says they are, so that's where
| Trump negotiating a deal for himself / his rich buddies comes
| into play..
| Supermancho wrote:
| This is correct. His power is effectively absolute. Any
| time his eye focuses on an issue, the issue is resolved to
| his specification or heads roll and another puppet is
| appointed to resolve it so.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| I spoke a few years back with a tech analyst who
| specialized in Chinese equities. She herself is a Chinese
| ex-pat living in the states. She, quite exasperatedly
| described investing in Chinese equities as "you basically
| need to guess what Xi is thinking".
|
| One day test prep schools are illegal and immediately
| shut down. Tech CEOs suddenly became pariahs and started
| getting carted off to re-education camps. Etc.
|
| You never know what could happen to an executive,
| company, or sector.
| curt15 wrote:
| Does this mean they would be obligated to censor tank man
| content in the US at the CCP's request?
| enjo wrote:
| When I worked for an American subsidiary of a Chinese
| company (Video Games) we were only required to honor
| censorship requests for Chinese users.
| tripletao wrote:
| That's a policy decision by the Chinese government. They
| still have the authority, but the Streisand effect makes
| blunt censorship counterproductive in an open society.
| For example, TikTok took down the viral "Uighur makeup
| tutorial" but quickly reinstated it after the backlash.
| That backlash couldn't occur in China, but it can in the
| USA for as long as uncensored outlets exist.
|
| Subtler manipulation still works great, and the opacity
| of algorithmic content recommendation makes that an ideal
| instrument. Nobody outside ByteDance knows to what extent
| the CCP is putting its thumb on that scale already, but
| they certainly have the power to.
| throw283724 wrote:
| If we're talking about the same video, the reason they
| initially took it down is because she had pictures of Bin
| Laden and was praising him.
| tripletao wrote:
| I'm talking about this one:
|
| https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/an-update-on-recent-
| conten...
|
| A different account operated by the same user was banned
| for something relating to an image of bin Laden in a
| different video. I've been unable to locate that video. I
| haven't found any reference stating that she praised him.
| She described her use of that image as satirical, and
| TikTok itself seems to recognize that (but stands by that
| ban):
|
| > *While we recognize that this video may have been
| intended as satire, our policies on this front are
| currently strict.
|
| In any case, the video in question is the Uighur one.
| TikTok quickly stated that one was a "human moderation
| error" and reversed it. My point is irrespective of
| whether their rules were morally correct or correctly
| applied, though--whatever those merits, they clearly drew
| more attention to the topic by censoring here, not less.
| So it's not surprising they don't apply blunt Chinese-
| style censorship outside China, since it's
| counterproductive without Chinese-style control of all
| major media.
| ikmckenz wrote:
| Except now they get to remain the owners and they don't have to
| sell at fire sale prices, so it turned out to be the best
| possible outcome for their shareholders.
| umanwizard wrote:
| In practice, US social networks usually promote content that is
| aligned with US cultural values and geopolitical interests.
| Whether this is because the government is actively leaning on
| them or just because being run by Americans colors them with
| those values, I don't know. But the fact is, it's not a
| coincidence that TikTok is the main place pro-Palestinian
| content was allowed to go viral, and it's likely that changing
| owners _would_ change the content on TikTok even if the law
| doesn't actually require it to do so.
| user3939382 wrote:
| > Whether this is because the government is actively leaning
| on them or just because being run by Americans colors them
| with those values, I don't know
|
| Look up Mitt Romney's comments where he plainly says they
| need to ban TikTok because they can't control the narrative
| on Israel-Palestine. Narrative being his word.
| GordonS wrote:
| Here's a source that confirms:
| https://newrepublic.com/post/181327/mitt-romney-congress-
| ban...
| djcapelis wrote:
| I'm not arguing it's a restriction on TikTok's speech or
| bytedance's speech.
|
| It's a restriction on _my_ speech. Telling me where I can
| publish a video? Telling me what apps I can download? Telling
| my software vendor what software they're allowed to let me get?
| Telling internet providers what servers they're allowed to let
| my device access?
|
| The law doesn't fine TikTok. The law fines the people who let
| me download an application I've chosen to use. At $5,000 per
| instance.
|
| It's not about TikTok's rights being violated. It's about mine,
| and yours.
| abigail95 wrote:
| There isn't this much fuss about the foreign ownership of
| physical and broadcast media laws.
|
| Is the difference _really_ about whether you can post on the
| platform or not?
| djcapelis wrote:
| I think that's a huge difference, yes. And about what apps
| my phone is able to download, and what servers it is able
| to access.
|
| Another huge difference is broadcasting is about usage of a
| shared resource and has always had regulations on who is
| allowed to do what. They don't ban RT from setting up their
| own venue or printing a newspaper. RT and other outlets are
| able to operate in the US and people are able to chose to
| watch them.
| corimaith wrote:
| Why is it a huge difference? If you want absolute free
| speech places like 4chan will offer far more freedom than
| even TikTok ever would.
| threeseed wrote:
| > It's a restriction on my speech. Telling me where I can
| publish a video? Telling me what apps I can download? Telling
| my software vendor what software they're allowed to let me
| get? Telling internet providers what servers they're allowed
| to let my device access?
|
| You are being ridiculous now. None of those are forms of
| speech.
|
| And restrictions on your ability to perform certain actions
| is literally what being in a society is about. If you don't
| like it then find another society. Just like you can find
| another ISP, place to publish your video or platform to use
| apps you want to use.
| djcapelis wrote:
| Whether you think it's ridiculous or not, restrictions on
| distribution of software being a violation of US free
| speech rights has been an established part of US case law
| for around three decades now:
| https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/remembering-case-
| estab...
| patcon wrote:
| I also feel you are being a bit absurdist fwiw. I am know
| the be a principled devils advocate sometimes, so I'm
| reading you as that, otherwise your position as an
| American makes very little sense to me
| djcapelis wrote:
| The justices on the Supreme Court analyzed the
| constitutionality of this law under a free speech basis.
| The Per Curiam opinion of the court suggested the correct
| standard was intermediate scrutiny as an abridgment of
| free speech. Justice Sotomayor suggested in her
| concurrence that strict scrutiny (the highest standard)
| was appropriate.
|
| They concluded that these regulations were okay at those
| levels of scrutiny, but it is not absurd or ridiculous to
| analyze these as forms of speech, and indeed, our courts
| _do so_.
|
| That said, just because there is a conflict with freedom
| of speech doesn't prevent all government regulation, it
| just means the laws involved must pass an elevated level
| of scrutiny. That applies here, for multiple reasons, and
| with multiple parties.
| harshreality wrote:
| I'm skeptical that Bernstein vs DOJ would apply, to a
| [foreign-controlled] company that is _not_ publishing
| their algorithm, on the idea that allowing their [trade-
| secret] code to control how hundreds of millions of
| people interact with each other is somehow free speech on
| ByteDance 's part.
|
| The foreign-controlled part in particular implicates
| Congress's obvious and explicit power to regulate
| international trade, and it seems obvious to me that
| there would be something less than strict scrutiny
| applied to alleged violations of the 1A when that
| Congressional power is in play.
| djcapelis wrote:
| Yes, most of the court felt intermediate scrutiny was the
| appropriate standard in part because of the reasons you
| outlined.
|
| (I also agree that this is a different case, I only point
| to Bernstein because it is a clear part of case law which
| states that software distribution is and can be a free
| speech issue and restraints on it would be expected to be
| evaluated with some level of scrutiny.)
| threeseed wrote:
| Source code you can argue is a form of speech versus a
| packaged product.
|
| Not that the case is relevant because restrictions on the
| availability of products is well established under the
| law. I can't just buy nuclear weapons for example.
| FpUser wrote:
| >"If you don't like it then find another society. "
|
| Isn't use of any non-violent means to advocate one's belief
| to change the society is the whole point of the democracy?
| Your point is rather very totalitarian.
| threeseed wrote:
| They are arguing that _any_ infringement on _any_ action
| they don 't like is unacceptable.
|
| This is incompatible with living in a society.
| djcapelis wrote:
| I'm not, for what it's worth. I'm arguing that I think
| the free speech case is stronger for the users and
| software distributors who are enjoined from the platform
| or distributing certain software applications than it is
| for the platform whose ownership but not content or
| speech is being directly regulated. (The law doesn't fine
| TikTok it fines the people providing services to TikTok.
| Their speech rights may be more relevant in this case.)
|
| I also see why people are interpreting my comment to mean
| that because it's a restriction on my speech it's not
| constitutional because that's how people usually act on
| the Internet. But I don't and didn't. What I said was it
| was a restriction on my speech and I believe that's more
| of interesting case than the restriction on TikTok's
| speech. The ramification of that is that the courts would
| adjudicate the free speech restriction at an appropriate
| scrutiny level and determine whether that restriction is
| allowable. As we all know, some restrictions _are_
| allowable and constitutional. Others aren't.
|
| It's not unreasonable, wild, or strange to point out that
| there's a restriction on speech here, and to point out
| that conflict needed to be resolved to determine
| constitutionality.
|
| Most are handled at the district level, if the court felt
| there was no legal issue at play, they would have denied
| cert. Their opinion did end up being per curiam which
| suggests the court feels clearly about the case, but does
| not suggest they never felt there was an issue worth
| arguing.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _What I said was it was a restriction on my speech_
|
| I don't agree that it is, though. The restriction is on
| where you cannot put your speech[0], not on the speech
| itself. If there was nowhere that you could put your
| speech (or if the available avenues became much much much
| smaller in reach), then I would say that your speech is
| being restricted.
|
| But that's not the case here. You can publish that same
| speech on YouTube, Facebook, Threads, Instagram, Twitter,
| and a host of others where you can reach more or less the
| same audience you can reach on TikTok.
|
| You also mention elsewhere about not being permitted to
| download a particular app onto your phone (and/or that a
| service provider isn't allowed to provide it to you).
| That just isn't a free-speech issue at all. And besides,
| if you have an Android phone, you absolutely still can
| install the TikTok app on the phone, because Android
| allows sideloading. If you have an iPhone and can't
| sideload, then your beef is with Apple, not with the US
| government. Beyond that, www.tiktok.com still works just
| fine, and will still work fine even if/when it ends up
| hosted on infra owned by non-US companies.
|
| [0] Note that I did not say it is a restriction on where
| you _can_ put your speech; it is a specific restriction
| on where you _cannot_ , which I think is an important
| distinction.
| djcapelis wrote:
| It's a restriction either way. Whether it's a reasonable
| one or one that meets elevated scrutiny is a separate
| second question. Your points are arguing that question
| and are reasonable context for that debate.
| marsten wrote:
| No court in the land will agree with your interpretation. The
| first amendment protects speech, but it doesn't grant you the
| right to publish that speech wherever you want. If it did
| then Facebook couldn't ban people from its platform, for
| example.
| djcapelis wrote:
| The first amendment enjoins the government from actions.
| Private companies are welcome to ban or regulate their own
| venues as they see fit.
| moussess wrote:
| The Supreme Court with its unanimous decision made it very
| very clear it's not about freedom of speech, but about
| foreign adversary having access to data profile of 180
| million US citizens. And believe in lawmakers argument of
| foreign adversary propaganda to those citizens.
|
| Why do people on hacker news keep drudging up freedom of
| speech ad nauseum??
| djcapelis wrote:
| Did you read the opinion? It did its analysis as requiring
| some level of scrutiny because of the free speech
| implications under intermediate (and in Sofomayor's
| concurrence strict) scrutiny. It held the national security
| concern outweighed the free speech concern but it
| absolutely did not say it was relevant in the analysis.
| moussess wrote:
| Of course I read it, opinion said
|
| " At the same time, a law targeting a foreign adversary's
| control over a communications platform is in many ways
| different in kind from the regulations of non-expressive
| activity that we have subjected to First Amendment
| scrutiny"
|
| And the opinion talks about foreign adversary, those
| exact words, at least 30 times. It mentioned freedom of
| speech twice
| DangitBobby wrote:
| So it was a free speech issue, wild.
| jmye wrote:
| Because they read random crap on X they thought sounded
| smart and are now simply regurgitating it with no further
| thought or consideration.
|
| And "free speech absolutism (for me, not for you or anyone
| else)" is the current right-wing cause celebre.
| etc-hosts wrote:
| It's really about how the US gov is concerned that an app
| installed on half of all US cell phones is controlled by a
| company that is not 100 percent beholden to the US gov and
| stock market regulation, by a company that doesn't have to
| instantly respond to pressure from the Executive branch,
| could possibly refuse to instantly comply from pressure
| from US intelligence agencies, could refuse to comply with
| search requests from US law enforcement, and extensive
| lobbying from Facebook to cripple a competitor that
| Facebook ignored until it was too late.
|
| It's not a free speech issue.
|
| Given that the infra for serving US tiktok customers is in
| the United States(inside of Oracle Cloud), I am curious if
| Tiktok/bytedance responds to US law enforcement requests.
| josephcsible wrote:
| > the US gov is concerned that an app installed on half
| of all US cell phones is controlled by a company that is
| not 100 percent beholden to the US gov
|
| You have it backwards. The US gov is concerned that an
| app installed on half of all US cell phones is controlled
| by a company that _is_ 100 percent beholden to the
| _Chinese_ gov.
| dutchbookmaker wrote:
| I wouldn't be surprised if the freedom of speech nonsense
| is an influence campaign by the PLA.
|
| It is just such a ridiculous argument but if you repeat
| nonsense enough times, people start repeating it back as if
| it is real.
|
| We never had to deal with this before because the WW2
| generation was obviously not stupid enough to let the KGB
| publish children's books and Saturday morning cartoons
| inside the US and have a KGB influence campaign that says
| to ban the books/cartoons would be a free speech issue.
|
| Obviously a non-starter. What you see with Tiktok is how
| completely infiltrated and corrupted things are in the US
| in 2025.
|
| The unrestricted war from China started a long time ago and
| the IMO the US has already lost.
|
| "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without
| fighting." -- Sun Tzu
| lupusreal wrote:
| > _I wouldn 't be surprised if the freedom of speech
| nonsense is an influence campaign by the PLA._
|
| As is _" everybody is installing Red Note."_ The people
| who think this is true are the people who use tiktok.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Telling me where I can publish a video?_
|
| This is like arguing graffiti laws are censorship.
| djcapelis wrote:
| Graffiti laws _are_ also evaluated under heightened
| scrutiny due to free speech implications. A law having an
| impact on free speech does not mean it never holds, but it
| must be analyzed in that context. Here's an example:
| https://southerncalifornialawreview.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Graffiti laws are also evaluated under heightened
| scrutiny due to free speech implications_
|
| Graffiti bans are unquestionably constitutional. Graffiti
| _laws_ that regulate the content are not.
|
| Telling people where they can speak is precedented, legal
| and necessary. Telling people what they can say is
| against the principles of free speech; the government
| doing so is illegal.
| mckenzba wrote:
| Show me where it is an infringement of your 1st amendment
| right to a private platform? You're free to criticize the
| government however you see fit, but you're not guaranteed the
| right to a microphone and stage that isn't yours. There are
| plenty of other communication channels you can use to express
| yourself. Your 1st amendment rights are not being infringed
| by being denied access to TikTok, just as the far right isn't
| having their 1st amendment rights being infringed by being
| denied to use BlueSky as their platform.
| echoangle wrote:
| > You're free to criticize the government however you see
| fit, but you're not guaranteed the right to a microphone
| and stage that isn't yours.
|
| So if I wanted to hold a speech how corrupt the government
| is and then the government passed a law that a PA supplier
| isn't allowed to sell me a Microphone or speakers, that
| wouldn't infringe my first amendment right because I don't
| have a right to a microphone or a stage? (Im not American
| so I don't have any first amendment rights anyways but for
| arguments sake.)
| anon84873628 wrote:
| Yes, a court could reach that conclusion.
|
| It's the PA supplier would be in a better position to
| argue that their rights are being violated. Especially if
| a single customer was targeted because of their political
| views / protected characteristics etc.
|
| The problem with the TikTok scenario is that no specific
| group is being targeted for restraint. And the government
| does have the right to regulate trade. E.g. there are
| embargoed countries, export controls, etc. The fact that
| you can't sell raw milk across state lines is different
| from a hypothetical restriction on selling raw milk to,
| say, people named Todd.
| imgabe wrote:
| No, it wouldn't. Congress could pass a law that we're not
| going to import microphones and speakers from China. The
| Constitution explicitly gives them the power to do that.
| You could then purchase them from any one of a number of
| other companies and your speech is unaffected.
| djcapelis wrote:
| Look, my point is that the first amendment is in play here
| and it's not ridiculous to suggest a free speech analysis
| is required to hold the law as constitutional or not, which
| is what the court _did_ and what reasonable people can
| agree or disagree around to what extent that speech should
| or shouldn't be protected. (I personally think, as I stated
| that the free speech harm is a stronger case from the users
| who have now been restrained in their ability to use the
| platform and software distributors who are now restrained
| from distributing specific software than it is as applied
| to TikTok where the legislation is content neutral and so
| the free speech analysis is less relevant.) I'm not even
| claiming that this law should be found unconstitutional,
| just that there are free speech issues to adjudicate and
| the less obvious ones are probably _more_ relevant than the
| one people are citing where the restraint is content
| neutral.
|
| Your comment however draws a weird parallel later on though
| but first let's take a moment here:
|
| > Your 1st amendment rights are not being infringed by
| being denied access to TikTok
|
| That is what the court found but it opens some interesting
| questions that really do have impacts.
|
| I would bet that you would find a law that says op-eds can
| only be published in an approved list of venues to be
| clearly wrong, yet it is equally just determining venue and
| not content.
|
| As would a law which banned foreign ownership of venues
| while also introducing a regulatory scheme for domestic
| ownership stakes of sensitive industries and defined news
| and commentary as a nationally security sensitive industry.
| (Which this law essentially does for certain types of
| apps.)
|
| So at some point a law can be "content neutral" and about
| access to venue not content but I bet almost any reasonable
| person would agree it's an unreasonable restraint.
|
| Now for a situation you draw the above as a parallel with
| but is very different:
|
| > just as the far right isn't having their 1st amendment
| rights being infringed by being denied to use BlueSky as
| their platform.
|
| Bluesky can do whatever they want but if the government
| were to get involved in defining regulations around which
| users could use BlueSky... yes absolutely I would expect it
| to be thrown out on first amendment grounds and expect it's
| a significantly _stronger_ case than any of the examples
| above.
|
| It's a much weaker and almost irrelevant case when directed
| at a non-governmental organization in which some folks are
| using "free speech" as an argument over what entities which
| are not enjoined from almost any actions may do with their
| own venues. But yeah, if it was the government telling
| BlueSky who to ban? You bet that's got first amendment
| implications and I'd expect a court to review it under
| strict scrutiny. (And I wouldn't expect it to survive.)
| kelnos wrote:
| > _I would bet that you would find a law that says op-eds
| can only be published in an approved list of venues to be
| clearly wrong, yet it is equally just determining venue
| and not content._
|
| That's a poor analogy, because allowlists and blocklists
| are not the same thing and do not have the same effects.
| The government only allowing a list of certain approved
| media outlets would be an obvious 1A infringement. The
| government blocking certain media outlets is not.
| djcapelis wrote:
| It's not meant to say they're the same thing, it's meant
| to demonstrate clearly that venue restrictions even when
| content neutral can impose restrictions on speech and
| those restrictions must be balanced and scrutinized
| appropriately under our system.
| YurgenJurgensen wrote:
| The US need not restrict any of your speech. You're not
| directly communicating with any of TikTok's users when you
| post to it, TikTok is. In the Internet age, even apparent
| one-way communication is handshakes upon handshakes. Consider
| this: You're free to send whatever messages you want to
| ByteDance. They're just not allowed to reply (or have anyone
| reply on their behalf). The app is a useless binary blob if
| it can't set up a TLS connection.
| kristjansson wrote:
| The government isn't banning TikTok, the law only requires a
| change in ownership. The current owners are choosing to
| performatively shut down in an attempt to bully their way
| through that requirement
| kelnos wrote:
| I get that you believe that's what's happening, but I can't
| imagine any US court agreeing with you.
|
| The law (and the US constitution) does not guarantee any
| particular platform for your speech. It just guarantees that
| you can speak, and courts have interpreted that to mean that
| you need to have some reasonable platform, and that laws
| can't put an unreasonable burden on your ability to speak on
| some platform.
|
| As an aside:
|
| > _Telling internet providers what servers they're allowed to
| let my device access?_
|
| The law does not target internet providers at all. They are
| not required to block traffic to *.tiktok.com or any of their
| IP addresses.
| yibg wrote:
| I keep seeing this type of comment here, like a sell is the
| obvious thing to do. Why? Selling / divesting TikTok US under
| these circumstances would surely not fetch the best price. In
| addition they would immediately create a global competitor that
| have the same product. Why would ByteDance the company or its
| investors want that?
| rchaud wrote:
| Not to mention, why would they trust the US to pay tens of
| billions of dollars after this rigmarole? The incoming head
| of state doesn't exactly have a great track record of seeing
| through on promises to pay and is threatening tariffs against
| all and sundry.
|
| Anybody with that kind of financing readily available is
| throwing it at AI and not another social network, no matter
| how useful it might be for domestic propaganda.
| threeseed wrote:
| > Not to mention, why would they trust the US to pay tens
| of billions of dollars
|
| Why would the US government be involved in paying tens of
| billions ?
|
| The idea is that ByteDance would sell it to Meta, X, etc
| and would be a private transaction.
| baobun wrote:
| How separate is Twitter and the government really from
| today?
| None4U wrote:
| Today? Quite. Tomorrow?
| FpUser wrote:
| Ask the same question when the person that owns it
| finally buys the government.
| yibg wrote:
| Which makes no sense. Meta wouldn't sell "meta Uk", data
| product, algo and all to a competitor for 20 billion or
| whatever the number floating around is.
| threeseed wrote:
| It doesn't have to be a competitor. They simply have to
| divest the US operation.
|
| Just like happens in China and in many other countries.
| yibg wrote:
| Whoever they sell to becomes an immediate competitor
| though no? They'd get the software, US users and algo.
| rchaud wrote:
| Divesting the US operation would be pointless, the goal
| of the law is to control the algorithm, and that isn't
| something that the US office has access to. If they did
| they could simply be poached like Uber did to Waymo.
| cbzbc wrote:
| Sanctions regimes still exist.
| rchaud wrote:
| It's a distinction without a difference. Musk is
| effectively an agent of the state, with billions in
| subsidies he wants to protect, and a Chinese auto market
| he is desperate to be allowed into.
|
| The CCP would not miss out on taking advantage of the
| situation and demanding trade concessions for agreeing to
| sell. US government would absolutely be involved in
| raising the necessary finance, as banks won't be bending
| over backwards to lend Musk money for another speculative
| venture.
| absolutelastone wrote:
| I don't see why any of this must be so. Couldn't they
| just move or sell to any other country on the planet not
| on the adversary list?
|
| Congress doesn't appear to care if TikTok survives or
| not. TikTok bans are not news.
| kelnos wrote:
| They could, but why would they want to? Consider:
|
| * If ByteDance divests their US TikTok operations, they
| create a new competitor that could potentially out-
| compete them in other (non-US, non-Chinese) markets.
|
| * Whatever amount of money they get for this divestiture
| would be much lower than what the business is worth to
| ByteDance (when your options are sell or shut down,
| potential buyers will not feel the need to bid high).
|
| * ByteDance's US TikTok operations are certainly of non-
| financial value to the Chinese government. That value is
| likely orders of magnitude higher than their financial
| value to ByteDance. Selling that user base is probably
| not preferable to shutting down. Influence campaigns are
| certainly easier to run on a platform you own, but
| certainly those campaigns are already running on
| Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc. Why add another
| platform that they can't control where they have to run
| influence campaigns?
| Agentus wrote:
| > Not to mention, why would they trust the US to pay tens
| of billions of dollars after this rigmarole?
|
| Don't need trust when you have the second most powerful
| state entity backing you. Corporate America has a complete
| jammed full history of its interests getting screwed over
| by foreign entities only for the US government to step in
| either with military force or some coercive measure
| resulting in a corrective action. Im sure China is well
| aware of this playbook and are probably apt to copy it too.
| afiori wrote:
| You might overestimate the tendency of states that are
| not the US to invade others
| stale2002 wrote:
| Well yeah, of course Tiktok isn't going to get the best price
| now that it has tried and failed to play chicken against the
| US government.
|
| They should have seen a law like this being passed coming
| years ago. That is more than enough time to divest.
|
| Too late now for them, I guess. They can take the financial
| hit for being so bad faith.
| hollerith wrote:
| Why is Tiktok US no longer worth $10 billion or so?
|
| Why wouldn't American investors still want to buy it?
|
| My guess is that American investors would want to buy it,
| but want the algorithm, but ByteDance is not willing to
| sell the algorithm out of fear that sharing it would
| degrade its competitive position outside the US.
| stale2002 wrote:
| If a 100-200 billion dollar valuation company gets sold
| for 10 billion dollars then they would be agreeing with
| my point, not disagreeing with it.
| jeff4f5da2 wrote:
| > Their preference to shut down instead of receiving tens of
| billions of dollars would be a clear violation of a company's
| fiduciary duty to shareholders for any normal company.
|
| It is not. A company would be (financially) punished if it
| didn't follow regulations. DiDi was an example.
| https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/23/investing/didi-us-delisti...
| bjourne wrote:
| Many American civil liberties organizations think that the the
| ban is a free speech issue:
|
| https://action.aclu.org/send-message/tell-congress-no-tiktok...
|
| https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-scotus-tiktok-ban-violates...
|
| https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/01/eff-statement-us-supre...
|
| It seems to me that they aren't "pretending" they honestly
| believe the issue is about free speech. Laws that does not
| explicitly curtail free speech but effectively still does just
| that can certainly be created.
| richwater wrote:
| ACLU is a biased organization and only supports the bill of
| rights when it suits their political alignment.
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| Unfortunately so. It didn't _use_ to be that way - the ACLU
| used to be so principled that they would defend literal
| Nazis ' rights. But they've fallen a long way since then.
| Aloisius wrote:
| Uh. They still defend the civil rights of neo-Nazis
| (aren't any actual nazis left), white supremacists, etc.
| echoangle wrote:
| > neo-Nazis (aren't any actual nazis left)
|
| Neo-Nazis are a subset of Nazis though, no?
| Aloisius wrote:
| In the sense of an adherent to Nazism, yes, neo-Nazis are
| Nazis.
|
| In the context of "literal Nazis" the ACLU had argued for
| the rights of - like the German American Bund, which
| contained actual members of the National Socialist German
| Workers' Party, not exactly.
| kjellsbells wrote:
| Agree, but (and yes, whataboutism ahoy!) one can make
| observations about a similar lack or principle on the
| right.
|
| It always seemed to me that the US was fuzzy when the
| very clear text of the Constitution rubbed up against the
| realities of a complex State. For example,
|
| - the 1st Amendment doesnt say the speech can be
| overridden by a compelling national security interest,
| which is the argument here. But the US has security
| services, and legitimately there are cases where to allow
| speech does harm. But if you are going to be honest,
| shouldnt there be an amendment giving the State an
| override of 1A?
|
| - 2A is infamous, of course, and for the love of $deity
| lets not discuss it here, but why does "not abridged" get
| overriden by bans in, say, machine guns, which have been
| on the books since the Chicago gangster era? Either you
| abridge or not. Or at least be honest about it .
|
| - Some speakers in the covid era made a very strong
| appeal to personal bodily autonomy when it came to
| vaccine mandates. Ok, let's follow that. Does it not then
| also follow that a woman cannot be forced to carry a baby
| to term? That would seem logical, but the connection is
| not made. Conversely there is no "commonweal" override
| written into the Constitution and we are left with random
| SCOTUS decisions over the last 240 years.
| tom_ wrote:
| "for the love of $deity lets not discuss it here" - good
| idea, and why not take your own advice.
| josephcsible wrote:
| > the 1st Amendment doesnt say the speech can be
| overridden by a compelling national security interest,
| which is the argument here.
|
| No it isn't. The argument here is that it isn't a
| restriction on speech at all.
| llamaimperative wrote:
| The government can fine American companies for carrying
| certain content but it's not a 1st Amendment issue? Why
| are people buying this lame argument?
| pixl97 wrote:
| Because the people 250 years ago could not have imagined
| the problems that we'd have invented for ourselves in
| these days. It was always meant to be a living document
| with a process of adding and changing amendments. And in
| between that time the the way people interact has grown
| more complex. If you took those same intelligent men and
| dropped them into today, the Amendments would look
| different.
| llamaimperative wrote:
| If only they made a process to change it...
| kelnos wrote:
| Good luck amending the constitution these days. We can't
| even pass an amendment that says that women have the same
| rights as men.
|
| An amendment process that in practice is impossible to
| exercise is just as good as having no amendment process
| at all.
| llamaimperative wrote:
| That's not an excuse for circumventing it, obviously.
| josephcsible wrote:
| Because it's not the content but rather the company
| behind it. The exact same .apk would be allowed if
| ByteDance divested.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _The government can fine American companies for
| carrying certain content_
|
| No, and no one is saying they can. The law says American
| companies can't do business with a certain foreign-owned
| company.
|
| It is _beyond_ settled in law that this is something that
| the US government can do.
| llamaimperative wrote:
| It's not _a_ certain company, it's a whole class of them
| (partially defined by POTUS' whims)
|
| Sure, the government can do that, and when doing so
| infringes on Americans' speech or access to information,
| it introduces First Amendment questions that must be
| addressed.
|
| "The government says CNN can't post stories from BBC"
| isn't immediately resolved by "it's a foreign company."
| josephcsible wrote:
| > when doing so infringes on Americans' speech or access
| to information
|
| But this doesn't do that. Everything that Americans could
| post or watch on TikTok, they're still allowed to post or
| watch anywhere else.
| llamaimperative wrote:
| Just like everything that a reader might find in NYTimes,
| they could also find on Fox News!
| josephcsible wrote:
| It sounds like you're saying that there's some content on
| TikTok that Instagram Reels/YouTube Shorts/etc. won't
| allow on their platforms. Is that correct? If so, can you
| give an example?
| afiori wrote:
| Both of these I suspect are handled sorta explicitly by
| giving the state the power to do whatever it wants if it
| is important and essential enough.
|
| The courts have various categories for how important
| something needs to be to allow certain levels of
| unconstitutionality, eg suppose I have "legally" built
| the nuclear device featured in a recent kurgesatz video
| with enough kiloton to start by itself a nuclear winter
| kill every person on the planet... I seriously suspect
| SCOTUS will be ok with the state taking the ignition keys
| away from me
| addicted wrote:
| They would defend the Nazi right to free speech.
|
| You seem to be confused between principally defending
| everyone having the same rights vs defending everything
| anyone can do.
|
| The ACLU defends Nazi's rights because they believe Nazis
| should have the same rights as everyone else irrespective
| of who they are.
|
| That doesn't mean they defend every possible action that
| can be considered a civil liberty.
| Spivak wrote:
| Especially when individual liberty is in contention with
| collective liberty. This is the "hard problem" for
| organizing a free society.
|
| Eliminating traffic laws would make individuals more free
| in a literal sense, but those rules also make it so
| people can get from place to place quickly and safely.
| The liberty interpretation is that what people actually
| want is to travel, not to drive however they like. So you
| trade a freedom most people don't miss to enable another.
|
| Vaccine mandates are a great example of this contention
| where under normal circumstances nobody cares about
| having to get vaccinated but they do care about not
| getting polio. Covid was strange in that the number of
| people opposed was significantly larger than I think
| anyone expected.
| bko wrote:
| For those unaware of ACLU's change over the last 10 or so
| years, here is an example:
|
| In September 2021, the ACLU wrote a New York Times op-ed
| defending vaccine requirements, arguing they actually
| advance civil liberties by protecting the most vulnerable
| and allowing more people to safely participate in public
| life. David Cole and Daniel Mach, the authors, wrote that
| individual liberty isn't absolute when it puts others at
| risk.
|
| Surely, one can be pro vaccine mandates. But I would not
| expect a civil liberties organization to hold this
| position.
|
| [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/02/opinion/covid-
| vaccine-man...
| stuaxo wrote:
| Well, whose rights are we talking about.
|
| There is "freedom to" and "Freedom from" lots of people
| not getting vaccinated affects people's freedom from
| getting infected.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| You wouldn't expect a civil liberties organization to
| have an opinion on containing a dangerous pandemic? In
| addition to working at the ACLU the people doing their
| work are also humans.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| When "containing a dangerous pandemic" means a
| restriction on civil liberties, I would expect the ACLU
| to comment on that matter.
|
| I am personally happy with vaccine requirements, but IMO
| the ACLU should have been defending the people who
| weren't.
| vharuck wrote:
| Advocacy organizations shouldn't aspire to extremes. The
| ACLU should offer reasonable and practical help and
| commentary on civil liberties. Otherwise, you get the
| modern NRA that fights every law about firearms.
| addicted wrote:
| Should the ACLU defend the rights of someone to blow up
| nuclear bombs in their backyard?
|
| That's a clear curtailment of their civil liberties. And
| assuming they're in a rural area may not harm anyone else
| either.
|
| This is an obviously extreme example but the point still
| stands. Any civil liberties organization cannot focus
| absolutely narrowly on that question in every situation
| but has to apply a broader approach.
| remarkEon wrote:
| Surely you see the difference between someone having
| Strategic weapons in their garage, and the government
| forcing someone to take a medicine that they don't want
| to take, right?
|
| >but the point still stands
|
| On what, exactly?
| pixl97 wrote:
| You, actually, do not have the right to spread viruses
| around.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon
|
| All individual rights are balanced with the rights of
| other individuals/society. You can be given the choice to
| vaccinate or be forcefully quarantined. This has occurred
| many times in the US and the right of the state to do
| this has been upheld.
|
| While corona was weak we will eventually seem some
| dangerous bullshit spread and the anti-vax dipshits are
| going figure out exactly what their rights entail as they
| are being drug from their house at gunpoint with the
| express will of the majority of the population.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Yes, the government has quarantine powers, which have
| been broadly established. They did not necessarily have
| the right to go about it how they did in 2020, which was
| through OSHA rules and other "soft power" rather than
| through their power to quarantine people. Almost nobody
| was actually quarantined in relation to COVID.
|
| A broad, sweeping quarantine in relation to COVID would
| have been so unpopular that you can see why they went
| about it in a "softer" way, but sometimes the government
| can't have its cake and eat it too.
|
| Those vaccine mandates were broadly ruled illegal, even
| in light of the quarantine power. These sorts of civil
| liberties are complicated, and the ACLU found themselves
| on the wrong side of this one.
| josephcsible wrote:
| There's a big difference between quarantining people who
| you know have a dangerous disease for a few weeks until
| they're better, and quarantining the entire country for
| years because you're not sure who has a dangerous
| disease.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| To be clear, they probably did have the legal power to
| quarantine the whole country, but after a week or so
| there might have been an armed revolt.
|
| Edit: Maybe they didn't.
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| Unlikely, freedom of domestic travel is subject to the
| strict scrutiny Constitutional standard (international
| travel is a more open question). Banning freedom of
| travel for the entire country would be equivalent to
| banning freedom of speech for the entire country, from a
| Constitutional perspective.
|
| Interestingly, the myriad freedom of travel cases
| happened so long ago and were so decisively settled as a
| strong right that everyone has kind of forgotten about
| them because there is little interesting left to decide.
| Not as controversial as questions around the meaning of
| speech. But I think the last significant questions were
| addressed around the Second World War.
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| Quarantine powers are subject to the "strict scrutiny"
| standard. Freedom of domestic travel is as fundamental as
| freedom of speech in Constitutional law. This has been
| thoroughly adjudicated many times and in many contexts by
| the US Supreme Court, including many attempts by the
| government to exploit regulatory and taxation loopholes
| to indirectly effect that outcome.
|
| It is unambiguously unconstitutional to prevent everyone
| from traveling, even for quarantine purposes. It must be
| evaluated on an individual basis subject to judicial
| review to establish that the _individual_ presents a
| clear and present danger, and only for a very limited
| duration. No different than restrictions on speech.
|
| This is the reason no State anywhere, regardless of who
| was in power, instituted hard lockdowns during COVID.
| This is known to be settled law to such an extent that
| attempting to prevent the population from traveling
| without clearing the strict scrutiny standard would be
| met with an instant Federal court injunction, likely
| coupled with a withering public statement questioning the
| competence of the State's Attorney General. There was no
| upside in taking that risk.
|
| The idea that you can forcibly quarantine someone solely
| because you don't like their choices is wishcasting, not
| based on credible Constitutional foundations.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| > Should the ACLU defend the rights of someone to blow up
| nuclear bombs in their backyard?
|
| If someone actually went to court over this, I would
| hope/expect that the NRA would send some lawyers. The
| ACLU isn't that into the second amendment and has never
| been. However, nobody has gone to court over this. They
| did go to court over vaccine mandates.
|
| By the way, the only grounds the government would have to
| stand on here are radiation-related. It is broadly legal
| to use explosives on your own property unless you're too
| close to someone else's property. It is also broadly
| legal to build your own weapons.
| tzs wrote:
| Pretty much every measure taken against COVID had been
| taken many times before during the numerous epidemics of
| cholera, typhus, yellow fever, bubonic plague, smallpox,
| and influenza that plagued (no pun intended!) the US
| since its founding.
|
| Requiring inoculation/vaccination, shut downs, masks, and
| quarantines was generally considered a legitimate use of
| state power to prevent the spread of deadly diseases and
| not an infringement of civil liberties.
|
| Actually this goes back to even before the US was
| founded. George Washington imposed mandatory smallpox
| inoculation on his army during the revolution. This
| probably contributed significantly to his victory because
| both the British army and native tribes that had sided
| with the British were heavily weakened by smallpox but
| Washington's was not due to that inoculation requirement.
| umanwizard wrote:
| Please share any pre-Covid example of the government
| shutting down all public gatherings including weddings
| and funerals and closing the vast majority of businesses
| for a substantial period of time.
|
| There may have been isolated examples in the past, but
| the degree was not the same.
| freehorse wrote:
| And what is their political alignment in this case (and in
| general)? Considering that banning tiktok got voted with
| bipartisan support.
| michaelt wrote:
| As I understand things, they tend to leave gun rights
| stuff to the enormous and well-funded NRA.
|
| In cases from "Roe vs Wade" to "Masterpiece Cakeshop" and
| "Hobby Lobby" the ACLU came out against things supported
| by the religious right. And although the ACLU regularly
| supports the free speech rights of swastika-tattoed nazis
| - Republicans don't see that as supporting their side,
| because no reasonable person wants to think people with
| swastika tattoos are on their side.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| This issue is not about freedom of speech to any of the
| players. Its geopolitics. The ACLU and the EFF care about the
| precedent it sets.
|
| Shocking news: different players have different motivations.
| vivekd wrote:
| I don't know if it's a free speech issue but legally speaking
| it's definitely not a first amendment issue because the law
| targets foreign corporations and the Constitution doesn't
| apply to foreign entities
| echoangle wrote:
| But wouldn't you be infringing the rights of the US users
| if you ban the platform they want to message other US users
| over? Isn't that indirectly infringing their free speech?
| Or does the first amendment not protect stuff like this?
| Bjartr wrote:
| That indirectness is exactly why it's not. The first
| amendment ensures you can express what you want, but
| you're not owed a platform.
| echoangle wrote:
| But can the government actively interfere with my
| communication by banning the platform? If the government
| notices that a lot of critics are organizing over
| Discord, can they ban Discord, because they're not
| banning speech specifically, only a platform used to
| spread the speech?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _can the government actively interfere with my
| communication by banning the platform?_
|
| Yes. Foreign-ownership rules have been a thing in America
| for almost a century [1].
|
| [1] https://www.fcc.gov/general/foreign-ownership-rules-
| and-poli...
| vivekd wrote:
| I think what you raise is something the courts should
| consider if the government were trying to shut down a
| platform because of what it's users were doing on it. But
| it's not a live issue in this case. There is no
| allegation that the US seeks to suppress TikTok because
| of what Americans are posting on it. TikTok isn't saying
| the government is doing that and I don't believe the
| government is seeking to control the speech of TikTok
| users. The consern seems to be more about who controls
| the algorithm and data collection (a foreign state with
| adversarial interests) and it seems to me that it has
| nothing to do with anything Americans are posting on
| TikTok. I mean the content on TikTok isn't all that
| political or revolutionary
| umanwizard wrote:
| > There is no allegation that the US seeks to suppress
| TikTok because of what Americans are posting on it.
|
| Of course there is. It's obvious that a huge chunk of the
| momentum behind the TikTok ban stems from a desire to
| suppress anti-Israel content.
| josephcsible wrote:
| If that were the case, then why was ByteDance given the
| option to divest?
| thrawa8387336 wrote:
| How is that incompatible? Who would control it
| noirbot wrote:
| Because the drafters knew they wouldn't/couldn't/aren't
| allowed to/would only be able to do so to someone more
| under the thumb of the US government?
|
| The actual purpose of a law or system is the actual
| outcome of it and not what it's dressed up to say its
| purpose is. A law that says "we don't allow mosques
| unless they're owned by people not descended from
| countries on a terrorism watch list" is still an
| infringement of the freedom of religion. We don't have to
| pretend there's good faith here.
| josephcsible wrote:
| > Because the drafters knew they wouldn't/couldn't/aren't
| allowed to/would only be able to do so to someone more
| under the thumb of the US government?
|
| This is at best vacuously true. Since China is the most
| powerful adversary of the US, you'd say that literally
| anyone else is more under the thumb of the US government
| than they are.
| umanwizard wrote:
| Because if they were owned by an American company it's
| much less likely they'd allow that content to go viral.
| josephcsible wrote:
| The law didn't require the new owner to be in America.
| Anywhere other than Iran, North Korea, China, or Russia
| would have been allowed.
| Bjartr wrote:
| Given how laws and American rights have been established
| to work. Yes, absolutely. They just need a legally
| acceptable reason to do so separate from the speech.
| Banning a platform because of speech they don't want
| isn't allowed, but banning a platform for other reasons
| is, even if that platform also happens to facilitate
| speech.
|
| Like with tik tok, the ban itself isn't a speech issue
| because there's nothing bytedance can change about it's
| communication to not be banned, it's an ownership
| problem.
| powerapple wrote:
| They could filter Palestine content, then although some
| people still want to ban it, it won't be easy
| wonnage wrote:
| Welcome to the religious fallacy of strict textualism,
| currently worshipped by the Supreme Court majority
| stale2002 wrote:
| By your very broad definition of infringement if a
| newspaper refuses to pay it's taxes, and then the
| government shuts down the newspaper down for that, this
| would be infringement.
|
| Clearly it's not.
|
| Yes, the government can make laws that effect speech
| platforms just like we can make them pay taxes.
| wongarsu wrote:
| But there are American users making and viewing content on
| that platform.
|
| The physical equivalent would be if China was hosting a
| TED-talk-like conference where anyone can come and hold a
| presentation, and after certain kinds of talks became
| popular congress would tell them that they are no longer
| allowed to let Americans in, neither to hold presentations
| nor to listen to them.
|
| Technically that doesn't violate the constitution, but it's
| not difficult to argue that it does violate the spirit of
| the constitution
| NLPaep wrote:
| An issue arises when popularity is manipulated through
| artificial boosting by an adversarial government.
|
| At some point, it becomes State Propaganda masquerading
| as grassroots activists.
|
| Control over content can influence and distort public
| discourse and understanding. This is also against the
| spirit of free expression envisioned in the constitution
| and instead injecting an intentionally divisive voice.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| The physical equivalent would be if the Chinese
| intelligence apparatus opened an auditorium where they
| said "come sit here and let us read your mind and we will
| feed you what advances our national interest".
| Jensson wrote:
| > But there are American users making and viewing content
| on that platform.
|
| Those Americans can host the exact same content on
| youtube or any of the many other video hosting sites.
|
| This is not a free speech issue, it is a megaphone issue.
| Spivak wrote:
| Just as a thought experiment, take your reasoning and try
| to ban as much speech with as much specificity as you
| can. You can't ban the content of the speech but you can
| ban venues where speech takes place and and means of
| transmitting speech so long as at least one venue and
| means remains.
| afiori wrote:
| Making things harder is not separable from making things
| impossible.
| vivekd wrote:
| That's true and that's actually something the courts
| consider. The standard is unreasonable burden. So it's
| not necessarily anything that makes speech harder, but if
| it does make speech unreasonably burdensome then it would
| run afoul of the first amendment.
|
| So if the alternative places where such speech could be
| hosted were extremely limited, expensive or very
| difficult to use then the law banning a platform could
| create an unreasonable burden.
| simondotau wrote:
| Suggesting that a shuttering of TikTok represents any
| impediment to your First Amendment rights -- even if no
| comparable alternative existed -- is to misunderstand
| what was promised by the Constitution.
|
| Of course, plenty of comparable alternatives do exist.
| simondotau wrote:
| It would be harder for me to learn piano if my teacher
| was convicted of murder.
| simondotau wrote:
| For the sake of the one downvote, please allow me to
| complete the implied dialogue tree:
|
| >>>> It would be harder for me to learn piano if my
| teacher was convicted of murder.
|
| >>> Nonsense. You can easily find another piano teacher.
|
| >> Right, just like people who use TikTok can easily find
| another short form video platform.
|
| > That's a terrible analogy.
|
| Nonsense. If TikTok was convicted and shut down because
| of rampant financial fraud, your First Amendment rights
| would be similarly unaffected.
|
| TikTok was told to close because they refused to bring
| their corporate ownership in line with requirements set
| out in US Code passed by Congress. The content of any
| video was never at issue.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| This make no sense, at all, in any context. Law
| enforcement, security, philosophy, competition, politics.
| None of it.
| kelnos wrote:
| Correct, but requiring American content creators and
| consumers to move to a different platform (when those
| platforms are already large, have huge reach, and have
| low switching costs) would likely not meet the bar for an
| unreasonable burden. I don't think the courts would
| strike down this law on first amendment grounds.
| vivekd wrote:
| > after certain kinds of talks became popular congress
| would tell them that they are no longer allowed to let
| Americans in,
|
| I think if that were the situation then yes the first
| amendment would be in issue. But I don't think anyone is
| saying that this is happening here. As I understand it
| this has nothing to do with what anyone is saying on
| TikTok and there are no social or protest movements
| gaining ground on TikTok that the government is trying to
| suppress. The only issue here is the foreign ownership
| and how that ownership is used. I don't think anyone is
| saying the government is doing this to silence any TikTok
| users
| umanwizard wrote:
| So if a particular book were published by a French company,
| the government could ban it from being sold in the US? I'm
| sure that's not true.
| josephcsible wrote:
| No, they couldn't ban just one book printed by a French
| company. They'd have to ban the company entirely. And
| that's what happened here too. It's not just TikTok that
| got banned, but all of ByteDance's other apps too, e.g.,
| Marvel Snap and CapCut.
|
| And it's also important that divesting was an option
| instead. In your analogy, they couldn't ban the books
| outright, but could demand they be published somewhere
| else.
| envy2 wrote:
| No. But they could ban American companies from providing
| services directly to that French publisher (e.g., a US
| company couldn't print books for or sell paper to that
| French publisher). However, a US law could not stop me
| from legally reading a copy I owned, or from selling or
| giving that copy to someone else within the US...
|
| The First Amendment case would be much clearer if this
| was actually about banning access to TikTok (it's not:
| TikTok self-blocked US users, Amazon/Oracle shut off
| servers, and app stores stopped distributing to US
| users). TikTok could choose to operate their service
| (like many other Chinese companies) using only non-US
| infra and without relying on American companies to
| distribute their app; indeed, the Chinese version of
| TikTok, Douyin, hosted entirely from Chinese servers,
| continued to work just fine.
|
| This case is also a reminder of why the iOS App Store is
| so bad for rights: at least on Android, you could
| sideload a 'banned' app; Google can comply with the law
| and US users can still download TikTok. On iOS, you don't
| have that option.
| sneak wrote:
| Using such restraints on foreign trade to censor
| publications is a very transparent end run around 1A.
|
| It is a big sign that we live in a police state that the
| courts are willing to be politicized to the point that
| they are willing to ignore this obvious trampling upon
| the human rights of both the app publisher and the app's
| users.
|
| Also, iOS users can go buy a tablet or phone that can
| sideload. Also, tiktok.com is a thing that works on
| everything.
| derektank wrote:
| If this law is a trampling of human rights, then so would
| basically any anti-trust enforcement on media
| corporations
| kempbellt wrote:
| This isn't an "end run around 1A" - the law doesn't
| target any speech or content at all. TikTok can keep
| operating with all the same content, they just need to
| separate from Chinese ownership first. If this was about
| censorship, why include that option?
|
| This isn't about censoring content, it's about preventing
| ByteDance from collecting personal data from 170M
| Americans that Chinese law requires them to hand over to
| their government.
| kelnos wrote:
| Oh please. TikTok isn't a publication. The individual
| creators on TikTok have not been censored; they've merely
| been told that TikTok is not permitted to operate in the
| US, and that they will have to post their creations --
| unedited, unaltered -- on other services. And those other
| services exist, and have wide reach, so it's not like
| saying "sure, you can continue to create, but your
| audience is now 5% the size it was before".
|
| > _Also, tiktok.com is a thing that works on everything._
|
| Sounds like you're arguing against yourself. TikTok
| hasn't actually been banned.
| sneak wrote:
| yes, tiktok is publication of an application program.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| It's not end run around 1A. 1A is a law protecting the
| people (and their various forms of organization) of the
| United States. Congress has every right to regulate or
| ban foreign entities of any kind for any reason from
| operating in the United States.
| sneak wrote:
| The rights enumerated by the constitution are human
| rights ("endowed by their creator") and are not specific
| to americans.
|
| Furthermore, the 1A is a restriction on the government
| and isn't related to whether or not someone is a citizen.
|
| There are lots of things congress is prohibited from
| doing under the constitution, including against foreign
| entities. Congress can't ban a foreign religion operating
| in the US, for example.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _rights enumerated by the constitution are human rights
| ("endowed by their creator")_
|
| You're quoting the Declaration of Independence.
| lokar wrote:
| And we have a long history of restricting foreign media
| ownership
| woooooo wrote:
| The constitution applies to American users and to non-
| Americans on American soil. It's not like the cops can
| execute you for being here on a tourist visa.
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| I do not think that the constitution necessarily applies
| to corporations. Corporations, for example, do not have a
| vote.
|
| Forced corporate divestiture is a thing, for example
| Merck.
| rinvi wrote:
| Corporations have First Amendment rights as ruled by
| Citizens United v. FEC. Even though corporations don't
| have a vote (which is its own can of worms because of
| their economic power, money = vote), they still enjoy
| some of the same constitutional protections as
| individuals do.
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| i mean that's old law. theres a new law in town and it
| was a 9-0 ruling too.
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| Thats only because those corporations are owned by
| Americans. Foreign corporations do not have first
| amendment rights.
| Gormo wrote:
| No, there's no such reasoning in that decision, which
| confirmed that _speech itself_ is protected by the first
| amendment, regardless of who originates it.
|
| And this ruling had little to do with any of that -- the
| first amendment challenge was that the ban imposed
| content-based burdens on the speech of the _users_ of
| TikTok, and the court ruled that it did not. So the ban
| therefore survived the challenge under intermediate
| scrutiny.
|
| The domestic vs. foreign ownership element of the ruling
| only pertained to the evaluation of whether there was a
| compelling government interest in enacting the ban, not
| whether the government was exempt from first amendment
| scrutiny at all.
| afiori wrote:
| Something being a free speech violation does not imply it
| being illegal, free speech exist as a independent concept
| from the US constitution
| Gormo wrote:
| The constitution applies to the government. It
| establishes the government and defines -- and therefor
| limits -- what the government is allowed to do.
|
| Corporations are considered "legal persons" for the
| purpose of applying the law to them in a convenient and
| organized way, but in real life, corporations are just
| organizational models employed by human beings for the
| purpose of coordinating their activities.
|
| The restrictions applicable to what the government is
| allowed to do to "people" as defined in the constitution
| apply regardless of what organizational models those
| people are using to coordinate their activities.
| Ultimately, everything in society reduces to people, and
| the government is not entitled to use reified
| abstractions to escape the constraints on its authority.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| The constitution applies to the people of the United
| States. It's in the first line: "We the people of the
| United States..."
|
| That Constitution also includes numerous clauses granting
| Congress the authority to regulate international commerce
| (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3). TikTok is a foreign
| commercial enterprise. We have restricted foreign
| products and services since the Boston Tea Party.
| Kamq wrote:
| > the Constitution doesn't apply to foreign entities
|
| Sort of true. Sometimes the constitution just says
| "persons", which has generally been interpreted to anyone.
|
| But it's not material, because the 1st amendment is a
| restriction on congress. That's why it starts with
| "Congress shall make no law...". The argument isn't about
| if TikTok has rights, it's about if congress is authorized
| to take this action. They're inter-mixed a bit because if
| TikTok does have the rights they claim, then congress
| automatically isn't authorized, but they are separate.
| vivekd wrote:
| you're right, my statement is an extreme
| oversimplification and there are situations where the
| constitution does apply to noncitizens (like due process
| during deportation) or places where things are unclear
| (if speech of foreign nationals were being regulated).
| But this case where we are talking about a foreign media
| platform's right to operate in the US without any
| reference to the content they are broadcasting... this
| seems to be one of those rare clear cut cases. I mean no
| one saw any issue with America effectively banning RT.
|
| There were some people on here saying that national
| security is just a pretense and the government is
| actually doing this because they dislike some of the
| content being posted on TikTok. I don't know if that's
| the case but if it were then I would concede there is a
| first amendment issue. But absent that I think it's safe
| to say that this case doesn't raise the first amendment.
| Kamq wrote:
| > But absent that I think it's safe to say that this case
| doesn't raise the first amendment.
|
| I still think it does, but it's Apple and Google's right
| to propagate the app, not TikTok's right to be on the app
| store. And since neither Apple nor Google are party to
| the lawsuit, nobody really has standing to take that
| particular line of argument.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| Yes, of course Congress has the authority to restrict
| foreign companies purely from the Commerce Clause alone.
| Their power over restricting foreign entities in the U.S.
| is nearly total. The U.S. is under no obligation to host
| speech or operations from any foreign business, entity,
| or application for any reason whatsoever.
| bjourne wrote:
| You may wish to read FIRE and other organizations amicus
| brief where they lay out exactly why they think the ban is
| a free speech issue, legally speaking:
| https://www.thefire.org/sites/default/files/2024/12/Amici-
| Ti...
| Zanni wrote:
| The ACLU hasn't been a credible defender of free speech in
| some time. (FIRE and EFF still credible.)
| yellow_postit wrote:
| I started having issues when they supported Citizens United
| Gormo wrote:
| But the ACLU was arguing in defense of free speech there.
| rayiner wrote:
| Had citizens united gone the other way, imagine what
| Trump could've done with Facebook and Google to ensure
| reelection in 2020.
| Gormo wrote:
| He wouldn't have had to resort to complex modes of
| influence, that's for sure. It's very scary that we've
| gotten to the point where people are claiming to "protect
| democracy" by proposing to allow institutions controlled
| by incumbent politicians to regulate who is allowed to
| say what in the lead-up to elections.
| Aunche wrote:
| > Laws that does not explicitly curtail free speech but
| effectively still does
|
| You can say the same thing about an antitrust law that forces
| Alphabet to sell Youtube.
| afiori wrote:
| If antitrust laws did not exist then making them would need
| a constitutional amendment
| addicted wrote:
| Well they're clearly wrong.
|
| Go read the SC unanimous judgment. It's very clear and lays
| out exactly why they're wrong.
|
| In fact they do a lot more than that because they state off
| the bat that there isn't even a first amendment question (a
| Chinese corporation doesn't have first amendment rights in
| the U.S.), but they go beyond, assume the first amendment
| does apply, and still explain why that isn't valid.
| michaelt wrote:
| Yeah, I can't believe all these people are talking
| "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of
| speech, or of the press" so literally.
|
| Haven't these people heard of Wickard v. Filburn?
| arrosenberg wrote:
| Tiktok definitely isn't press and algorithm-powered
| social media feeds can hardly be considered free speech.
| It's not even speech - it's broadcast! We've regulated
| broadcast since its' inception.
| michaelt wrote:
| While Tiktok doesn't have literal printing presses,
| neither do TV networks.
|
| How can the first amendment be interpreted so broadly
| that large multinational corporations financially
| supporting politicians is considered free speech, yet so
| narrowly that social media isn't part of the media?
| pixl97 wrote:
| > large multinational corporations financially supporting
| politicians
|
| You do realize that Rupert Murdoch was forced to become a
| US citizen because of the same laws that are in question
| about US media ownership.
|
| Social media is 100% the media. Social media has freedom
| of speech. Businesses don't have freedom of ownership,
| including media business. Kinda fucky, but this is very
| long standing law.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| Oh I agree. Citizen United was wrongly decided, and the
| only people who agree with it are those who benefit from
| the corruption it has enabled. It's far from settled law,
| though obviously it's not changing in the next 4 years.
|
| As for social media - it's an advertising platform. The
| algorithm is deciding what you see based on what sells
| ads. Who is exercising free speech there? Tiktok and Meta
| are exercising corporate speech in the name of profit
| making. They have no right to host such a platform, and
| the government certainly has the right to regulate it if
| they do have one.
|
| The government can't compel Meta, Tiktok or individual
| users to say X, Y, or Z, they can declare the ads-based
| algorithmic-content business model illegal or subject it
| to strict regulation - especially when its in the
| furtherance of free speech, like preventing Facebook from
| deplatforming people for having the wrong opinions that
| advertisers don't like.
| Kamq wrote:
| We only regulated broadcast using the public airwaves.
| That's why cable TV is generally exempt.
| llamaimperative wrote:
| SCOTUS, as they've done in many recent cases, is artfully
| skirting the substance of the issue.
|
| How is this ban actually enforced? By fining American
| companies for serving specific content. _That_ is the First
| Amendment issue. SCOTUS simply asserting that it 's not in
| order to make their ruling convenient does not actually
| make it so.
| gsibble wrote:
| There's all kinds of content that you can get fined for
| hosting. Pirated movies for instance.
|
| Is that also free speech? Again, it's just the law and
| how it is enforced.
| llamaimperative wrote:
| Copyright (in the US) was literally created by the same
| people who wrote the 1st Amendment. Copyright is _in the
| Constitution itself_. It was very obviously an exception
| from the start.
|
| "Foreign governments saying things" _also_ existed at the
| same time the 1st Amendment was written, and there were
| no carveouts from 1st Amendment in light of that.
|
| In any case: If SCOTUS during its early cases on
| copyright law (or copyright on the Internet) simply
| asserted "this has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment,"
| they'd also be wrong. That would be a clear avoidance
| tactic not to wrangle with the substantive issue. In
| reality, the big cases on copyright are riddled with 1st
| Amendment questions, considerations, and constraints.
| absolutelastone wrote:
| They ban American companies from distributing or
| maintaining the application, not specific content. More
| of a "criminal conspiracy" type of behavior rather than
| something that would relate to wikileaks or whoever. Can
| as well argue what is being banned is the data-collection
| side of the operation since it's the part that depends on
| using the app. Those companies still have the freedom to
| publicly state whatever the CCP has to say.
|
| The law indeed needed to be carefully written to "skirt"
| any first amendment violations, and SCOTUS unanimously
| agreed it had done so successfully.
| llamaimperative wrote:
| The application itself is content from the POV of the
| Constitution.
|
| Universal City Studios v Corley
| absolutelastone wrote:
| "Content" is narrower than "speech". In that case the
| restriction was described as "content-neutral". Hence it
| didn't require strict scrutiny, only intermediate
| scrutiny. Which seems like the blueprint for how they
| wrote the TikTok law.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _How is this ban actually enforced? By fining American
| companies for serving specific content._
|
| No, it fines American companies for providing services to
| a certain foreign-owned company.
|
| If this isn't permissible, then sanctions can't be a
| thing and OFAC can't do its job. (Whether or not that
| would be a good thing is a separate issue.)
| llamaimperative wrote:
| Funny that you mention that: sanction laws are _also_
| riddled with First Amendment questions, considerations,
| and constraints.
|
| A SCOTUS that simply asserted these questions do not
| exist would also be laughable.
|
| One very recent entry on this discourse:
|
| https://knightcolumbia.org/content/knight-institute-and-
| foun...
| bjourne wrote:
| I don't think that is clear at all. Refer to their amicus
| brief where they explain their reasoning in detail:
| https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/brief-amici-curiae-
| wr... The gist of it, which you missed, is that they think
| the ban violates _Americans_ first amendment rights.
| UltraSane wrote:
| The 1st Amendment doesn't apply to Chinese companies
| operating in the US.
| A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote:
| Personally, I am more concerned about people pretend it is not.
| ThinkBeat wrote:
| You should talk to the ACLU. Get them straighten out.
|
| https://action.aclu.org/send-message/tell-congress-no-tiktok...
| https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/banning-tiktok-i...
| stuaxo wrote:
| Fifuciary duty to shareholders is one of the most pernicious
| forces against progress there is.
|
| The short term "number go up" mentality is breeds is a cancer.
| roboror wrote:
| That's somewhat of a myth that lets these companies off easy,
| there's no ruling that says you have to maximize profit at
| all costs, or at all to an extent. The sole motivator is
| greed.
| jahewson wrote:
| The former does not imply the latter. Look at Bezos, he spent
| years re-investing in Amazon to provide long-term financial
| benefits to his shareholders. Pressure for short-term gains
| comes from shareholders on Wall St, it's not a fundamental
| property of shareholders.
| maeil wrote:
| It's a complete myth used by the greedy to justify corporate
| greed. The only way someone would ever be succesfully
| prosecuted for this is if they'd clearly _intentionally_
| crash the company. Go do a search, you won 't find a single
| other prosecution.
|
| I really hope this changes your mindset. The number go up
| mentality is purely a result of avarice from those enacting
| it, it has 0 to do with any laws, it's all personal greed.
| freehorse wrote:
| I do not understand this line of argument. On the one hand
| there is a political decision to ban-or-annex a foreign
| company, on the other hand the reaction should not be political
| and in general political implications should not be discussed?
|
| And if anything, if tiktok US is sold it will be way below its
| actual value, so there are many reasons to resist this apart
| from the political ones. And I assume they expect they will
| come to a concession in the first place.
| sethammons wrote:
| Another free speech interpretation: the right to assemble. I
| cannot assemble with the group of people I once was with TikTok
| gone
| Aloisius wrote:
| There's no government restrictions preventing you from
| assembling elsewhere.
|
| Your interpretation would make shutting down any place where
| people assembled unconstitutional which was clearly never the
| intent.
| curt15 wrote:
| Of course you can. Nothing stops the same group of people
| from congregating on Discord, Rumble, or even in real life.
| afiori wrote:
| This is like saying that closing all churches of a religion
| is not a big deal as the people can perfectly pray by
| themselves. (Also since they can pray in their head why not
| making that religion's prayers illegal to speak aloud)
| josephcsible wrote:
| No, it's like saying it's not a big deal to close one
| particular church building with eminent domain to build a
| railway station there.
| josephcsible wrote:
| If you used to assemble at a public park, and the city closes
| the park entirely to turn it into something else, does that
| violate your right to assemble too?
| sethammons wrote:
| depends. Was it the de facto town square?
| pixl97 wrote:
| Even if it was the town square, if the property went from
| public to private ownership _property ownership laws
| trump your free speech laws_. You cannot come on to my
| properly and say whatever you want, more so you can 't
| say it's not trespassing because of freedom of speech.
| afiori wrote:
| If the city sold the public property with the specific
| intent of having a private entity stop protected speech
| they were powerless to stop then yes, it would be a free
| speech issue
| DangitBobby wrote:
| If the specific intent was to make it difficult to
| assemble, then yes.
| lupusreal wrote:
| The law hasn't made it difficult to use alternatives to
| tiktok, which are free and numerous.
| slt2021 wrote:
| This is a shakedown and violation of property rights.
| flir wrote:
| Interesting position. I wonder if another country could just
| force Musk to divest himself of Twitter in the same way. Could
| solve a lot of headaches that way. Maybe the EU could force the
| issue.
| imgabe wrote:
| Possibly they could force him to divest from whatever legal
| entity Twitter operates under in that country, or force
| Twitter to stop operating in that country, but they would
| have no authority over the US corporation.
| flir wrote:
| The post I'm replying to is arguing that fiduciary duty
| would force the sale, not a law. The banning just... sets a
| chain of events in motion.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Depends on the political power of the entity and it's
| existing laws.
|
| In your example, Musk could stop the app in the EU, much like
| TT is/was doing.
|
| With this said, is the EU law written like the long standing
| US laws that give the TT law the power it has? If they have
| to enact new laws that would conflict with its member states
| wishes/dealings with other nations, expect it go to nowhere.
| maeil wrote:
| It won't. It would be fantastic if the EU banned Meta or X.
| Instead they're suddenly scared of continuing to fine them
| for their endless illegal data harvesting and gatekeeping to
| cozy up to Trump.
| pjmlp wrote:
| That would be if they were American, even if they were not
| Chinese, not every country puts shareholders capitalism above
| everything else a company is suppose to decide upon.
| ryan_j_naughton wrote:
| But those running corporations are fiduciaries - the have a
| legal and ethical obligation to their shareholders. If those
| shareholders want to not maximize profits and have other
| objectives, then that's totally fine and then the managements
| obligations are to those aims of the shareholders.
| pjmlp wrote:
| As per US law....
| blahedo wrote:
| > _pretending that the TikTok law is a speech issue_
|
| A lot of folks here are saying that the TT ban had nothing to
| do with free speech. A couple of indirect rhetorical questions
| that might be relevant to help illuminate opinions about TT:
|
| 1. If there were a single newspaper (in the pre-internet era)
| that developed and printed a lot of reporting with a particular
| political outlook and was the home of many columnists known for
| being the premier thinkers with that outlook, and a law were
| passed that had nothing to do with the content but had the
| effect of shutting down that paper, and only that paper, would
| this be a speech issue?
|
| 2. If a political rally were assembling to petition for redress
| of their grievances, and a law were passed that told them they
| could say what they wanted but the rally was only allowed to
| occur in a specific field 30 miles outside the city and 3 miles
| from the nearest paved road, would this be a speech issue?
|
| 3. Given that deadtree-books-in-physical-libraries are not the
| primary point of reference for most people anymore, if you
| wanted to block access to certain kinds of information and/or
| make a statement about doing so, what action would you take in
| the 21st century to do the equivalent of a book burning? And
| would this be a speech issue?
|
| There are obvious and easy things you can point out about how
| the TT law is different from each of those three scenarios,
| don't @ me about that. But it seems to me that most people who
| are serious (or, publicly serious, which is a little different)
| about supporting the TT ban give reasons for it that would be
| inconsistent with their answers to one or more of those three
| questions.
| Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote:
| Which of these examples includes the parts about foreign
| control? This is the primary issue as far I was aware. The
| chinese state does not have first amendment protections
| because they are not american citizens.
| emidoots wrote:
| (1) Doesn't match the situation at all, because the law
| didn't require the paper to shutdown - it required a foreign
| company to divest so that it is US-owned, and the paper could
| continue operations as normal.
|
| That's a pretty substantial difference.
|
| (2) Also doesn't match the situation, there is no requirement
| that TikTok restrict the reach or audience of their content
| in any way AFAIK.
|
| (3) The situation is more akin to "foreign government owns
| the local library, and can decide based on the identity of
| the person walking in which books the person is allowed to
| see and check out" - seems obviously problematic at least /if
| they do that/
| rangerelf wrote:
| All your examples miss the part about the company being a
| foreign government's psy-ops vehicle.
| afiori wrote:
| As many have pointed out it is not only titok's free that
| is in question, but rather the free speech of its users.
|
| As an analogy you could imagine that all the people in the
| cases above are neonazi pedos and you might conclude that
| they do not deserve free speech, but the point of the
| parent is that in all of those cases the free speech of the
| people was being infringed upon (the question is whether
| that is justified or not)
| FpUser wrote:
| >"Their preference to shut down instead of receiving tens of
| billions of dollars would be a clear violation of a company's
| fiduciary duty to shareholders"
|
| I am shedding tears for those poor shareholders.
| wongarsu wrote:
| > Their preference to shut down instead of receiving tens of
| billions of dollars would be a clear violation of a company's
| fiduciary duty to shareholders for any normal company
|
| This is only true if you assume the US is the only market that
| matters. But TikTok is very much an international phenomenon,
| and selling would likely harm the company far more than a
| couple billion. Firstly it would give another company
| everything they need to run a global competitor to TikTok,
| including software, infrastructure and userbase. Secondly it
| might encourage other countries to also force TikTok to sell.
|
| Giving in here would be the beginning of the end of TikTok and
| could well be argued to be a violation of the company's
| fiduciary duty to shareholders. It would be the ultimate
| version of chasing short-term gains by selling the long-term
| future.
| josephcsible wrote:
| > Secondly it might encourage other countries to also force
| TikTok to sell.
|
| Wouldn't that be a no-op if they already did so?
| aimanbenbaha wrote:
| Bytedance is privately held. With a 20% stake by founders and
| employees. Divesting according to the bill terms would have
| them giving away portion of their most precious IP that is the
| fyp recommendation system. Any reasonable company would refuse
| to totally divest and create a competitor just because a
| government said so. Also TikTok makes money for advertizing to
| the entire world not just the US.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| It's not "give away" when they get to charge the market price
| for it. They presumably also wouldn't inherently even have to
| split up the company, rather than e.g. do an IPO for the
| entire global enterprise.
| aimanbenbaha wrote:
| The valuation and acquisition process of the US branch of
| TikTok would take more than 8 months as outlined by the
| language of the bill. So it's already forcing them to
| receive chump change for it. Besides I don't think any
| company's strategic decisions like this should be solicited
| by a government. That goes against the free enterprise.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > 8 months
|
| This has been a possibility for a lot longer than 8
| months. Trump was talking about it during his _first_
| term more than four years ago. You can take the time to
| line up buyers even if you don 't end up having to sell,
| but if you have the time and then don't use it, whose
| fault is that?
|
| > Besides I don't think any company's strategic decisions
| like this should be solicited by a government. That goes
| against the free enterprise.
|
| Of course it's not free enterprise. It's a government
| regulation.
|
| If the US passes a law that says US companies aren't
| allowed to do business with Russia, that's not free
| enterprise either. Should those laws be unconstitutional?
| Maybe, but not any less than this one.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _That goes against the free enterprise._
|
| "Free enterprise" is a fantasy. We don't have that,
| pretty much never had. And I think that's a _good_ thing.
| Free enterprise /free markets tend to monopolize and prey
| on workers and consumers.
| ramblenode wrote:
| A forced sale will not get near the price as a deal you can
| walk away from. Two very different markets we are talking
| about.
| sangnoir wrote:
| > Their preference to shut down instead of receiving tens of
| billions of dollars would be a clear violation of a company's
| fiduciary duty to shareholders for any normal company.
|
| This is not strictly true - when a company leaves a huge
| market, it is imprudent to leave behind a well-resourced
| competitor in place. If I were a ByteDance shareholder, I'd
| hate if it spun off TikTok America LLC, and then having TikTok
| America compete against ByteDance in Europe and the Rest of the
| world on an equal technological footing, but perhaps even
| deeper pockets from American markets.
| vitorgrs wrote:
| What would happen if Brazil says they would ban X if Elon Musk
| didn't divest from it?
| rcstank wrote:
| What does this have to do with X, Brazil, or Musk?
| bdangubic wrote:
| everything... the world does not revolve solely around USA.
| the EU should ban all US social media companies too unless
| they are sold to one of EU countries, that makes sense,
| right?
| dagss wrote:
| You joke, but with the power these companies have over
| peoples minds (enough people to sway elections) it is a
| reality we may be going towards; each power constellation
| a different social media universe.
|
| TikTok has the power to sway any election how they want.
| The data available to them about what reels sways what
| people in what direction is immense. The only question is
| _if_ they are doing it.
|
| In 20 years I expect either democracy to vanish, or
| algorithmic social media to be widely banned, or control
| over algorithmic social media to be viewed more like
| control over nuclear weapons...
| vitorgrs wrote:
| Because seems insane to think that only because U.S says
| that Bytedance need to be divest or be banned, that any
| company will prefer to divest... And if the company doesn't
| do it, it's because of "hidden reasons"
|
| We are talking about a single country.
| pixl97 wrote:
| X would be blocked in Brazil.
|
| Now, expect Musk and his billions to push lobbying weight
| around to ensure Brazil paid dearly for it.
|
| International politics is a treacherous game.
| tensor wrote:
| "Shut down in the US" not shut down everywhere, if I'm not
| mistaken. It also doesn't seem like an obvious violation of
| their fiduciary duty. The eventual growth in all other
| jurisdictions could easily be claimed to be worth more than the
| sale price, and it could also be argued that selling to US
| holders would harm the platform internationally.
| protocolture wrote:
| "You may speak if..."
|
| Is a freedom of speech issue.
| afiori wrote:
| This does not make sense, it is like saying that requiring
| bezos to sell his newspapers is not a free speech issue (I
| might or might not support such action as I am not a free
| speech absolutist)
| nemothekid wrote:
| > _Their preference to shut down instead of receiving tens of
| billions of dollars would be a clear violation of a company's
| fiduciary duty to shareholders for any normal company._
|
| Would you argue for Tesla or Apple to sell to China? Do you
| think Musk would divest his China business? The parallels are
| almost identical
|
| 1. Tesla cars collect a huge amount of data.
|
| 2. Tesla is already banned from being driven by government
| officials.
|
| 3. Tesla has the best self driving algorithm
|
| 4. Chinese cars are already banned in the US
|
| 5. China is Tesla's second largest market
|
| 6. Tesla is the 3rd largest EV company in China
|
| Would you be surprised if Elon decided to exist China instead
| of "receiving tens of billions of dollars" from China?
| hot_gril wrote:
| Rep Mike Gallagher, the sponsor of the bill, published this op-
| ed making it sound like a speech issue:
| https://www.thefp.com/p/tik-tok-young-americans-hamas-mike-g...
| JimmaDaRustla wrote:
| I'm not buying this drivel - the company stands to make way
| more than one rushed and limited buyout would garner.
|
| Your argument is a false dichotomy, and it's made in bad faith.
| You argue that they should have taken a 10B pay day, meanwhile
| they are alive today and arguable worth over 100B.
| airstrike wrote:
| My read is that the US government originally wanted to try to
| force TikTok to restructure its relationship with China so it
| wouldn't be under control of the party, either by leaving the
| country or more likely selling to a US-friendly owner. This was
| the argument when Trump toyed with the idea during his first
| mandate.
|
| Occam's Razor suggests this was due to _both_ a matter of
| national security from the perspective of the intelligence
| community _and_ pressure from US companies who have struggled to
| outcompete TikTok. Basically an "everybody wins" move for the
| powers that be.[1]
|
| China understandably didn't want to lose its influence, and
| ByteDance didn't want to give up this incredibly valuable asset,
| so they said "We'll call your bluff and fight you on the basis of
| the freedom of speech".
|
| The US government then moved to get a law signed that carves out
| a very specific way to force ByteDance's hand. I'm sure there
| were lots of lawyers involved and maybe some back channel with
| the SCOTUS to make sure this was done in a constitutional manner
| so that it would survive a suit from TikTok which was all but
| guaranteed.[2]
|
| That plan worked, so now ByteDance/TikTok/CCP are again forced to
| sell, except they come to this round of negotiations in a much
| worse position than they were originally. This makes it better
| for the many, many buyers that have come out of the woodwork and
| made public and private bids for the asset.
|
| But these buyers don't want the actual value of TikTok to drop to
| zero, so they must also be pressuring president-elect Trump to
| reinstate the app so that it can continue to be used by Americans
| and therefore remain valuable, so that when they actually get
| their money's worth when it inevitably changes hands.
|
| Trump isn't restoring TikTok so that it can continue to operate
| as in the "status quo ante bellum negotii". He's restoring it so
| that {insert buyer} can claim the spoils in a few weeks.
|
| ---
|
| [1]: We can debate whether "everybody wins" includes the US
| population, but I think they do, because Chinese influence over
| US culture is strictly worse than US influence over US culture,
| seeing as incentives are by definition irreconcilable and
| therefore always worse if under control of the CCP.
|
| [2]: It stands to reason that all of the US government and the
| top echelons of business and finance is operating in concert here
| to drive the outcome they want, which is to remove the influence
| of the CCP over young American minds and to benefit from forcing
| the asset to be controlled by a US entity.
| A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote:
| << That plan worked, so now ByteDance/TikTok/CCP are again
| forced to sell, except they come to this round of negotiations
| in a much worse position than they were originally.
|
| I appreciate the analysis even if I disagree with it.
|
| << many buyers that have come out of the woodwork and made
| public and private bids for the asset.
|
| It is mildly funny given that China is not selling it. It was
| defacto made a real geopolitical issue with 170m US users as
| pawns. They may well be buyers, but China is not in a position
| of weakness here. If anything, the past 48h showed that users
| can simply say 'fuck it' out of spite.
|
| In short, from game theory perspective, even if they decided to
| sell, they can now extract heavy concessions. Yeah, US won so
| hard on this one.
|
| As I may have mentioned in another post, individual players may
| have gained some ground, but that is it. US lost a lot in this
| exchange alone.
| airstrike wrote:
| The extension is for 90 days. If they don't sell, they are
| worth very little after those three months elapse. It's a
| life line and a fire sale.
|
| Everyone already knew TikTok was valuable. This isn't new
| information. They have no concessions to extract here.
|
| Users haven't said anything out of spite. Some people signing
| up for some other services was _not_ what drove Trump to
| announce this executive action.
| A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote:
| I am willing to put cash money in escrow on this bet,
| because I do not think it is about the money at this point;
| not anymore.
| metabagel wrote:
| > Some people signing up for some other services was not
| what drove Trump to announce this executive action.
|
| To me, there is a strong appearance of quid pro quo between
| ByteDance and Trump. In that case, there doesn't need to be
| a sale. Trump likely will require a simulation of
| restructuring which enables him to declare ByteDance in
| compliance, and the whole things goes away.
| moussess wrote:
| US came out way ahead here. They gain full control of TikTok.
| They have a precedent now to ban apps from hostile power.
| They gained even more respect from countries that hate
| China/russia/iran, such as Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, India,
| etc. they now project power over countries that were trying
| to play both sides of US and China, such as Singapore,
| Malaysia. And of course, Chinese government took this
| takedown with a whimper, signaling it is really powerless
| against US
| A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote:
| << They gain full control of TikTok.
|
| Well, did they? So far it is not that clear.
|
| << They have a precedent now to ban apps from hostile
| power.
|
| Is that a good thing? If so, why?
|
| << They gained even more respect from countries
|
| Heh, you honestly may want to reconsider this statement. It
| is not respect, when China openly effectively says 'nah' to
| sale and shutters the app instead..
|
| << Chinese government took this takedown with a whimper
|
| Huh? Dude... where did you see a whimper. Allow me to
| revisit events.
|
| 1. Congress passes a law effectively banning TikTok 2.
| TikTok sues over free speech and loses appeal with SCOTUS
| 3. Rather than selling, it shuts down the app 4. Users go
| everywhere, but ( apparently ) US apps 5. Incoming
| administration gives assurances it won't actually enforce
| anything for now
|
| I accept there are ways of looking at things, but this is
| something else.
| airstrike wrote:
| Users didn't go anywhere. 500-700k of users downloading
| some app to protest because it's cool is hardly
| pressuring the government.
| A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote:
| You know what? Lets agree to disagree. I am sure we will
| see the exciting conclusion of this saga 90 days from
| now.
| metabagel wrote:
| What makes you think Trump will require anything meaningful of
| TikTok? What's important is what TikTok can do for him, not
| anything related to national security or ownership concerns.
| airstrike wrote:
| _> What makes you think Trump will require anything
| meaningful of TikTok?_
|
| I'm not sure I follow as I didn't say Trump will require
| anything and I don't know what "meaningful" means in this
| sentence.
|
| _> What's important is what TikTok can do for him, not
| anything related to national security or ownership concerns._
|
| You're neglecting what the _sale_ of TikTok can do for him,
| which is to curry an immense amount of favor with Big Tech,
| Wall Street and the intelligence community, and possibly one
| or several unnamed players in this negotiation.
| metabagel wrote:
| > I'm not sure I follow as I didn't say Trump will require
| anything and I don't know what "meaningful" means in this
| sentence.
|
| I thought you said that Trump would require TikTok to be
| sold. Did I misread? I was asking why you think Trump will
| require _anything_ meaningful of TikTok. More specifically,
| why do you think Trump would require TikTok to sell?
|
| > You're neglecting what the _sale_ of TikTok can do for
| him, which is to curry an immense amount of favor with Big
| Tech, Wall Street and the intelligence community, and
| possibly one or several unnamed players in this
| negotiation.
|
| Is that any more valuable than the things which TikTok can
| give him?
|
| 1) Cash (purchase Trump's meme coin, stock grant, etc.)
|
| 2) Prominence on TikTok
| whatthesmack wrote:
| I had to scroll past too many "free speech" takes to finally
| get to this well-thought analysis of the saga.
|
| It has nothing to do with free speech. The US was always going
| to wind up owning TikTok and influencing speech on the
| platform. The key issue was price, which is affected by
| leverage. The strict top-down, centralized control ideals
| behind CCP/ByteDance/TikTok (they're all the same) were once
| again outdone by the aforementioned "powers that be".
| moussess wrote:
| Great analysis! This comment should be the top post
| rfoo wrote:
| > But these buyers don't want the actual value of TikTok to
| drop to zero
|
| Quick reminder: TikTok is available for most of the planet
| (except China), so a US ban does not make the actual value of
| TikTok to drop to zero.
|
| It makes a sell-off very unlikely, but I doubt it's going to
| happen no matter what.
|
| It's quite puzzling why ByteDance didn't bring up the idea of
| making a TikTok US in the same way TikTok CN (a.k.a. Douyin)
| works.
| unangst wrote:
| Another opportunistic nothing burger victory and reason for
| further tech billionaire fealty. Sigh.
| ein0p wrote:
| Do you mean the ban, or the removal of the ban? I'm confused.
| Because I'm pretty sure the ban is at least in part supported
| by Zuck, and that's why he gave $300M+ to elect a vegetable in
| 2020, and that's why Meta is spending more than ever on
| lobbying: https://readsludge.com/2024/04/23/meta-shatters-
| lobbying-rec...
| Finnucane wrote:
| Dr. T's reversal was at least partly due to the influence of
| David Yass, who owns a chunk of ByteDance and saved the
| TruthSocial IPO, making Trump's holding actually worth
| something. So he owes Yass bigly.
|
| Presumably other wealthy friends stand to win. Steve Mnuchin
| wanted to buy it.
| etblg wrote:
| Jeff Yass?
| Finnucane wrote:
| Do you think I'd look it up instead of going by my aging
| mushy memory?
| ein0p wrote:
| Word is Musk is offering to buy a controlling stake as
| well. The whole thing is a racket though: ByteDance is
| already 60% owned by global institutional investors,
| including firms such as Blackrock, Susquehanna
| International Group, Carlyle Group, and General Atlantic.
| Another 20% are owned by employees, and another 20% by co-
| founders. Given this, I'm not sure how ByteDance could
| "sell TikTok" to an US investor - they don't own 50% of it
| themselves.
| r0ckarong wrote:
| We're watching the downfall live on stream. They were wrong, the
| revolution will not be televised is right, the fascist uprising
| happened in your social media instead.
| righthand wrote:
| People seem to misunderstand this metaphor. It's not about what
| type of tech the revolution is broadcasted on, it's about the
| fact that you'll be sitting there watching the revolution from
| the comfort of wherever you are. You will not be doing anything
| to actually be apart of the revolution, making the revolution
| more for your entertainment than your detriment/benefit.
| thrance wrote:
| It's not really a revolution, moreso a slow downfall into
| mediocrity, irrationalism and hatred, wrapped in stars and
| stripes.
| jackjeff wrote:
| As long as this is the only place the fascist upraising
| happens... better than being forced out of your job, making all
| other political parties illegal, being beaten by mobs
| patrolling the streets while the police looks the other way,
| canceling elections ad vitam eternam on national security
| grounds, I mean stuff that proper fascists used to do back in
| the days.
|
| In the mean time, if I wanted 30 seconds clips of cat videos
| I'm sure I could use a VPN. Let's ban it. Teach people
| censorship is utter BS like every Chinese person knows by now.
| Sadly my attention span is slightly longer than 30s so I'm not
| even gonna bother
| that_guy_iain wrote:
| I think it's funny that it's going online because the new
| President told people to just ignore the law. Interestingly, he
| is a convicted criminal so it kinda makes sense he would just
| tell folk to ignore the law. And even more interestingly, the
| back the blue/law and order type folks will be thinking this is a
| great move.
| exogeny wrote:
| That is so embarrassing for the Democrats. Trump comes out that
| he wants to ban it, Biden finally does on like, the last week of
| his presidency, just so Trump can come in and save it. Now the
| millions of people who make their living on TikTok and everyone
| else who simply likes the app are now thanking Trump for bringing
| back the app he wanted to ban in the first place.
|
| Just staggering incompetence.
| plutoh28 wrote:
| Trump's proposed executive order just gives TikTok more time "so
| that a deal could be made." Honestly I don't understand how
| TikTok is able to restore service now before the executive order
| or even the inaugaration has occured.
| firesteelrain wrote:
| It's back so couldn't have been that hard.
| kristjansson wrote:
| There was no legal requirement they block service at all, only
| that other companies stop doing business with them (i.e. App
| Stores stop distributing, etc.)
| pockmarked19 wrote:
| This. It is _not_ back in stores.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| Pretty sure Oracle had to turn off the servers. I feel like
| Oracle is now not complying with the law. Apple and Google
| appear to be as of writing this.
| manquer wrote:
| Securities fraud suit incoming I suppose. Shareholders will
| sue Oracle for not disclosing the risk and exposing company
| to the fine
| ojbyrne wrote:
| Is it too conspiracy-theorist to notice that the timeline for
| this matches the $TRUMP grift that added significant $billions to
| our new president's net worth?
| metabagel wrote:
| Somebody invested $6 billion in Trump's meme coin. There should
| be an investigation.
| chgs wrote:
| Nobody cares any more. We're a long way from making Carter
| sell his farm. We're a long way from the integrity of Nixon.
| We're a long way from the fidelity of Clinton.
|
| This is what the American people wanted.
| nextworddev wrote:
| This whole theater from the start was designed to flex just how
| much influence China has on the U.S.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| No matter what happens now, china was the real winner here.
| jcstryker wrote:
| Curious to see if this ends up increasing the userbase and
| TikTok's foothold in American culture.
| thepace wrote:
| Congress looking towards an enforcement while the President
| trying to make a deal. It is going to be interesting how this
| plays out.
|
| https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/speaker-johnson-2-...
| zrail wrote:
| I wonder how Mr. Johnson is proposing to do his enforcement,
| seeing as how the executive is the branch of government charged
| with enforcing the laws.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Congress could impeach. In a sane world, if the executive
| continually ignores Congress, then that's what would happen.
| zrail wrote:
| In a sane world. This particular person has been impeached
| and acquitted twice over, though, so I'm not sure we're
| there anymore.
| dragonelite wrote:
| Completely lose the zoomer voting base in the near to mid
| future?
| almog wrote:
| Exactly. We could have had a discussion about whether a
| executive order can override house of representatives had such
| order be issued by Trump post inauguration yet overriding it
| prior to that should be the bigger deal here.
| greycol wrote:
| It's unfortunately not news that a Trump presidency doesn't
| respect the mores of the office.
|
| The president can pardon people for breaking federal law and
| can stop the enforcement of federal law[1] so as president
| elect it makes sense that he can effectively neuter any
| federal law short of congress deciding he has gone to far and
| impeaching and removing him.
|
| [1]i.e. federal agencies no longer prosecute personal
| marijuana use by executive order
| kouru225 wrote:
| Completely unrelated but here's the Wikipedia for an interesting
| book called The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-events in America:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Image:_A_Guide_to_Pseudo...
| TomK32 wrote:
| (1962) is shockingy relevant. I have to read more dystopian sci
| fi from that era just to keep up with current event
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| "Trouble Every Day", a song by Frank Zappa released in 1966,
| that's just as relevant nearly 60 years later:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFNkacckLBU
|
| (but not in a way relevant to the TikTok topic)
| monitorlizard wrote:
| Have you read it, and if so, do you recommend it?
| flocciput wrote:
| Similarly, you might be interested in the Adam Curtis
| documentary HyperNormalisation: https://vimeo.com/191817381
| idhegeu wrote:
| Trump should launch a Tiktok clone on Truth Social in 90 days
| when the reprieve expires. I'm surprised there wasn't a new
| platform ready to pounce on new users. Absolutely nuts that one
| of the biggest refugee destinations is literally named after a
| Mao-era propaganda tool.
|
| But in all seriousness, there's 3 branches of government and 2 of
| spoken. Trump's voice should be moot. Hopefully he's put in his
| place by our institutions and shamed for attempting to subvert
| the system of checks and balances described by our constitution.
| notfed wrote:
| He for sure pitched this, but his team does _not_ have the
| skills to create this.
| gaoryrt wrote:
| Chinese here, sorry for my poor English.
|
| I want you to know that the name of the app is 'Xiao Hong Shu '
| (Xiao little Hong red Shu book), and the name of the
| propaganda tool is 'Hong Bao Shu ' (Hong red Bao treasure Shu
| book).
|
| I don't think there is such a "name after" thing. There are a
| lot of mixed reviews on Cultual Revolution, a "name after"
| would bring a lot of risks during the growth of the app.
| idhegeu wrote:
| Thank you for clarifying!
|
| The english translations are similar enough that I assumed a
| connection.
| voidfunc wrote:
| Least surprising outcome of 2025.
| TomK32 wrote:
| Truth be told, I did expect Trump to suck up to Putin first...
| axegon_ wrote:
| Seems I spoke too soon about the US taking a good decision for
| once when it comes to cyber and civil security. Well... I wonder
| what muskov will come up with now that twitter is still at large
| inaccessible in China but tiktok is welcome in the US.
| TomK32 wrote:
| TikTok is still blocked in China.
| SOTGO wrote:
| Douyin is the Chinese TikTok equivalent. China isn't opposed
| to the concept of short form video, they just want to
| segregate Chinese users into their own app
| sensanaty wrote:
| Douyin also doesn't allow nearly as much brainrot as you
| see on tiktok, and definitely doesn't allow anything that
| challenges the CCP.
| eunos wrote:
| I heard they opened Douyin registration recently
| gowings97 wrote:
| Yes, but it's irrelevant - Apple and Google refuse to
| allow Douyin on the iOS and Google Play stores, as of
| writing (and I do not see this changing)
| eunos wrote:
| Sounds like it's a good time to break app store duopoly
| ThinkBeat wrote:
| Strange to see the ACLU and Trump having common cause.
|
| https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/banning-tiktok-i...
| https://action.aclu.org/send-message/tell-congress-no-tiktok...
|
| TikTok is coming back online after Trump pledged to restore it
| https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/19/tech/tiktok-ban/index.htm...
| drewbeck wrote:
| The ACLU tends to take pretty hard line civil liberty
| positions, including defending hateful folks if their civil
| liberties are impinged. They're not strictly a progressive
| organization.
| ImJamal wrote:
| They don't really hold hard-line positions anymore. The ACLU
| would no longer defend the speech of a neo-nazi, for example.
| drooby wrote:
| What does the ACLU not understand..
|
| The law does not ban TikTok.. it requires divestment from a
| foreign adversary..
|
| Said foreign adversary refuses to divest, thus the company is
| _shutting itself down_
| rocmcd wrote:
| Classic "Bootleggers and Baptists" situation [0], where both
| parties are in favor for self-serving reasons.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| This is a disgusting betrayal of America and a violation of our
| process, given Congress passed a law and it was then unanimously
| upheld by the Supreme Court. Unless Trump can show that Bytedance
| met the three conditions that permit an extension, this will
| backfire and alienate a portion of his base.
| metabagel wrote:
| It's a cult of personality. By definition it's him they support
| and who informs their thinking. He can't alienate his
| supporters, because they don't have any framework to fall back
| on.
| fatfox wrote:
| So to put it bluntly, sweet talking a president-elect can
| overturn a Supreme Court decision? Interesting political culture.
| airstrike wrote:
| Hardly. A delay on the ban isn't tantamount to undoing the
| Supreme Court's decision.
|
| It's good to be precise with terminology and facts, especially
| in legal matters.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| explain how he (a private citizen) can give a 90 day
| extension on a deadline that is passed with criteria that can
| not be certified and had to have been already given to
| congress? Please be precise with terminology and facts in
| these legal matters.
| airstrike wrote:
| He's not just any private citizen, he's the president elect
| who will be inaugurated in a day. I'm sure his word carries
| way more weight than mine.
|
| I'm not privy to the specific words that were exchanged, so
| it's hard to be precise. But I imagine it was some form of
| Trump saying "by tomorrow, I will give you a 90-day
| extension. I have a gentleman's agreement with the current
| government that if you do _not_ stop your services in the
| 24 hours between now and my inauguration, you won 't face
| any issues, so please carry on and we will clean this mess
| up later".
|
| If you want a private citizen analogy, it's similar to
| someone saying they won't press charges despite a third-
| party being in flagrant illegal behavior. In this case,
| it's the US government saying they won't press charges.
| Both Biden and Trump have said as much, if my understanding
| of the case is correct, and one can assume they have
| discussed this with the appropriate branches of government.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| Trump does not have the authority to give a 90 day
| extension by the language in the law from my
| understanding. There was a provision for a single use 90
| day extension that would require the president to certify
| 3 things (which currently has not been met and can not be
| met within days) and have that delivered to congress
| prior to the ban taking affect. The law gives no
| mechanism to provide an extension after the ban according
| to republican legislators.
| airstrike wrote:
| He must simply _claim_ that the 3 requirements have been
| met according to his own interpretation of the facts on
| the ground. It doesn't mean that his interpretation must
| be correct; He has the discretion to provide the
| extension per the law.
|
| If someone challenges his interpretation of the 3
| requirements in court, then presumably he'd have to
| explain why he believed that to be the case[1], but he
| does not have to prove this certainty _ex ante_ in order
| for the 90-day extension to be valid.
|
| --------
|
| [1]: IANAL but whether he can successfully prove it or
| not is also ultimately irrelevant given the SCOTUS recent
| interpretation of presidential power. If he's found
| "guilty" of making a bad interpretation of the certainty
| of the 3 requirements, what is really going to be his
| punishment? There's really nothing you can do against a
| sitting president with regards to the exercise of their
| executive power...
| nickthegreek wrote:
| He does not need to simply _claim_, he must certify. And
| one of those is:
|
| "there are in place the relevant binding legal agreements
| to enable execution of such qualified divestiture during
| the period of such extension."
|
| This is a binary thing. No such legal agreement seems to
| exist. You also ignored the other parts of my comment
| about him missing the deadline in the law to apply the
| extension.
|
| Johnson himself said they will enforce the law.
| https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/speaker-
| johnson-2-...
| airstrike wrote:
| "Certify" does not mean the same as prove with evidence.
| I don't think there's a specific threshold that has to be
| met there other than the parties agreeing it has been
| certified. It can even come down to as much as "trust me
| bro" from the president.
|
| The definition of certify is literally "attest or confirm
| in a formal statement"
|
| Besides, there's no process through which Congress would
| question or investigate whether the president really can
| or cannot certify whatever he claims about this matter.
| maxcruer wrote:
| this is on the edge of becoming a shitshow...
| nvarsj wrote:
| The US has already jumped head first into the shit can.
|
| All those ideals of democracy I learned about growing up in the
| US - checks and balances, the rule of law, land of opportunity.
| It's all become a massive joke.
| bamboozled wrote:
| Well it needed people to enforce those things and it needed
| people to vote. Both those things didn't happen.
| userbinator wrote:
| People voted.
| rasz wrote:
| Wait till you see US troops on the ground in Ukraine working
| hand in hand with russians, killing Ukrainians because Zelensky
| refused Trump "just give up" deal.
| _heimdall wrote:
| That didn't take long. Can we now roll back the bill that gave
| presidents the authority to unilaterally ban a service in the
| first place?
| spencerflem wrote:
| The president didn't ban it. Congress did, and the Supreme
| Court upheld their right to.
|
| I am opposed to the ban fwiw, but being able to overrule it is
| a pretty big power grab for the president
| _heimdall wrote:
| Didn't the law passed by Congress give the president the
| power to deem a service owned in part by foreign entities as
| a national security threat?
|
| I may very well have horribly misunderstood the situation,
| but I though Congress here only allowed the president to
| decide.
| spencerflem wrote:
| No, there was a similar one letting the president declare
| nonprofits a terrorist organization though.
|
| The TikTok one doesn't have input from the president, its
| all apps of a certain size owned by a country we dont like.
| Hence, Marvel Snap got banned too in the crossfire
| spencerflem wrote:
| My bad, its both actually. The law lists some criteria,
| unambiguously including TikTok and Bytedance by name, and
| then says the president can add more if they want, though
| this power has not been used yet.
|
| It sucks so hard how the Dems keep expanding the powers of
| the Pres right before handing it to Trump
| _heimdall wrote:
| It sucks that they're expanding the powers at all. It
| doesn't matter who has the power today, it matters what
| the next person may do. Both parties are bad about
| expanding federal powers, it isn't the fault of one side.
| jason2323 wrote:
| Embarrassing.
| TomK32 wrote:
| Entertaining. But then, I'm European far away from this orange
| man.
| jajko wrote:
| Nobody is far enough, not with that actual power. Everything
| is connected and ripple effects travel far.
|
| Plus our european politicians are weak and largely clueless,
| we will fold in front of China and let them roll over our
| automotive industry. There is war at our doorstep and enemy
| who repeatedly claimed he will wipe out half of our
| population, yet our reaction is next to 0, both immediate and
| long term.
| userbinator wrote:
| It's entertaining in the US too.
| replwoacause wrote:
| Yeah you say that, but I just saw Elonia Musk stirring the
| pot by calling for MEGA "Make Europe Great Again", so it
| seems he's trying to spread his cancerous views into your
| political systems now too.
| hbarka wrote:
| "Congressman Michael McCaul (R-TX), the author of the bill to ban
| TikTok, owns hundreds of thousands of dollars of stock in Meta,
| one of TikTok's chief rivals. Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-OK)
| bought up to $50,000 worth of Meta stock last January before
| voting to ban TikTok in April."
|
| Exhibit 1. https://www.capitoltrades.com/issuers/431610?page=2
| lm28469 wrote:
| To be fair they're all inside trading and most of them are
| corrupt. Time to wake up America
| mmooss wrote:
| That kind of comment has the opposite effect, it keeps people
| asleep with lazy (and corrupt) misinformation. Whenever
| people say 'they are all the same', they help cover for the
| actual bad behavior - it's now hidden among all the other
| behavior and not worth examining or pursuing, and
| rationalized.
|
| They are certainly not all the same. If you don't distinguish
| them, you cut down the people actually fighting on the front
| lines. It's friendly fire. They are shot in the back.
| lm28469 wrote:
| At some point you have to wonder if they're just not
| allowed to exist to allow plausible deniability...
|
| Either way it's clearly not going in the right direction
| when you have a guy selling cans of fucking beans from the
| oval office and launching crypto rug pulls
| MichaelDickens wrote:
| Suppose I wake up and discover that all congresspeople are
| insider trading. What do I do next?
| dymk wrote:
| Tell everybody else about it, because most Americans are
| simply unaware at how blatant the insider trading is and
| how it works.
| mft_ wrote:
| Well, you either join them [0, 1] (no affiliation to
| either) or support people trying to fight them? [2]
|
| [0] https://www.joinautopilot.com/
|
| [1] https://www.quiverquant.com/congresstrading/
|
| [2] https://www.msn.com/en-
| us/politics/government/pennsylvania-l...
| woodson wrote:
| Shame that there's often a delay of 1-2 months between
| the trades and when they're disclosed, so the first
| option likely isn't going to work.
| JasserInicide wrote:
| Pray for something very destructive to happen to Capitol
| Hill during a full session of Congress.
| jjeaff wrote:
| they aren't all corrupt. and for those that are insider
| trading, few are beating the market.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| That is a good point, the nance and kruz etfs aren't doing
| badly, but they aren't rockstars either.
| nextworddev wrote:
| that's like 300 shares at most.
| echoangle wrote:
| What does the absolute number of shares tell you?
| accrual wrote:
| Another:
|
| - Markwayne Mullin (R Oklahoma) purchased $15-$50k Meta stock
| on 01/02/2024 [0]
|
| A nice list: https://www.capitoltrades.com/issuers/431610
|
| [0]
| https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/3-politician...
| thrance wrote:
| Surely they are doing this to preserve free speech and for the
| security of hard-working freedom-loving god-fearing americans,
| and not for their own selfish interests.
| jjeaff wrote:
| I think they are doing it so the CCP doesn't have direct
| propaganda line into the home of most Americans. imagine how
| easy it would be to tip the algorithm scales to show, for
| example, stolen election conspiracy videos.
| airstrike wrote:
| A lot of people have some Meta shares. It's a widely owned
| stock.
|
| You may believe no member of congress should own equity in any
| company, but that's a separate issue
| Ylpertnodi wrote:
| I think it's the 'bought shares', then _voted_ to ban a
| competitor that may be the issue.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| But you could also make money on Meta tanking if you had
| prior knowledge.
| gdhkgdhkvff wrote:
| Couldn't find recent info but back in 2014, Michael McCaul's
| net worth was in the hundreds of millions. Hundreds of
| thousands of dollars in meta stock doesn't seem like much for
| someone worth 1000 times that amount over a decade ago...
|
| Markeayne Mullin's net worth was ~$50 million a few years ago.
| $50k is 1/1000th of that networth also...
|
| That's not to say congress shouldn't be banned from trading
| stocks like every other profession that might potentially have
| insider info. They absolutely should.
| gdhkgdhkvff wrote:
| And in fact, currently 2.5% of the sp500 is meta. So if these
| guys just have 100% of their net worth in the sp500, they'd
| have more META than these two transactions.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| > Hundreds of thousands of dollars in meta stock doesn't seem
| like much for someone worth 1000 times that amount over a
| decade ago...
|
| That fact that it was a drop in the bucket for them makes it
| that much more outrageous, not less. It would have cost
| virtually nothing for them to avoid the appearance of
| impropriety, and yet they didn't. And why should they? There
| was no consequence. They are taunting us.
|
| If you or I trade off anything close to insider information,
| we'd be in jail and lose most of our (ostensibly much more
| limited) assets.
| gdhkgdhkvff wrote:
| "That fact that it was a drop in the bucket for them makes
| it that much more outrageous, not less"
|
| I disagree. I get the point that you're making. That they
| could have more easily NOT done it. But I would be a lot
| more ensconced if these people were putting up 50% of their
| net worth on these bets.
|
| And again, I fully agree that they shouldn't be able to
| trade individual stocks. In my past I was a dev at a
| private wealth management company. While working there I
| was completely barred from trading individual stocks
| because it's possible that I could have come across
| nonpublic info in the company because they would do
| internal audits for some entities. It made sense. Congress
| is an even bigger deal because they literally write the
| rules of companies that can affect stock prices. I was
| barred because I could have passively found nonpublic info,
| but they can actively cause the situations that cause price
| movement.
| nickvec wrote:
| It's still mind-boggling to me that those in Congress can be
| shareholders.
| simonsarris wrote:
| McCaul's net worth is estimated $294 million. His positions are
| a rounding error. That he owns so _little_ Meta is impressive.
|
| Mullin's net worth is 20-75 million. So up to 0.25% of his net
| worth if we use the low estimate is a Meta acquisition? Who
| cares?
| timewizard wrote:
| > His net worth was estimated at $294 million, up from $74
| million the previous year. In 2004, the same publication
| estimated his net worth at $12 million. His wealth increase
| was due to large monetary transfers from his wife's family.
|
| You do realize these people have friends and family.
|
| > Who cares?
|
| Insider trading deprives _all other_ legitimate participants
| of the market. That the trade is small relative to this
| individual net worth is meaningless. That is value that
| should have been captured by someone else taking a genuine
| risk. It's a thumb on the scale of the market and it is
| morally repugnant.
| simonsarris wrote:
| But it's not insider trading at this level, that's the
| whole point. This is a freakishly small amount of stock. At
| these levels he would own a lot more META if he just bought
| QQQ (META is 3.3% of composition) with a fraction of his
| net worth
| timewizard wrote:
| > not insider trading at this level
|
| The definition of insider trading does not take into
| consideration "levels."
|
| > This is a freakishly small amount of stock.
|
| That he personally purchased. I don't know what private
| and public entities he may have shared the information
| with or what other purchases traded on his information.
|
| > At these levels he would own a lot more META if he just
| bought QQQ (META is 3.3% of composition) with a fraction
| of his net worth
|
| At the level of an individual game a card counter is
| mathematically not a huge problem. They're just shifting
| the odds by 1 or 2% in their favor. I wonder why casinos
| bother to kick them out? They'd stand to win a lot more
| if they just flopped everything on roulette anyways.
|
| I think you're letting the imputed scope interfere with
| your evaluation and mistaking net worth for liquid
| assets.
| zackmorris wrote:
| Here's a video from March 14, 2024 on how Mike Gallagher
| (R-WI), who sponsored the H.R.7521 - Protecting Americans from
| Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, accepted his
| largest campaign contributions from Palantir, Google, and the
| American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC):
|
| https://www.tiktok.com/@iancarrollshow/video/734642717587849...
|
| https://www.instagram.com/reel/C4jA_k8Pn12 (in case of
| censorship)
|
| https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/mike-gallagh...
|
| Looks like Steven Mnuchin, David Friedman and Yossi Cohen were
| also involved. Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation
| League (ADL), said that "we really have a TikTok problem",
| since it's acting to alchemize the left-right political divide
| into a young-old one.
|
| The video says that pro-Palestine content is some of the most
| censored content there is, but despite that, a large number of
| TikTok users are supporting Palestine and questioning Israel's
| authority to continue hostilities. It suggests that silencing
| these objections to the Israel-Palestine conflict by preventing
| their discussion and spread is one of the primary motives for
| banning TikTok.
|
| I'm deeply disappointed in members of the Democratic Party who
| voted for the TikTok ban, whose actions call into question the
| integrity of their party and its priorities. I'm not as
| surprised by the actions of the Republican Party, which
| historically has sided with the establishment (Meta and other
| social networks under US jurisdiction), but openly voting for
| censorship in the face of calls to protect free speech from
| Donald Trump and Elon Musk is suspect.
|
| And I'm profoundly troubled by antisemitism and how
| whataboutism is clouding journalistic integrity. With
| derogatory comments about Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
| (DEI) and wokeism becoming more prevalent, we should be mindful
| of the slippery slope from oppressed to oppressor. This is why
| we must always call out injustice in all forms, even when it's
| inconvenient to do so, or risk sacrificing our principles and
| eventually our freedoms.
|
| I'm reminded of the Paradox of Intolerance, that if a society
| extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks
| enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance, thereby
| undermining the very principle of tolerance:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
| eatsyourtacos wrote:
| Anyone that didn't see this coming is so naive- Trump only cares
| about optics. Look at the message when opening tiktok "Thanks to
| President Trump"... there is no way he didn't say "look, you HAVE
| TO PUT MY NAME OUT THERE or you are being banned".
|
| But yet morons will be like "trump saved tiktok!!!"
| IvyMike wrote:
| Big 1984 energy coming from this story.
|
| "It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big
| Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grammes a
| week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced
| that the ration was to be REDUCED to twenty grammes a week. Was
| it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four
| hours? Yes, they swallowed it."
| ijidak wrote:
| Human society is collapsing.
|
| The stuff playing out on right now was science fiction when
| 1984 was written.
|
| This whole charade has had me laughing since yesterday.
|
| The Caesars of Rome often played these public games to make
| themselves look magnanimous, while at the same time
| consolidating power and control.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Sadly, Orwell was not hugely imaginative, he was just aware
| of things that happened in the Soviet Union.
| ternnoburn wrote:
| It's worth remembering that Orwell was a socialist, a
| leftist, and was anti authoritarian not anti communist.
| (Which isn't opposed to your comment, the Soviet Union was
| authoritarian.)
|
| It just gets brought up so often that because he was anti
| Soviet, he must be anti communist, which wasn't the case.
| pjc50 wrote:
| He was always socialist, but ended up as anti-communist
| after the Spanish civil war, during which while fighting
| for the Marxist POUM he had to flee a Stalinist purge.
|
| (Americans love to flatten all left parties into
| "communist", ignoring the rich history of ideological
| differences and occasionally violent purges)
|
| Huge fan of Orwell myself.
| ternnoburn wrote:
| Anti communist or anti Stalinist? Or even anti Marxist-
| Leninist?
|
| _Homage_ is a complicated book to place because it 's
| been interpreted so baby different ways across eras. But
| it's hard to imagine someone going and fighting for POUM
| and praising them post facto would ultimately be anti
| communist across all flavors of communism.
| brendoelfrendo wrote:
| See: his memoir "Homage to Catalonia," wherein he worked
| with the Communist Party of Great Britain to get him into
| Spain during the Spanish Civil War, where he fought with
| the POUM, a Spanish anti-Stalinist communist party
| (though he would admit that this was mostly by chance,
| and he himself was more aligned with the anarchists).
|
| He would say later, "Every line of serious work that I
| have written since 1936 has been written, directly or
| indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic
| socialism, as I understand it."
| (https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-
| foundation/orwel...)
| gherkinnn wrote:
| So human society has been collapsing since Roman times?
| philjohn wrote:
| That's a particularly uncharitable take.
|
| If we assume good intent, what OP was getting at is that we
| had that form of governance, it failed, we then slowly
| marched towards democracy, and now it looks like a
| backslide.
| timeon wrote:
| Many certainly collapsed, Romans including.
| dennis_jeeves2 wrote:
| Distractions as usual for the minions.
| dailykoder wrote:
| >supreme court says that tiktok might be a threat to national
| security
|
| >yeah, let's just ignore that. Dance videos on tiktok are more
| important than security
|
| That's so f-in absurd. I can't even wrap my head around why
| anyone would literally protest against the ban. I just hope that
| germany, or rather europe, will have such a ban, too, and that it
| get enforced properly.
| logicchains wrote:
| National security is a load of crap. How can you still believe
| anything they say when the entire security establishment
| literally bold-faced lied about Iraq having weapons of mass
| destruction to justify a completely unnecessary war?
| baq wrote:
| Right out of the KGB and FSB playbook: feed them so much lies
| from all directions they stop trusting anything at all.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| The legislators who voted to ban it based on national
| security better stand up next week. Biden and Trump both
| look incredibly weak. America looks weak. Democracy looks
| weak.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| The US government lies according to plays out of the KGB
| playbook? How would that benefit it?
| mvdtnz wrote:
| Between this and the Gaza ceasefire the outgoing administration
| is laying up political wins for Trump before he even takes
| office. An embarrassment for an administration that has
| completely failed to play the political game properly for years.
| And Biden was such a savvy operator before.
| mmooss wrote:
| Through this law, Trump will consolidate control over social
| media.
|
| Facebook and Instagram, via Mark Zuckerberg, and X/Twitter via
| Elon Musk, are already in Trump's camp and are helping him.
|
| This law gives Trump leverage over TikTok - their access to the
| US market will likely depend on serving Trump's interests. Like X
| and Meta (and other SV companies) operating in other countries,
| they will comply with local oppression. It's incredible that the
| Democrats keep handing victory after victory to their opponents.
|
| (Trump also is gaining extreme influence over professional news
| media, including Fox News and the WSJ, of course, but also ABC
| News, possibly CBS News, the Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, the LA
| Times, and many more. It may be time to stop the lazy criticism
| of the NY Times and start taking them seriously; they could be
| the only island left in the storm, and will be subject to extreme
| attacks.)
| hcurtiss wrote:
| By saying China's using Tik Tok to subvert "democracy," aren't we
| really saying voters are not individual agents but rather a mob
| subject to manipulation by propaganda? I sometimes cannot believe
| it's those who so loudly cry about threats to "democracy" that
| simultaneously take such a cynical view of the democratic
| process. Rather than tackle the narratives substantively, they'd
| argue about _who_ gets to manipulate the mob. It 's just wild to
| me. If that's your view of the electorate, then the whole
| "democracy" thing is just a cover for elite power. Honestly,
| maybe there's some truth to that, but it sure flies in the face
| of the sanctity of voting and "democracy."
| dmitrygr wrote:
| > voters are not individual agents but rather a mob subject to
| manipulation by propaganda
|
| Was this ever not the case?
| Cumpiler69 wrote:
| It was always like that.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| This is the fundamental problem with American democracy and
| democracies all over the world.
|
| It only works if the voters are well informed, educated, and
| generally competent. Otherwise it's just a manipulation game
| where someone can lie and lie and lie and be elected
| president. And at that late stage phase of democracy, who
| gets to manipulate these people better is who holds power.
| 13415 wrote:
| That shouldn't be a problem, though. All it takes is to
| make sure that voters are informed, educated, and generally
| competent.
|
| On a side note, the same holds for market economy. Markets
| only work if consumers are informed, educated, and
| generally competent.
| GenerocUsername wrote:
| I assume you are speaking about establishment politicians
| over the last 40-2000 years, but I suspect you are actually
| miming talking points about manipulation aimed at 1 very
| recent election where the established propaganda cycle
| failed to manipulate enough people and a different brand of
| manipulation brought in a different set of manipulators.
| Evidence of your own manipulated belief structures going
| without serious enough introspection to be held as a
| competent free agent
| saxonww wrote:
| Allegedly, the biggest concern this time around was the
| economy. Millions of people complaining about inflation
| and the cost of goods voted for a guy promising to raise
| tariffs, and a party that historically caters to big
| business. The same big business that has moved a lot of
| jobs overseas, and has lobbied to relax restrictions on
| visas to hire more foreign workers for onshore jobs.
|
| To me, this looks a lot like people voting against their
| own interests. I think that when people vote against
| their own interests, it's usually because they don't
| understand what they're voting for, i.e. it's an
| education issue. And it's not surprising that other
| people would be perplexed and frustrated by this.
|
| But maybe I've just been misled by the wrong propaganda.
| I guess we'll find out.
| YZF wrote:
| Are you trying to argue that (many) democrats and
| republicans voters in the recent elections were not
| generally manipulated by their respective sides? I don't
| think this holds water.
|
| Examples could be democrats control over Biden's health
| messaging or republicans repeating the message that the
| democrats are stealing the elections or democrat's
| messaging about if their side loses it's the end of
| democracy or republicans messaging about immigration,
| crime etc. Generally engaging at a shallow level with the
| goal of influencing people's emotions.
|
| I don't think this is a 40-2000 years phenomena. It's
| certainly become a lot worse since Trump ran for
| president the first time. I remember turning on TV in my
| hotel room during a visit to the US maybe 8 years ago and
| switching between CNN and Fox, each of these channels
| were basically about endless bashing of the opposite
| side. I wouldn't call the content anything other than
| brainwashing and propaganda. CNN didn't use to be like
| that. With social media since every user gets their own
| view we don't even know what the "hidden hand" is
| pushing. It's much worse and a lot more dangerous.
| GenerocUsername wrote:
| No my point was that both sides are frequently
| manipulated, but I see comments on the Internet EVERY DAY
| to the effect of 'the other side is being manipulated',
| apparently oblivious to their own manipulated opinions.
|
| And CNN has ALWAYS been a propaganda wing, they just
| didn't have a serious competitor during the era when both
| parties were controlled by the same group. (Bush,
| Clinton, Bush, Obama)
| eastbound wrote:
| Isn't that the premise of the Enlightenment? That's
| everyone will be well educated, or, if they're not, at
| least _they_ were the ones in control of their destiny?
|
| i.e. "You crazy, translating the bible to the plebs? What
| happens if stupid people get to choose for themselves?"
| hcurtiss wrote:
| Maybe not, but it strikes me as a really dangerous path. If
| we don't believe the electorate acts from a position of moral
| authority, but rather are downstream of elite power and
| influence, then there are other more direct ways of
| controlling populations. And they tend to be a lot more
| bloody.
| YZF wrote:
| It's the path we've been on for a long time and one that is
| made a lot more dangerous in the era of social media. Today
| more than ever people live in echo chambers and believe
| what they want to or what they think they need to so they
| can conform with their group identity. More than ever a few
| wealthy people or state actors have direct control over the
| reality people see without even the pretense of being
| "unbiased" media or any sort of ethical guidelines which in
| the past used to semi-exist for the traditional media/news
| etc.
|
| Propaganda's job is to influence those people who think
| they're acting from a position of moral authority but lack
| the education, or critical thinking skills, or access to
| information, to be able to see through the manipulation.
|
| I'm not sure what's the answer but I am sure this is not
| what the proponents of free speech had in mind.
| layer8 wrote:
| The reason the more direct ways are more bloody is why we
| want to stick with democracy. Democracy is supposed to be
| based on an exchange of ideas in an open discourse. This is
| why it's important to not let any one party have too much
| control over the discourse. That is also why freedom of
| speech exists. Somewhat paradoXically, banning a foreign-
| controlled platform can serve the same purpose as defending
| freedom of speech.
| saxonww wrote:
| Sort of?
|
| I think it's definitely the case that the group of voters in
| 1789 was much smaller and more homogeneous than it is today.
|
| I also think the nature of propaganda has changed a little as
| well. Today, messages can be delivered cheaply to everyone,
| everywhere, from anywhere, nearly instantaneously. There is
| far less of a propagation delay, and far less of a natural
| check on the rate and volume of propaganda.
| epcoa wrote:
| > Honestly, maybe there's some truth to that, but it sure flies
| in the face of the sanctity of voting and "democracy."
|
| Although some choose or have to squawk loudly about it, the
| sanctity of "democracy" is not universally or even widely
| accepted.
|
| To extend the Winston Churchill quote, it's mostly a charade
| but it's the best one we have (in my opinion).
| lazide wrote:
| At least someone has to (currently) manipulate the voters
| into voting a specific way, instead of just 'voting for
| them', or threatening them at gunpoint.
| nradov wrote:
| If TikTok was only targeted at _voters_ then I think there
| would be less of a concern. My issue is more with what it shows
| to children. Science and law recognize that children aren 't
| yet fully individual agents and are more susceptible to
| propaganda than most adults. Thus legislators and courts have
| been more willing to restrict commercial speech targeting
| children.
| atlintots wrote:
| If that is truly your primary concern, you should be more
| worried about Instagram. TikTok is much better in that
| regard. It has parental controls, a restricted mode, screen
| time limits, etc.
| danenania wrote:
| We should be worried about all of them. But a hostile
| totalitarian foreign government could have motivations that
| are a hell of a lot worse than maximizing
| engagement/profits.
|
| If the goal is to cause harm to the population (ala
| fentanyl distribution) rather than just to make as much
| money as possible, I'd say parents are right to be
| correspondingly more concerned.
| datavirtue wrote:
| Your comment made me realize that politicians stopped "think
| of the children" along with the rise of social media. Before
| the rise of big tech they would routinely slam their fist on
| the podium demanding that we think of the children.
| dagss wrote:
| I feel this is way too optimistic about the typical adult.
| Adults are most definitely affected by propaganda.
|
| Problem is reality is so complex and usually all sides of a
| topic are right at the same time, in some way.
|
| For any viewpoint A, there will be reels made by people in
| any demographic group who cares deeply about it for excellent
| and solid reasons. The same will be the case for anti-A.
|
| Both of them will be convincing and TikTok can just choose
| which one of them to subtly nudge.
| tims33 wrote:
| I agree with everything you're saying, but I also can't fully
| square up that the equivalent American apps aren't allowed in
| China. This is about freedom of speech on app built by a
| country that has no freedom of speech. I realize this point is
| orthogonal, but is still an important element of the decision.
| marricks wrote:
| > also can't fully square up that the equivalent American
| apps aren't allowed in China
|
| It's a chance to showcase how we're "more free" or literally
| just as restrictive
| CryptoBanker wrote:
| Or it's a chance to be "fair"
| talldayo wrote:
| The United States used to claim we had a laissez-faire
| market. We don't claim that anymore.
| tgma wrote:
| In founding of the United States lies tariff stories. The
| United States does not reject government and nations as
| entities at all. It just asserts rights for its citizens
| which doesn't include everyone on the planet.
| Retric wrote:
| At its core free speech is about the freedom from
| government influence and the complaint is about government
| influence.
|
| It's one thing to allow the CCP to say whatever it wants,
| it's something else to allow them the ability to manipulate
| of what other people can say. Allowing such a highly
| restricted platform seems like it hurts free speech more
| than it helps.
| logicchains wrote:
| It's not a highly restricted platform at all, there were
| literally videos of translated Hitler speeches trending
| with hundreds of thousands of likes, even though the CCP
| absolutely hates western nationalism.
| Retric wrote:
| Restrictions become more effective when they are less
| obvious.
|
| When as has been demonstrated their algorithm ignores the
| number of upvotes in favor of massively promoting
| viewpoints it cares about, that's also vast suppression
| of opposing viewpoints but in a way o get creators to
| quietly comply rather than try and push the boundaries.
| philipov wrote:
| China probably doesn't care about Hitler. How about
| Tiananmen Square? Do you see a lot of trending coverage
| on Hong Kong protests?
| robgibbons wrote:
| This is the platform that led to the proliferation of
| newspeak terms like "unalive" to circumvent content
| restrictions. Such speech restrictions were never a thing
| on FB, IG, X, or YT, yet this form of self-censorship has
| spread to those platforms anyway, because TikTok users
| have become so used to it.
| Timon3 wrote:
| While there aren't direct speech restrictions in
| platforms like YouTube, you're leaving out the crucial
| detail that mentioning words like "suicide" gets your
| video demonetized, which directly causes similar self-
| censorship.
| Retric wrote:
| YouTube pays creators based on advertising deals making
| some topics far more valuable, while other topics have
| become very sensitive to advertisers. That's related, but
| different from censorship.
|
| Creators are still free to use YouTube as a platform to
| discuss sensitive topics with a very large audience
| without paying per viewer, unlike say advertising or
| standing at a street corner talking to passersby. As such
| YouTube is still supporting the discussion and
| distribution of said content.
| Timon3 wrote:
| Sure! Yet creators choose to censor themselves in similar
| ways to keep ad revenue coming in.
| marricks wrote:
| > https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2023/10/24/shadowban
| ning-...
|
| Maybe you disagree with the viewpoint or message, but it
| seems awfully paternal for such wide spread censorship.
|
| This is why we can't trust _only the US_ to provide us
| our social media and even if we don 't like who is
| offering it.
| talldayo wrote:
| TikTok also has an enormous shadowbanning problem so your
| complaint here is moot.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| >Allowing such a highly restricted platform
|
| Tiktok was and still is banned in China by the way.
| Retric wrote:
| Yea it's banned in India, Afghanistan, China and a few
| others. It's kind of an odd list, including democracies
| and autocratic governments.
| roca wrote:
| With or without Tiktok, the USA is nowhere near as
| restrictive as the CCP. The users who tried RedNote
| discovered that very quickly.
| VectorLock wrote:
| People trying to act like this Chinese controlled vehicle
| supports free speech is so weird to me. They're not
| "censoring" anything - they're using it as a straight
| unimpeded funnel to subvert the west.
| vkou wrote:
| > they're using it as a straight unimpeded funnel to
| subvert the west.
|
| And Fox News is also a foreign-owned straight unimpeded
| funnel used to subvert democracy, which sows division and
| conflict in our society.
|
| It's done orders of magnitude more harm to it than TikTok
| ever has.
|
| When are we banning it?
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Rupert Murdoch got US citizenship because of foreign
| ownership rules. From his wiki page:
|
| > On 4 September 1985, Murdoch became a naturalized
| citizen to satisfy the legal requirement that only US
| citizens were permitted to own US television stations.
| vkou wrote:
| I am pretty sure a Chinese-American owner would be
| considered Chinese for the conversation about foreign
| control over TikTok.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| China doesn't allow for or recognize dual citizenship, so
| it doesn't matter unless they also gave up their Chinese
| citizenship (rumor has it the CPC relaxed this rule for a
| certain snowboarder). But ya, that Murdoch is also
| Australian is probably benign.
| vkou wrote:
| Nothing about Murdoch's politics is benign. They've done
| more damage to democracy worldwide, but particularly in
| the US, than China ever will.
|
| Speaking of hostile foreigners, a prominent South African
| was just giving the crowd a few Nazi salutes at the
| inauguration. Is that also benign? At what exact point do
| we start observing that the enemies to democracy are
| _inside_ the house?
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Ok, Murdoch's Australian citizenship would be seen as
| benign, unless you are going to tell me that Australians
| are as dangerous as Murdoch in general?
| infecto wrote:
| The US does not need to showcase anything, they are
| magnitudes more free in speech than mainland China. To
| suggest otherwise is strange.
| moussess wrote:
| Here is a list on what restrictions Chinese citizens live
| with
|
| - Workers in state sectors can be banned from traveling out
| of China https://www.scmp.com/news/article/3265503/chinas-
| expanding-t.... Also, non 1st tier city citizens can have a
| hard time getting passports, essentially a ban of
| travelling
|
| - banned from using trains or airline if they are on the
| social credit score ban
|
| - banned from moving money out of China for more than $50k
| a year
|
| - banned from accessing foreign websites. VPN is
| technically illegal, and using it can get you into trouble
|
| - banned from accessing porn
|
| - banned from using a long list of restricted words on
| social media, from Winnie the Pooh, to "support Xinjiang
| people"
|
| - banned from using TikTok
|
| - banned from protesting against lost wages from state
| enterprises
|
| - banned from group protesting
|
| the list goes on and on and on
| marricks wrote:
| Ok, that's their country what does it have to do with us?
| Also why do we do this:
|
| > https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2023/10/24/shadowban
| ning-...
|
| This is why it's good to have a social media company free
| of US control.
| talldayo wrote:
| > Ok, that's their country what does it have to do with
| us?
|
| I mean, nothing really. You could say the same about
| Israel and Palestine, or Saudi Arabia and Iran, or China
| and Hong Kong. Human rights abuses are perfectly
| acceptable in today's society, as long as they're out of
| sight and out of mind. He who controls visibility into
| human suffering controls the way people perceive his
| control. _Hasbara_ , in Israeli vernacular.
|
| > Also why do we do this:
|
| Because Zionist lobbying exerts disproportionate control
| over both the US tech industry and the legislative
| apparatus regulating it:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws
|
| You're not going to drive a wedge between people by
| repeating the Israel stance, though. If you tried to
| expose China's same abuses for working slave labor to
| death or suicide, you'd be suppressed in exactly the same
| way America suppresses your anti-Israel content. From a
| national security perspective, TikTok's existence is
| about whether another country can impose their own
| double-standard on top of America's own populist opinion.
| Today it's the war in Gaza, but tomorrow it will be about
| suppressing democracy in Taiwan for the "betterment of
| global peace" et. al. You can't deny China's plans to use
| TikTok for war with a straight face - by many accounts
| it's already started.
| ethanwillis wrote:
| Yes it's great to have chinese companies on american soil
| that prevent people from saying "taiwan number one" in
| games like marvel rivals.
|
| So much freedom!!!!
|
| Do you hear yourself? Are you insane?
| mvc wrote:
| What defence remains against an autocratic government who
| will use that very freedom as an attack vector for their
| nefarious goals.
| Cyph0n wrote:
| If stooping down to their level is the move we make, then we
| should immediately stop acting as if we are more "free" or
| democratic than China. You can't have it both ways.
| talldayo wrote:
| > then we should immediately stop acting as if we are more
| "free" or democratic than China.
|
| This is a histrionic response. America can still be more
| free and democratic than China while also enforcing a ban
| on their businesses.
| Cyph0n wrote:
| Blanket censorship of this kind is not the hallmark of a
| healthy democracy.
|
| This ban is the definition of a slippery slope - this ban
| may be in your interests, but eventually one will not.
| What then?
| talldayo wrote:
| This isn't blanket censorship, period. Every single user
| that currently voices their stance, values or opinions
| can continue to do the exact same thing on any other
| platform they choose. Just not TikTok, because they are a
| business owned by an adversarial government that
| deliberately uses their soapbox to manipulate democratic
| audiences: https://kyivinsider.com/russia-and-china-just-
| rigged-romania...
|
| Also don't forget - TikTok has remediation options where
| they continue to operate in America as an American
| business instead. _They_ are the ones that refused that
| and chose censorship. America just forced the choice
| between eating the cake and having it.
|
| Edit: Correct, it is not. The part that is censorship on
| China's behalf is the enforcement of the Great Firewall
| and enaction of laws prohibiting citizens from owning or
| consuming foreign news or entertainment. China's ban on
| foreign apps could just as well be explained by a desire
| for better domestic software markets - the same cannot be
| said for the Firewall.
|
| Edit 2: Yes, secession would settle this. China has
| proven that they cannot be trusted to disseminate
| information through a state-owned apparatus. If the owner
| continues to be a government entity, then continuing to
| let them do "business" is like letting the Trojans wheel
| in their horse so the citizens can marvel at it.
| Cyph0n wrote:
| By the same token, the Chinese ban on US apps is not
| censorship, correct?
|
| So if you accept to cede control we will leave you alone.
| Blackmail, in other words, exactly like China does it.
| baq wrote:
| Feel free to record a 30s video on the topic of Tiananmen
| Square and post it on X, Facebook and Chinese TikTok.
| Report back with results in 24h. In the conclusions
| section, point out the difference between censorship and
| moderation.
| Cyph0n wrote:
| How about you record a 30s clip of atrocities committed
| by the IDF in Gaza and watch how quickly it will be
| "moderated" into oblivion.
| baq wrote:
| see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
| Cyph0n wrote:
| Not at all. I know that Chinese censorship exists. You -
| or others, lost track since multiple people are involved
| here - are the one who's trying to argue that US
| censorship does not exist, even in light of this TikTok
| ban.
|
| Also, you probably don't realize this, but censorship and
| moderation are many times two sides of the same coin -
| depending on the incentives and factors at play.
| baq wrote:
| Censorship is very strictly defined as government's
| doing. If this isn't your definition, we aren't even
| talking about the same things. I gave you a very concrete
| example with potentially serious consequences if you're a
| Chinese national posting in China vs somebody getting
| deprioritized on one platform in yours.
| themacguffinman wrote:
| Here's a graphic one (it has a sensitive content
| warning):
|
| https://www.instagram.com/ajplus/reel/C0SHLYlSynD/
|
| Some others that aren't graphic:
|
| https://www.instagram.com/middleeasteye/reel/C6RA3X0v1-y/
|
| https://www.instagram.com/middleeastmonitor/reel/C4qXD7nv
| CLV...
|
| https://www.instagram.com/katiecouric/p/CyW65klxgjA/
|
| I'm not very familiar with Instagram, you'll have to tell
| me if those posts have been moderated to oblivion.
| Cyph0n wrote:
| I will try to reiterate my initial point since people
| keep losing track: banning TikTok is a slippery slope
| that moves us in the direction of China's GFW, and we can
| longer claim a moral highground once we do.
|
| As far as this ban goes, there is in fact a less
| emphasized angle that explains the strong bipartisan
| support for this ban (related to Gaza):
| https://www.axios.com/local/salt-lake-
| city/2024/05/06/senato...
| talldayo wrote:
| You seem to be unable to reconcile that China can use a
| platform with some positive aspects for ill. I abhor
| Israel's actions and the role of their extremist sects in
| rejecting international oversight. But I also abhor China
| for using prisoners, slaves and North Korean indentures
| to harvest Xinxiang cotton. These topics won't be given a
| fair shake on TikTok because China's focus is on which
| destabilizes America fastest, not which is the most
| popular among bleeding-heart liberals. Of course they
| selectively provide moderation support for offensive
| topics that makes America look bad - do the same thing
| for China or Bytedance and the double standard rears it's
| ugly head. It was never about free speech, just creating
| a cycle of dependency on China for news and opinions.
|
| On this basis alone, American consumer protections should
| have banned TikTok from the start. There is no tangible
| outcome where state-owned social media is given a
| holistic directive, especially not when China is the
| owner. I pity you for not keeping up with modern
| geopolitical tensions, but this is just the beginning of
| the "censorship" if you're reliant on China to voice your
| opinion. They had their chance to demonstrate detente,
| but they chose to fight instead.
| Cyph0n wrote:
| I understand the nuances just fine. Nowhere have I said
| that China is innocent here. Does this ban alone make the
| US as authoritarian as China? Of course not.
|
| But I also understand that an outright ban of a social
| media platform is an authoritarian practice, and a bad
| sign for the future of this country. It is an easy way
| out, but at the cost of introducing a mechanism by which
| more censorship can take place.
|
| To me, this ban indicates that the US is willing to ban
| any platform that does not cave into its demands for
| content "moderation" (if you will) - just like China has
| been doing for a while now.
|
| We are not "better" than them anymore, and the sooner we
| realize this, the better of a chance we have of reversing
| this process.
| ethanwillis wrote:
| We are in fact better than them just as we're better than
| any UAE royalty.
| tgma wrote:
| You realize it was a representative-democratic process
| chose to enact TikTok ban, so your statement is _literally_
| false on that dimension alone.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| you're implying that these elections are on equal grounds
| with truthful candidates. I think that's a small part why
| America has become decreaingly distrustgul of politicians
| but still vote. Many people on both sides of the aisle
| have admitted 2024 felt like choosing the least bad
| candidate.
| tgma wrote:
| The root cause of this sort of comment is people often
| equate the outcome of democracy == good or desirable to
| them or even the majority, which is not necessarily the
| case. People can whine about the outcome of a democratic
| process all they want, which even if done perfectly could
| be a compromise that is distasteful to all parties but
| still democratic.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| You'd normally be right. But the US did just have the
| richest man in the world setup a lottery to buy votes,
| and walked it back to "oh it was rigged anyway" when
| called out on it. Any lawsuits is pennies compared to the
| results.
|
| It was subtle before with stuff like Gerrymandering that
| the layman would never notice. But it's so blatant now
| that the democratic process is compromised.
| VectorLock wrote:
| When he got away with calling the Thai diver "pedo guy"
| using the "lol jk" defense then he knew he could get away
| with anything.
| wavemode wrote:
| > you're implying that these elections are on equal
| grounds with truthful candidates
|
| Where exactly is the commenter implying this?
|
| No political process on Earth, democratic or otherwise,
| has ever met this standard.
| handfuloflight wrote:
| But is it the Will of the People?
| Cyph0n wrote:
| Yes. I also realize that a democratic system allows for
| making decisions that do not align with such a system,
| and can in fact destroy such a system from within.
|
| Is this not what we have all been saying about Trump? Or
| are you saying that is OK because his moves have been
| made within the framework of a democratic system?
| tims33 wrote:
| Is allowing them to impose the same kind of restrictions in
| their US app as they do for their own citizens good for
| free speech?
| josephcsible wrote:
| How is "everybody has freedoms except the governments of
| adversarial foreign countries" not more free than "nobody
| has freedoms"?
| Cyph0n wrote:
| You could reasonably argue that, but only for now. The
| precedent set here opens a can of worms that we should
| aim to close sooner rather than later.
|
| But the mechanism we are using is one and the same - this
| is essentially the launch of a "Great Firewall of
| America", just enforced a bit differently.
| robterrell wrote:
| This is an incredible point. Instead of using this crisis to
| pressure Beijing to crack open the China market to US
| companies or even just get some concessions, Trump just
| folded to look like a champ.
| punpunia wrote:
| Really? It is the most base fact that people can be manipulated
| by the ideas of others. Creatures trying to convince other
| creatures of one thing over another is just part of being a
| living animal. But the idea that people want to control who
| says what is wild to you? It flies in the face of the sanctity
| of "democracy"? Don't you think that's a bit of a hyperbole?
| CryptoBanker wrote:
| You act as if individuals and a mob are mutually exclusive. Who
| do you think makes up a mob?
| Frost1x wrote:
| That's sort of the ironic bit. IMHO it's been this way for
| awhile, but because it was pretty much as you described ("the
| elite") with the reigns we pushed the argument that voters were
| individual agents.
|
| The genius in strategies enemies are using are leveraging the
| exact same levers already being leveraged against be populous:
| free speech as a roadway for propaganda,
| misinformation/disinformation, and widespread social
| manipulation.
|
| There was a time when it was more difficult to scale these
| sorts of strategies so there may have been an illusion of
| agency. Also, a hundred years ago issues were a bit less
| complicated/nuanced so your voters could probably wrangle ideas
| intelligently more independently.
|
| I also suspect the corporate undermining of the general
| population for their own wealth grab has weakened the country
| as a whole, including the voter base. We want to undermine
| education at every turn and stability of your average citizen
| so they can be more easily manipulated. That comes at a cost
| because once we're in that position, whose to say youll (the US
| elite) will be the ones with the reigns? By weakening the
| population for your own gain, you open up foreign adversaries
| to do the same and they're doing just that.
|
| We should focus on improving general education and the
| populations overall stability/livelihood. That has to do with
| pushing back on some of the power grab the ultra wealthy have
| taken, at the populations expense. These are of course just my
| unsubstantiated opinions.
| quasse wrote:
| > voters are not individual agents but rather a mob subject to
| manipulation by propaganda
|
| Who is even saying this is _not_ true? The United States
| government is more aware than maybe anyone else that
| influencing human opinion and action is a statistical problem
| once you have enough scale.
|
| Just look at the history of the USIA [1] and its successor the
| USICA.
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Information_Agen...
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| There are hundreds of HN users commenting here as if their
| opinions have meaning and value.
|
| Which would be in question if they could all be under various
| states of "influence"...
|
| At the very least the median credibility would be roughly
| zero.
| mesh wrote:
| Just because you share an opinion does not mean that
| opinion has not been shaped, directed or influenced.
|
| "The Overton window is the range of subjects and arguments
| politically acceptable to the mainstream population at a
| given time.[1] It is also known as the window of discourse.
| "
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
|
| and
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
| XorNot wrote:
| Also HN absolutely has an Overton window. It has an
| entire system to enforce it (the voting and points
| system).
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| Did you reply to the correct comment?
|
| You don't need to convince me that is a possibility.
| puffybunion wrote:
| You pose this as a mathematical question but stop far short
| of it's full extent
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| And today's Bureau of Global Public Affairs[1]. Which
| "engages media to shape the global narrative on American
| foreign policy and values [and] communicates U.S. foreign
| policy objectives to the American public." Of course, it's
| difficult to pierce the veil and determine exactly _how_ they
| go about doing this. Narratives are propaganda.
|
| https://www.state.gov/about-us-bureau-of-global-public-
| affai...
| dp-hackernews wrote:
| Chase Hughes:
|
| "Manipulation Playbook: The 20 Indicators of Reality Control"
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3AN2wY4qAM
| lucianbr wrote:
| I think anyone who says democracy is good and the will of the
| people should be respected is implicitly saying that is not
| true. Implicitly saying voters are individual agents and not
| a mob.
|
| Otherwise, if democracy is good and votes should matter and
| at the same time voters are a mob subject to manipulation...
| democracy is what? A system of government by whoever can do
| better propaganda? Why would that be good for anyone except
| those who do propaganda?
|
| So yeah, I think many people are claiming that is not true.
|
| One question I would ask if people are just a mob, who is
| actually pushing the buttons? Owners of media, political
| leaders, are also humans, no? They have the same weaknesses,
| at least in principle.
|
| If you accept some people are different (those who command
| and control propaganda) then we must conclude that not all
| people are vulnerable to it, so maybe it's a spectrum. But
| still democracy sounds like a bad idea, as a majority are
| probably on the low end of the spectrum, and the majority
| rules.
| aydyn wrote:
| > I think anyone who says democracy is good and the will of
| the people should be respected is implicitly saying that is
| not true. Implicitly saying voters are individual agents
| and not a mob.
|
| I think that is a pretty hardline interpretation, but
| there's another way of thinking about it:
|
| democracy has worked pretty well up to now and there hasn't
| been a better replacement.
|
| That doesn't mean it will continue being a good solution as
| technology and society change.
| pantalaimon wrote:
| > That doesn't mean it will continue being a good
| solution as technology and society change.
|
| Yea neo-feudalism seems to be all the rage these days.
|
| Democracy is not a given, people with power want more
| power and less checks - historically that's what things
| converged to typically.
| ben_w wrote:
| Not sure about what's really "typical", nor which name
| would best describe what direction the USA (let alone
| anyone else) is even heading in.
|
| The ancient Greeks had ideas about the kuklos (cycles) of
| government: Plato's cycle went [aristocracy > timocracy
| oligarchy > democracy > tyranny]; Polybius' cycle was
| [ochlocracy -> monarchy -> tyranny -> aristocracy ->
| oligarchy -> democracy -> ochlocracy] --
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_cycle_theory
| lossolo wrote:
| Democracy is not a new concept, just current
| implementation is different. Democracy, in some form,
| dates back over 2500 years to ancient Athens (circa 5th
| century BCE). Around 1500 years ago (~500 CE), formal
| democracy as it existed in Athens had largely faded,
| particularly with the decline of the Roman Republic (509
| BCE - 27 BCE), which had elements of representative
| governance. It struggled with corruption, inequality and
| power struggles, so all the problems that are getting
| stronger with time in our democratic systems. The idea of
| democracy reemerged during the Enlightenment (17th-18th
| centuries) and became formalized in modern political
| systems - United States (1776) and revolutionary France.
| We live in cycles, democracy probably will fade again,
| and again it will be considered anarchic and unstable
| until the cycle repeats itself.
| Swizec wrote:
| > I think anyone who says democracy is good and the will of
| the people should be respected is implicitly saying that is
| not true. Implicitly saying voters are individual agents
| and not a mob.
|
| Both are true. We are individual agents _and_ a mob.
|
| Democracy, as we all know, is the worst political system
| except for all the others. At scale people on average
| behave about average and make decisions perfectly aligned
| with their systemic incentives and available information.
|
| You (and me) are not immune to propaganda.
|
| Strong recommend watching/readingupon Manufacturing Consent
| and Chomsky's life work in general.
| emptysongglass wrote:
| I have a hard time taking Chomsky seriously after he felt
| his need to make his uninformed opinions on Russia's
| aggression and AI public.
|
| Was Chomsky ever an expert? Maybe, I wouldn't know
| because I haven't read what he built his legacy upon. But
| that he wrote so poorly on two topics he has little
| experience with does him no favors.
| Izkata wrote:
| > Was Chomsky ever an expert? Maybe, I wouldn't know
| because I haven't read what he built his legacy upon.
|
| My entire life anything I hear from him has been
| misinformed and anything I hear about him is "Chomsky
| disproven". I have to imagine whatever he was known for
| happened before I was born - which I've never been
| exposed to. Granted I've never sought it out either.
|
| To me he feels like an academic Kardashian: Famous for
| being famous, and it's not really clear how it started.
| BriggyDwiggs42 wrote:
| I think he just went a little loopy with old age
| corimaith wrote:
| >Was Chomsky ever an expert?
|
| Chomsky is a Linguistics Professor, he has no formal
| training in media or political theory. So yes, he is not
| an expert, and funnily enough he's the kind of leftist
| who straight up admits he is biased and selectively picks
| facts to support this arguments.
| ossobuco wrote:
| > Democracy, as we all know, is the worst political
| system except for all the others.
|
| Honestly it would be about time we stop repeating this
| Churchill's quote as if it's one of the ten commandments.
| The man wasn't certainly a god and humans are often
| mistaken.
|
| The actual meaning of democracy is the "power of the
| people". Nowhere that implies a western-like electoral
| system.
|
| I'd argue in your average western democracy the people
| have very little power, with lots of symbolic processes
| to reinforce the illusion.
| Swizec wrote:
| > The actual meaning of democracy is the "power of the
| people". Nowhere that implies a western-like electoral
| system.
|
| Correct. "we" used to do it simply by killing the leaders
| that were disliked. Elections are a bit friendlier than
| that :)
|
| You might enjoy this Zizek video on the border between
| the west and the balkans: https://youtu.be/bwDrHqNZ9lo .
| I think he captures the sentiment well.
|
| > I'd argue in your average western democracy the people
| have very little power, with lots of symbolic processes
| to reinforce the illusion.
|
| This was Chomsky's whole point in Manufacturing Consent.
| ossobuco wrote:
| I think then we can agree that if the people hold very
| little power, what we have today in the west is
| definitely not democracy.
|
| A study[0] came to the conclusion that the US is in fact
| closer to an oligarchy, and I'd extend that to most other
| so-called democratic countries. The interests of a few
| always trump the interests of the many.
|
| In this context, that Churchill's quote seems out of
| place and mostly serves the purpose of shutting down the
| discussion.
|
| And thanks, I very much enjoy that Zizek video.
|
| - [0]: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-
| echochambers-27074746
| mvc wrote:
| > what we have today in the west is definitely not
| democracy
|
| On the metric of "people power", do you think people in
| the east have it any better?
| ossobuco wrote:
| It depends.
|
| In Russia? Worse in terms of popular participation in the
| decisional process, but it still works because the
| majority of people believe (rightly or not) that their
| interests are protected by Putin. So for all they care,
| as long as Putin does his job right, it is for all
| purposes a democracy in its true meaning. Much unlike us,
| where most of the electorate feels that governments work
| against their interests and the quality of life stagnates
| or worsens, life conditions in Russia have improved
| greatly since the fall of the USSR.
|
| In China? I'd say they have it better than us. Anyone can
| join the CPC/government and work their way up the
| decisional apparatus based on an actually meritocratic
| process, anyone can participate in administrative
| decisions through consultations. It's what they call
| "whole-process people's democracy". Do some research on
| this if you haven't, you'll find out that Chinese people
| are much more involved in the decisional process at all
| its stages than we are.
|
| I'll tell you the truth, I sincerely believe that the
| only true marker of democracy is for the conditions of
| the people to keep improving constantly, even for the
| poorest. That is the realization of the power of the
| people, the only way in which their interests are
| actively pursued.
|
| Everything else is just fluff that we added on top to
| make the term better fit us and exclude our adversaries.
| Democracy can be direct, representative, authoritarian,
| it doesn't matter so much to me as long as it makes our
| lives better.
| squigz wrote:
| > an actually meritocratic process
|
| I find this hard to believe. Isn't Western
| society/democracy ostensibly setup to allow meritocratic
| advancement as well? Yet I think it's fairly well-
| established at this point it very much does not work that
| way in reality. So what is it about Chinese
| government/society that makes them impervious to the same
| factors that make meritocratic systems so difficult in
| the West? Greed, nepotism, and hunger for power to name
| but a few.
| jaredklewis wrote:
| > I think anyone who says democracy is good and the will of
| the people should be respected is implicitly saying that is
| not true. Implicitly saying voters are individual agents
| and not a mob.
|
| Disagree. Democracy can basically be mob rule and still be
| "good" if mob rule is better than alternatives like "divine
| right of kings," "rule by military despot" and so on.
| jorvi wrote:
| You are so close to breaking through..
|
| > Otherwise, if democracy is good and votes should matter
| and at the same time voters are a mob subject to
| manipulation... democracy is what? A system of government
| by whoever can do better propaganda? Why would that be good
| for anyone except those who do propaganda?
|
| Yes. And you are already waking up to that in your next
| question.
|
| > One question I would ask if people are just a mob, who is
| actually pushing the buttons? Owners of media, political
| leaders, are also humans, no? They have the same
| weaknesses, at least in principle.
|
| > If you accept some people are different (those who
| command and control propaganda) then we must conclude that
| not all people are vulnerable to it
|
| Why would those who do propaganda not be susceptible to
| disinformation, or the Dunning-Kruger or Gell-mann Amnesia
| effects? Every person is susceptible to disinformation. The
| difference is that those in power can disseminate
| disinformation at scale.
|
| > so maybe it's a spectrum. But still democracy sounds like
| a bad idea, as a majority are probably on the low end of
| the spectrum, and the majority rules.
|
| Hence "tyranny of democracy". Many places in the First
| world are now experiencing this, where 'green' programs and
| and social progress are being dismantled en masse because
| of a slight majority. Worst of it is, long term these
| decisions will carry a massive financial burden. The LA
| fires with $250 billion+ in damages are a herald of that.
| ajmurmann wrote:
| I think Democracy is critically important. However, the
| main reason I believe this is because Democracy allows for
| the transfer of power without violence. That's THE value
| prop.
| quotemstr wrote:
| Anti-populists don't realize the danger they pose to the
| order they claim to protect. The foundation of Western
| political order is the idea that the only legitimate
| government is one run _by_ the people and therefore _for_ the
| benefit of the people. Even if this model is, to some degree,
| merely aspirational, it provides a source of legitimacy and
| an outlet for frustrations.
|
| When anti-populists treat the public with naked contempt and
| divorce government policy from the preferences of the people,
| they're demolishing load-bearing pillars of the order that's
| allowed the West to prosper.
|
| What do you think happens when people realize that
| "democracy" is a sham in the sense that their preferences
| don't translate into the rules they follow in daily life?
| hcurtiss wrote:
| Exactly. They murder the elites.
| eightysixfour wrote:
| The word populist has ended up with a confused set of
| meanings (intentionally). What we have now is a war between
| different groups of elites, both sides co-opting populist
| ideals and language, and blaming the people for the other
| side's efforts to destroy democracy.
|
| Realistically we do not have a single group running in the
| US with the intention of delivering on the people's
| preferences or with an intent to deliver a government that
| functions more democratically. Both are increasingly
| authoritarian in the name of populism.
| quotemstr wrote:
| > The word populist has ended up with a confused set of
| meanings (intentionally). What we have now is a war
| between different groups of elites
|
| Of course. The masses never exercise political power
| directly. As you point out, it's disaffected factions of
| the elite that claim and wield the moral authority of the
| masses to defeat other elites. It's been this way since
| the Optimates and Populares persecuted each other in a
| centuries-long spiral of escalating stupidity culminating
| in political upheavel.
|
| Nevertheless, disaffected elites can't swing the club of
| popular opinion against other elites with any effect
| unless there is some non-zero dot-product alignment
| between their governance and popular opinion. In exchange
| for at least partially enacting popular policy, upstart
| elites get a tool for deposing other elites. The people
| win in the end.
|
| Fantastic book: https://www.amazon.com/Political-Order-
| Decay-Industrial-Glob...
|
| (Yes, Fukuyama was wrong about the end of history. He's
| atoned for it and more.)
| ModernMech wrote:
| "What do you think happens when people realize that
| "democracy" is a sham in the sense that their preferences
| don't translate into the rules they follow in daily life?"
|
| Growing up, it's always been said that no one is above the
| law, even the president. People would point to Nixon as an
| example, that even he was forced into submission by his
| party and SCOTUS.
|
| Well now SCOTUS has determined POTUS is actually above the
| law, and I don't think it's a coincidence that not long
| after, someone like Luigi manifests out of the population.
|
| The contract has always been, we have a rule of law, and
| all people are subject to it no matter their station.
| That's over. Maybe it always has been but SCOTUS put it in
| writing. JFK said it before, but if certain people make it
| so that they cannot be held accountable by the law, people
| will find other ways to bring accountability. People of
| history perceived to be invincible at the height of their
| power, tend to meet untimely ends at the hands of their
| people.
| philipov wrote:
| > _a mob subject to manipulation by propaganda?_
|
| This idea goes back to the founding of the nation. It's the
| very reason we have an electoral college.
| eikenberry wrote:
| And the reason we didn't have universal suffrage.
| olalonde wrote:
| Bingo. I never understood why "foreign influence" was supposed
| to be a bad thing. Free speech is grounded in the idea that
| people are capable of reasoning and forming their own opinions.
| If we truly trust in that, the source of the influence -
| foreign or domestic - shouldn't matter. People who advocate for
| censoring foreign sources of influence are implicitly admitting
| that they don't trust their population to think critically.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| You could ban every non-ethnically Chinese channel to push
| Chinese superiority. That would be bad, right?
|
| And before you say, "but they're not doing that", remember
| that we're discussing how this _theoretically_ could be a bad
| thing.
| hcurtiss wrote:
| Exactly. To the degree elections are not rooted in a
| competition of ideas and individual agency, but rather are
| downstream of elite power and influence, then there are other
| more direct means of controlling populations, all of which
| tend to be a lot bloodier. All of this strikes me as a really
| dangerous path.
| luckylion wrote:
| Are lies ideas? In a competition of "ideas", if one side
| lies, is it still a fair competition, or are they cheating?
| Should it be a fair competition?
| hcurtiss wrote:
| That angle would work if there wasn't so much
| disagreement about what constitutes lies. After the last
| few years, I am definitely not interested in having
| government actors decide for me what amounts to the
| truth. Personally, I suppose I much prefer a competition
| of ideas -- and the ability to decide for myself.
| luckylion wrote:
| I think there's a reasonable argument that part of that
| disagreement is a result of the hybrid warfare that is
| being fought over the information and opinions of
| citizens in many countries. We know about a few of these
| where hyper-partisan influencers were paid by Russia (or
| entities closely connected to the Russian government, if
| you insist on nuances) to spread Russia's viewpoints and
| attack social cohesion in the US. Is that a competition
| of ideas?
|
| Facebook and Twitter have in the past banned networks of
| account for inauthentic behavior. In other words:
| individuals (and you can probably narrows this to
| residents or citizens) are allowed to speak their mind
| and try to convince others of whatever they believe, but
| it has to be them, they cannot use bots, multiple
| accounts etc. It's not an easy thing to filter, of
| course. But pretend that it was, would you agree with
| that approach?
| threeseed wrote:
| > I never understood why "foreign influence" was supposed to
| be a bad thing
|
| Because people are not capable of being informed on every
| topic in the world.
|
| Especially in a world that is increasingly more complex and
| nuanced.
|
| And this ignorance has been demonstrated to be exploitable in
| order to tear apart societies.
| baq wrote:
| Read some books. 1984 would be a good start.
| datavirtue wrote:
| That was a story to reach simple minds. No one in this
| forum needs 1984 to inform them of the methods and outcomes
| of propaganda.
| photonthug wrote:
| Don't worry, chomskys manufacturing consent is also
| mentioned as relevant reading elsewhere in this thread,
| and then rejected, naturally on the grounds that learning
| stuff about propaganda might be propaganda
| olalonde wrote:
| I read some, including 1984. What's your point? 1984
| portrays exactly the kind of world I'd want to avoid - one
| where the government controls access to information and
| rigidly suppresses foreign influence.
| iforgotpassword wrote:
| > implicitly admitting that they don't trust their population
| to think critically
|
| I think that is the case though. I will come off as arrogant
| and my lack of vocabulary might make it sound less elaborate,
| but a huge chunk of the population is not able or willing to
| so. This is why every time a country is facing a crysis, the
| populist politicians gain in popularity. People are already
| stressed out by their jobs, paying the bills, rising cost of
| living, so who wants to spend time and effort to research the
| causes of this, evaluate which proposed solution seems most
| realistic, what the tradeoffs are, compared to the dude who
| tells them that the problem is very simple and that he has
| the solution that is equally simple. It's the immigrants
| stealing the jobs, or the heat pumps forced upon them, or
| solar cells.
|
| And it doesn't even need foreign social media to come to
| that.
| odyssey7 wrote:
| Easy: reach the future electorate when they're pre-teens and
| feed them influences that eschew critical thinking as a core
| value.
|
| If you can believe that lead pipes contributed to the
| collapse of the Roman Empire... well, let's just say the
| Internet is a series of tubes.
|
| The concerns about TikTok merely as a _propaganda_ platform
| are naive and almost quaint when considering what might
| actually be happening.
| datavirtue wrote:
| You just described the corporate propaganda that
| generations of Americans have been bathed in.
| odyssey7 wrote:
| You make a good point. A crucial difference, however, is
| the types of entities and their motives.
|
| A conventional U.S. corporation's motive is to generate
| profits. Efforts stemming from that motive have not
| always been in the public interest, and such cases are
| worthy of regulatory attention, but they typically do not
| present national security risks. In odd cases where
| pursuing profits could create national security risks,
| Congress has sometimes intervened, such as when Nvidia
| was banned from selling certain processors to certain
| countries.
|
| A geopolitical entity is not a profit-motivated
| corporation, so the risk model is different, with
| national security factors being more salient.
| mbesto wrote:
| > Free speech is grounded in the idea that people are capable
| of reasoning and forming their own opinions. If we truly
| trust in that, the source of the influence - foreign or
| domestic - shouldn't matter.
|
| Sure, but then why is electioneering banned by polling
| places? Or why is voter intimidation illegal? You have the
| draw the line somewhere.
|
| > are implicitly admitting that they don't trust their
| population to think critically.
|
| A democracy that is NOT a direct democracy is already
| admitting this. This is exactly the reason we have proxies in
| a representative democracy.
| sdwr wrote:
| You got it, it's about playing by the rules. A robust
| culture of propriety is one line of defense against _the
| bad times_ , and we're losing it.
| lmm wrote:
| > Sure, but then why is electioneering banned by polling
| places? Or why is voter intimidation illegal?
|
| Because those things are not just speech - they're implicit
| or explicit physical threats.
|
| America runs most of the world's social media platforms and
| expects other countries to be happy with that, but then
| panics the moment another country dares to offer them the
| same thing? I don't know which scenario is worse, the one
| where this is just an excuse for an America First trade war
| or the one where the US genuinely believes that controlling
| a social platform means you control the countries that use
| it.
| olalonde wrote:
| > A democracy that is NOT a direct democracy is already
| admitting this. This is exactly the reason we have proxies
| in a representative democracy.
|
| I think it's less about admitting this and more about the
| impracticality of having citizens vote on issues daily.
| drdaeman wrote:
| > people are capable of reasoning and forming their own
| opinions
|
| The problem is that people aren't ideal rational agents. Our
| collective reasoning tends to be heavily biased by the
| environment, and that there are actors who abuse this (by
| injecting ideas that indirectly help their agendas) for their
| personal gains. And in China's case, they want to undermine
| freedoms, including freedom of speech.
|
| We can consider ourselves as "rational, critical thinkers"
| all we want, but we aren't as there are myriads of ways we're
| gullible in one way or another. Plenty of examples in our
| history books.
|
| Still, I think that free speech is still more important, as
| it's the only way for a society to recover. With freedom of
| speech, an antidote (for a lack of better term) can
| eventually be found and injected into the public discourse,
| without it the future looks bleak.
|
| The way I see it, we need to encourage improvement of
| education on social sciences, human psychology, game theory
| and so on, encourage critical thinking but forewarn of all
| possible fallacies, and hope that it will be enough and that
| the inevitable counter-reaction won't prevail and undermine
| the effort.
| vkou wrote:
| Okay, but why is Chinese influence any worse than that of
| some Australian billionaire who owns the biggest right-wing
| media conglomerate that broadcasts an absolute firehouse of
| damaging, divisive, and self-serving lies?
|
| If TikTok is harmful to democracy, Fox News is more than an
| order of magnitude worse. A large portion of the electorate
| watches its insanity like a full-time job.
|
| Most enemies of democracy, when measured by impact are
| 'domestic' and 'western', not some Chinese boogieman.
| drdaeman wrote:
| My personal opinion? It's not significantly different. Or
| maybe it is, but, at least, I don't see a need (and a
| meaningful way) to develop a scale of maliciousness.
|
| Malicious agents have no nationality, race or some single
| origin. All they share is the mindset and some values,
| willing to abuse the system for personal gains or flawed
| misbeliefs (for a lack of better word - beliefs that are
| known to contradict our collective scientific
| understanding of the world).
| photonthug wrote:
| > I don't see a need (and a meaningful way) to develop a
| scale of maliciousness.
|
| I'm constantly amazed by how easily even smart people
| will retreat into whataboutism, and this is the most
| polite way I've ever seen to call them on it.
| drdaeman wrote:
| I'm sorry, I didn't mean to. I can see how my poor choice
| of words possibly led to this interpretation.
|
| I wanted to say that I believe it doesn't matter who does
| something, only what they're doing. So the same standards
| should be applied uniformly, irregardless of the actors'
| identity.
|
| Ideally, by no means entity X doing something we consider
| negative should absolve or justify entity Y's negative
| (similarly or different) actions.
| photonthug wrote:
| Certainly. I get that, I'm just saying you are remarkably
| patient to be willing to actually explain this to other
| people. Maybe you're not familiar with the term:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
|
| Personally I'm inclined to be more blunt and impatient.
| Whataboutism is intellectually lazy in the best case, in
| the worst case it means the interlocuter is manipulative
| or just actually operating at the emotional level of a 5
| year old. Good people just don't like bad behaviour..
| they won't wait around to find out which team committed
| the bad behaviour, and they won't refuse to fix 1 evil
| until another 2nd evil is addressed first, etc. Also
| relevant here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_t
| he_Poisoned_Arrow
| VectorLock wrote:
| One is the sworn enemy of the western democratic system,
| and one depends on it.
| vkou wrote:
| Alt-right billionaires don't depend on democracy, all
| other things being equal, they'd much prefer an oligarchy
| with them and their friends at the top, and it's why many
| of them want to steer towards it.
|
| Throughout history, big business and the mega-rich have
| regularly backed coups and authoritarians, compared to
| their democratic alternatives. It's a much better system
| for them than one where each person gets one vote,
| because there's a lot more of us than there are of
| them[1].
|
| As for sworn enemies of democracy, I think the guy who
| _launched a coup, as part of a broader conspiracy to
| steal the election_ when he lost would be towards the top
| of the list.
|
| ---
|
| [1] When times get tough, in a democracy, it becomes
| difficult for them to justify why they get to take three
| quarters of the pie, while the rest of us fight over
| scraps.
| tripletao wrote:
| > some Australian billionaire
|
| I think you mean Rupert Murdoch. He was born in Australia
| but naturalized as an American citizen, due to
| restrictions on foreign control of broadcast media.
|
| If TikTok moved to control by an American citizen born in
| China, then that would comply with the PAFACA. If the
| people already controlling TikTok naturalized as American
| citizens then that would also comply (though that's
| obviously not going to happen).
|
| Restrictions on foreign control of the highest-reach
| media are nothing new. The PAFACA simply updates them to
| reflect new viewing habits. "Foreign" continues to be
| defined by citizenship, not birthplace.
| xphos wrote:
| I think there is also a lot to say that your speech is
| hardly free if you are drowning in tons of bot created
| content regardless of who is generating that content. I
| feel there is not to many good compromises that can be made
| it :*(
| drdaeman wrote:
| Sowing discord is the well-known age-tested strategy. It
| doesn't remove freedom of speech per se, but it drowns it
| in the noise.
|
| The very goal of this attack on the freedom of speech is
| to make people lean towards the easiest and "naturally
| occurring" pseudo-solution to make those bots shut up.
| Then abuse the same censorship mechanisms to control the
| discourse.
|
| Sadly, I don't know how to solve this. Censoring speech
| is a non-solution. Building web of trusts will inevitably
| create even stronger information bubbles (making it
| easier to divide and conquer - we're seeing this
| happening).
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| plenty of dangers, but considering what people actually do
| and care about on TikTok, I wouldn't really compare this to
| Facebook.
|
| >People who advocate for censoring foreign sources of
| influence are implicitly admitting that they don't trust
| their population to think critically.
|
| Tbf, America did spend decades tearing down education to help
| support that conclusion.
| motorest wrote:
| > I never understood why "foreign influence" was supposed to
| be a bad thing. Free speech is grounded in the idea that
| people are capable of reasoning and forming their own
| opinions.
|
| You should invest a minute thinking about the problem. Pay
| attention to your own opinion: people are capable of
| reasoning and forming their own opinions. Focus on that. Now,
| consider that propaganda feeds false and deceiving
| information to the public. In some cases, the decision-maker
| is only exposed to propaganda. Even if that decision-maker is
| the most rational of actors, what kind of decisions can he do
| if they are only exposed to false and deceiving information?
|
| There are plenty of reasons why libel and slander are
| punishable by law. Why do you think they are?
| jay_kyburz wrote:
| >There are plenty of reasons why libel and slander are
| punishable by law. Why do you think they are?
|
| Also note: nobody is cracking down on libel and slander on
| social media because we consider internet publishers
| "common carriers" when infarct the should be held
| accountable for the things they promote.
| motorest wrote:
| > Also note: nobody is cracking down on libel and slander
| on social media because we consider internet publishers
| "common carriers" when infarct the should be held
| accountable for the things they promote.
|
| The "common carrier" status of services which hold
| editorial control over the content that's pushed and
| promoted is highly dubious.
| bdangubic wrote:
| maybe common carrier is not quite right but social media
| has no proof of identity. hence I cannot sue motorest for
| libel if you send a nasty personal-attack reply to this
| :)
| datavirtue wrote:
| Truth is subjective.
| motorest wrote:
| > Truth is subjective.
|
| Any belief supported by lies and falsehoods cannot be
| described as truth. It's something else.
| bdangubic wrote:
| opinion is subjective, truth means (can't believe I have
| to write this) _that which is true or in accordance with
| fact or reality._ and it is not objective unless you live
| in a fantasy world half+ of this country lives in
| vehemenz wrote:
| If you're so interested in philosophy, you should really
| study it. This kind of belief should have been beaten out
| of you in PHIL 101.
| swat535 wrote:
| Truth is absolutely _not_ subjective.. a person is either
| alive or dead, the earth is either flat or not flat, e =
| mc2 is either true or false, .. I could go on,
| datavirtue wrote:
| I can agree with you on this point but when someone is
| standing on the earth they can prove it is flat. Then you
| zoom out and prove it is not. The flat earth person will
| just say: "that's not what I meant."
|
| Zoom out to the cosmos and think about the truth
| available to different observers. This same principle
| holds across the board. You have to reconcile with each
| observer, and until you do truth is subjective.
|
| I just have trouble stating that my objective truth is
| also someone else's objective truth. What if my
| information is "the Bible." You can split hairs with
| these people until you die of old age and they can
| technically be wrong but their truth can work for them.
|
| Just like we have all kinds of wild unintuitive math
| proofs that are very enlightening once they are
| communicated to all observers. Newtonian physics are true
| until they aren't, the same as those Bible "truths."
|
| Given the infinite probabilities of the universe I have
| trouble declaring a set of objective truths that are
| immutable and try to give people a pass on what they hold
| as true. Can anything be known? We settle on some truths
| that work for us in the little time we have.
| swat535 wrote:
| Truth is absolutely _not_ subjective.. a person is either
| alive or dead, the earth is either flat or not flat, e =
| mc2 is either true or false, .. I could go on.
|
| Reminds me of a quote from 1984: "In the end, the Party
| would announce that two and two made five, and you would
| have to believe it." [0]
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_%2B_2_%3D_5
| olalonde wrote:
| This is an interesting thought experiment, but how is it
| relevant in practice? In free-speech countries, people are
| not exposed to just a single source of information. That
| simply doesn't align with reality. It's akin to criticizing
| capitalism by imagining a scenario where a single company
| monopolizes everything.
| postingawayonhn wrote:
| > I never understood why "foreign influence" was supposed to
| be a bad thing.
|
| It would be less of a problem if US platforms were allowed
| into China to influence the Chinese too.
| phatfish wrote:
| Does everyone think critically and rationally? If not how
| many don't (especially during key election periods) and can
| this group cast an oversized influence on election results or
| public opinion?
|
| Having the choice of two options at the ballot box, and
| social media meaning many people now form political opinions
| from anonymous accounts online does not fill me with
| confidence.
| msravi wrote:
| > aren't we really saying voters are not individual agents but
| rather a mob subject to manipulation by propaganda?
|
| Yes, it is. Always has been.
|
| > threats to "democracy" that simultaneously take such a
| cynical view of the democratic process
|
| > then the whole "democracy" thing is just a cover for elite
| power
|
| You'd have to have fallen hook, line, and sinker with America's
| propaganda to actually believe that democracy is NOT a cover
| for retaining control over a population.
|
| The US has been playing this game in other countries for a
| while now, to keep a check on who comes to power and who does
| not (always using support for democracy as an excuse).
| Gautemala, the arab spring, bangladesh - these are just some of
| the examples. And it's become very blatant of late.
| stouset wrote:
| > ...aren't we really saying voters are not individual agents
| but rather a mob subject to manipulation by propaganda?
|
| ...yes? Is that even slightly controversial? If it wasn't the
| case, why would propaganda even exist?
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| Theres an implication that The Internet meant we have a
| commons connecting the world that no one country can
| completely restrict. But a commons too important to all
| modern societies to blanket ban. In theory we should be less
| susceptible to propoganda than ever since we can see multiple
| viewpoints and interpretations in minutes. As opposed to
| being beholden to maybe 3-4 mainstream news programs on
| television.
|
| Human nature proves to fall quite short of that ideal,
| though.
| dagss wrote:
| People CAN see multiple viewpoints in minutes, and some do,
| problem is hundreds of millions more prefer to let TikTok
| select what views to see.
|
| And TikTok has immense data available about what series of
| reels sway what subpopulation in what direction. Only
| question is of they make use of it.
|
| My opinion is that if they wanted to sway an election
| anywhere in the world they definitely could.
| shawnz wrote:
| That's the entire reason for representative democracy over
| direct democracy
| kybernetikos wrote:
| I'm not sure it is- even if you think the electorate are
| educated and competent, it still makes sense to delegate the
| specific decisions to a smaller set of individuals who are
| given the time and resources to get into the detail. It just
| scales better.
| rendx wrote:
| Excuse my European ignorance, but in what way is a system a
| "democracy" where one person can overrule actual democratic
| structures? The power centralized into one person is unheard of
| in what I would call "democracies".
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| Of course propaganda works. That's why companies spent tons of
| money on ads.
|
| Of course it also works on politics, especially if people don't
| trust "traditional" media, but arbitrary publishers (there's
| room for a guiding which is more trustworthy)
|
| History over and over has shown that a public can be led into
| their own demise, including brutal war.
|
| How much active influence China takes I don't know (and I never
| used tiktok) but we are certainly in a time of massive
| disinformation and denial of facts. Globally.
| cdrini wrote:
| > aren't we really saying voters are not individual agents but
| rather a mob subject to manipulation by propaganda?
|
| I disagree with this interpretation. It's creating a sort of
| false dichotomy -- voters can still be individual agents AND
| ALSO they can be manipulated by propaganda. And the key is that
| propaganda doesn't have to be wildly successful in order to
| impact a democratic process. It just has to convince enough
| people to sway an election. That is, and always has been, one
| of the trade-offs of democracy. That's why we say "democracy
| needs an informed electorate to survive" -- because an informed
| individual is less likely to be easily manipulated.
| lolinder wrote:
| Ad-funded social media platforms make money by measurably
| altering people's opinions and behavior. It's literally their
| only job--everything else is in service to that goal.
|
| Given that this is what they do day in and day out and that the
| successful ones are by all metrics very good at it, it seems
| totally reasonable to assume that one could trivially be turned
| from manipulating people into buying stuff to manipulating
| people to voting a certain way or holding certain opinions.
|
| One person one vote is the guiding principle of democracy and,
| yes, it assumes that no person is able to actively hijack
| someone else's vote for their own gain. We have systems in
| place to prevent voter fraud, and I think that we should have
| systems in place to prevent systematic individual targeting of
| individuals for algorithmic manipulation as well.
|
| What we don't need is a law that specifically targets foreign
| companies doing it. Our homegrown manipulators are just as
| dangerous in their own ways.
| motorest wrote:
| > By saying China's using Tik Tok to subvert "democracy,"
| aren't we really saying voters are not individual agents but
| rather a mob subject to manipulation by propaganda?
|
| Did you already forgot about the episode about Haitians eating
| everyone's pets? Based on that episode alone, what's you
| observation?
|
| > I sometimes cannot believe it's those who so loudly cry about
| threats to "democracy" that simultaneously take such a cynical
| view of the democratic process.
|
| You should take a minute to think about the underlying issue.
|
| Propaganda is a massive threat against democracy and freedom in
| general. If a bad actor invests enough resources pushing lies
| and false promises that manages to convince enough people to
| vote on their agent, do you expect to be represented and see
| your best interests defended by your elected representatives?
|
| Also, you should pay attention to the actual problem.
| Propaganda isn't something that affects the left end of the
| bell curve. Propaganda determines which information you have
| access to. You make your decisions based on the information you
| have, regardless of being facts or fiction. If you are faced
| with a relentless barrage of bullshit, how can you make an
| educated decision or even guess on what's the best outcome? You
| cannot. The one that controls the information you can access
| will also control to a great degree your decision process.
| That's the power of disinformation and propaganda, and the risk
| that China's control of TikTok poses to the US in particular
| but the free world in general.
| mbesto wrote:
| > aren't we really saying voters are not individual agents but
| rather a mob subject to manipulation by propaganda?
|
| If you want to view it that way, sure. But I could also just
| say you and I are both sacks of blood filled flesh.
|
| > Rather than tackle the narratives substantively,
|
| Meta (et al) are just AS guilty as TikTok. The difference is
| substantial and subtle - the US government could conceivably
| sanction a US-based entity to the point of them not existing. A
| chinese based one doesnt have to play by the rules. Fine them?
| No problem, their gov has an immeasurable amount of money. The
| only option is to simply not let them play at all.
| serbuvlad wrote:
| The advantage of democracy is that the propaganda game gets
| played every few years and current elites can lose. Under a
| system of freedom of speech, there is very little stopping a
| decently (but not massively) funded rag-tag group of competent
| individuals from running a more efficient propaganda campaign
| than the powers-that-be (think of Dominic Cummings' Leave
| campaign in the UK for the perfect example).
|
| This is the best system we have found to establish the
| impermanence of the elite class. Because this is the real
| beauty of what we in the west call democracy: not the absence
| of an elite class, for there is no such system, but it's
| impermanence.
|
| And while that is all well and good within a country, the
| argument is that it would be unwise to allow a foreign hostile
| power a seat at our propaganda game. Especially one which does
| not reciprocate this permission.
| hcurtiss wrote:
| This is a thoughtful reply. But, if it's just propaganda
| games played by the elites, I suppose another way to ensure
| informed outcomes might be literacy tests. Or property
| ownership.
|
| I guess more than anything I'm just surprised that it's the
| "threat to democracy" crowd that would be taking such a
| cynical view of democracy. They're admitting that Trump's
| propaganda was just better than theirs. Which is, in some
| ways, hilarious.
| mardifoufs wrote:
| Yep, it basically amounts to agreeing 100% with the Chinese
| justification for their great firewall, which is that a free
| internet is subversive to their national interest and to their
| citizens. But Americans will argue that it's somewhat
| different, since when they do it it's not dystopian or
| something
| corimaith wrote:
| By resorting to walled gardens that by definition have to
| provide a filtered experience via algorithms rather than raw
| experience of older internet forums and image boards, haven't
| many of these voters already made that choice of being wanting
| to be manipulated?
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| > If that's your view of the electorate, then the whole
| "democracy" thing is just a cover for elite power.
|
| yeah. They don't necessarily want nor care to inform of the
| truth. they want that sort of manipulation as much as any other
| billionaire. Heck there's a good amount of people who simply
| want to be told what to do so they don't have to worry about
| the big stuff.
|
| There's a reason many almost always choose convinience over
| anything else when working in practice.
| LargeWu wrote:
| Of course voters are subject to propaganda.
|
| YOU are subject to propaganda. Yes, you.
| samr71 wrote:
| I enjoy seeing HN independently rederive much of NRX thought
| via this situation.
|
| In unrelated news, anyone see that NYT interview with Yarvin
| yesterday?
| layer8 wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment
| cycrutchfield wrote:
| The one where Curtis made a fool of himself and his poor
| understanding of history?
| mesh wrote:
| >voters are not individual agents but rather a mob subject to
| manipulation by propaganda
|
| That has nothing to do with China.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
| simion314 wrote:
| Why is illegal to put false stuff on products label, like food
| or medicine? Where is the free speech to lie and manipulate the
| user? With your point of view the EACH user should somehow find
| the skills to analyze and review each product each time they
| user or trust some other persons word.
|
| The algorithm is not a person to have free speech, my issue is
| with the algorithm, I am OK with the village drunk to post his
| faked documents but I am not O with state actors falsifing
| documents then same state owned actors abusing the algorithm to
| spread that false stuff. So no free spech for bot farms and
| algorithms, they are not people (yet)
| aredox wrote:
| Yes. This is well known since Antiquity when the Athenian
| Democracy voted to condemn Plato to death.
|
| Read more about the period and you will see that the Democratic
| cities of yore, Athens first and foremost, often swinged
| towards taking bad decisions, and that a whole corporation of
| "sophists" manipulated public opinion without shame (read e.g.
| _Gorgias_ ).
|
| The great progress that enabled the restoration, extention and
| stabilisation of Democracy in the modern era has been indirect,
| representative democracy and base, written bill of
| rights/constitutions that aren't asily modified, requiring
| majorities of 2/3rds or more and constraint what can be voted
| on.
| regularization wrote:
| Qhat you doesn't make much sense, starting with your claim
| Plato was sentenced to death by Athenian democracy, which
| there is no evidence of that I know of.
| aredox wrote:
| Because I mixed them up, as Plato is the one who wrote down
| Socrates' teachings and his story...
| defrost wrote:
| There are worse mixups ...
| https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/aug/19/plutos-
| repub...
| SubGenius wrote:
| > ...when the Athenian Democracy voted to condemn Plato to
| death.
|
| That was Socrates, not Plato.
|
| Socrates was allowed to choose his own punishment too, so he
| wasn't exactly condemned to death right away. He also had the
| opportunity to escape prison. He chose not to.
| aredox wrote:
| Sorry for the Socrates/Plato mix-up.
|
| TikTok has the opportunity to divest. They chose not to.
| philipov wrote:
| The one condemned to death was Socrates. Kind of weird for
| that to be the detail you get wrong...
| aredox wrote:
| Yeah, yeah, sorry.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| > voters are not individual agents but rather a mob subject to
| manipulation by propaganda?
|
| That is true, yet it's not incompatible with democracy. In the
| US Horace Mann established the foundational link between
| education and democracy. It's why civics and other forms of
| intellectual self-defence are essential.
|
| The problem with social media (and BigTech lazy "convenient"
| non-thought) is not that it's a propaganda conduit as much as
| that it's antithetical to critical thinking. It's more complex
| than simply the content, it's the form too.
| chinathrow wrote:
| > By saying China's using Tik Tok to subvert "democracy,"
| aren't we really saying voters are not individual agents but
| rather a mob subject to manipulation by propaganda?
|
| Well, we don't know what was said in the classified meetings,
| but yes, we know that propaganda works.
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| We do have laws around elections like the equal time rule.
| Should we remove that too?
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule
| leot wrote:
| If I were the CCP this is perhaps the cleverest talking point I
| could have possibly come up with, propping up TikTok while
| simultaneously condemning democracy.
|
| But to substantively respond: NO. This is exceptionally naive.
| Democracy assumes shared fates and aligned incentives among
| (both voting and communicating) participants. A foreign
| adversary mainlining their interests into half the population
| of the US absolutely violates this assumption.
| Salgat wrote:
| This sounds like an emotional appeal rather than anything based
| on science and fact.
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| "a mob subject to manipulation by propaganda"
|
| Yes, that is correct.
| simonsarris wrote:
| > aren't we really saying voters are not individual agents but
| rather a mob subject to manipulation by propaganda?
|
| Like we've been saying since the founding of the country? yeah
|
| "The body of people ... do not possess the discernment and
| stability necessary for systematic government. To deny that
| they are frequently led into the grossest errors by
| misinformation and passion, would be a flattery which their own
| good sense must despise." -Hamilton
|
| The founders did not think that electoral college was a good
| idea, senators should be appointed and not elected, and only a
| few citizens should be able to vote generally, because they
| were feeling mean. They did so because they thought these
| things and the act of voting itself were simply instruments to
| produce good government. They rejected a democracy, and favored
| a republic, for this reason.
| patcon wrote:
| > aren't we really saying voters are not individual agents but
| rather a mob subject to manipulation by propaganda?
|
| Yes, exactly.
|
| A symbiotic view of life: we have never been individuals
| https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235518850_A_Symbiot...
|
| I have it on personal experience that DARPA seems to be
| enthusiastically funding more digital twin and collective
| intelligence projects than ever. Simulated virtual publics are
| going to become more common in both war and politics.
| Collectives are going to be the driving force of the coming
| century, and the sooner the American public evolves beyond
| fetishizing the individual, the better.
| soulofmischief wrote:
| The existence of democratic sociopolitical structures does not
| preclude the existence of targeted mass propaganda, or the
| weaknesses of the human psyche. Nor vice versa.
| ben_w wrote:
| > aren't we really saying voters are not individual agents but
| rather a mob subject to manipulation by propaganda?
|
| I take the view that the reason freedom of speech is important
| at all, is that people can be convinced to act in certain ways
| by speech -- if it couldn't lead to action, no dictator would
| fear it.
|
| We, all of us, take things on trust. We have to. It's not like
| anyone, let alone everyone, has the capacity -- time or skill
| -- to personally verify every claim we encounter.
|
| Everywhere in the world handles this issue differently: the USA
| is free-speech-maximalism; the UK has rules about what you can
| say in elections[0] (and in normal ads), was famously a
| jurisdiction of choice for people who wanted to sue others for
| libel[1], and has very low campaign spending limits[2]; Germany
| has laws banning parties that are a threat to the
| constitution[3].
|
| I doubt there is any perfect solution here, I think all only
| last for as long as the people themselves are vigilant.
|
| [0] https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/voting-and-
| elections/...
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism
|
| [2] https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/party-spending-and-
| pr...
|
| [3] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68029232
| coliveira wrote:
| The US gov has just made the case for banning US owned social
| networks around the world, because they truly believe that
| social networks is a way for a foreign agents to interfere in
| local politics.
| YurgenJurgensen wrote:
| This is misleading. Most of the places that might want to ban
| US social networks were already doing so.
| pantalaimon wrote:
| > China's using Tik Tok to subvert "democracy"
|
| And has there ever been an example for that or is it just a
| hypothetical scenario?
| dagss wrote:
| No one can possibly know. They just have all the power to do
| it very efficiently, without anyone noticing.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| > aren't we really saying voters are not individual agents but
| rather a mob subject to manipulation by propaganda?
|
| I invite you to consider the possibility that this is true.
| That at the population level, propaganda actually works. This
| would support the fact that it's been a key tool used by
| regimes (including ours) since before the printing press was
| invented.
|
| I don't really know for certain whether this is accurate, but
| it's hard for me to look around the world at global politics
| and determine that it isn't.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _aren 't we really saying voters are not individual agents
| but rather a mob subject to manipulation by propaganda_
|
| Part of the reason Western democracies are failing is we forgot
| that pure democracy _doesn't_ work. The founders described this
| amply in the Federalist Papers. Democracy tends towards tearing
| itself apart with partisanship and mob rule.
|
| It's why successful republics have mechanisms to cool off
| public sentiment, letting time tax emotions to reveal actual
| thoughts underneath (see: the Swiss versus Californian
| referendum models); bodies to protect minorities from the
| majority (independent courts); _et cetera_.
| mppm wrote:
| I do find people's faith in Democracy, as opposed to
| Authoritarianism, somewhat exasperating. Two candidates, pre-
| selected by the powers that be to lead the nation, compete in
| inane televised debates, wave flags and make promises that
| everyone knows they are going to break. This everyone debates
| hotly, and then lines up to register one bit of Holy Democratic
| Choice, to be averaged with a hundred million similar bits to
| determine, by a margin of a few percent, the one and only
| legitimate Government of the People, by the People, for the
| People. My Ass.
|
| In the end, "democracy" is about power and control, just like
| any other form of government, and the TikTok ban is just
| another power-play, however it may be justified publicly. Not
| that I'm overly sorry to see it banned, by the way :)
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Until very recently, "Democracy" was a dirty way to describe
| a government. It was in the same class of failed government
| models as tyranny, the rule of the mindless mob.
| mppm wrote:
| Maybe, but my point is that democracy is not even the rule
| of a mindless mob, more like mob rule theater. Ruling
| implies receiving information and performing complex
| actions and giving many and nontrivial orders. From a
| purely information-theoretical perspective, it requires _a
| lot_ of entropy flowing from the decision maker to
| subordinates. On the other hand, national elections collect
| a tiny pool of entropy from the supposed root source of
| power and legitimacy, the people. This is not enough to
| rule a country, by many orders of magnitude. The country is
| instead ruled by ambitious individuals, who seize power in
| various ways - connections, backroom deals, backstabbing.
| Some participate in the election theater.
| imiric wrote:
| Why is that so hard to believe?
|
| For more than a century now the advertising industry has
| perfected mass psychological manipulation that aims to separate
| the masses from their dollar. These tactics as pioneered by the
| likes of Edward Bernays were plucked straight from the
| propaganda rule books, which has been successfully used for at
| least a century before that. We know that both propaganda and
| advertising are highly effective at influencing how people
| think and which products they consume. It's a small step then
| to extrapolate those techniques to get vast amounts of people
| to think and act however one wants. All it requires is
| sufficient interest, a relatively minor amount of resources,
| and using the same tools that millions of people already give
| their undivided attention to, which were designed to be as
| addictive as possible. We've already seen how this can work in
| the Cambridge Analytica expose, which is surely considered
| legacy tech by now.
|
| I'm honestly surprised that people are in desbelief that this
| can and does happen. These are not some wildly speculative
| conspiracy theories. People are easily influenceable. When
| tools that can be used to spread disinformation and gaslight
| people into believing any version of reality are widely
| available to anyone, it would be surprising if they were _not_
| used for this purpose.
|
| > If that's your view of the electorate, then the whole
| "democracy" thing is just a cover for elite power.
|
| Always has been. It's just that now that we've perfected the
| tools used to sway public opinion, and made them available to
| anyone, including our enemies, the effects are much more
| palpable.
|
| I hope Zuckerberg and friends, and everyone who's worked on
| these platforms, some of which frequent this very forum,
| realize that they've contributed to the breakdown of
| civilization. It's past time for these people to stop selling
| us snake oil promises of a connected world, and start being
| accountable for their actions.
| hinkley wrote:
| Why do you think The Rule of Law exists? Large groups of angry
| people often make bad decisions with long term consequences. We
| have known this forever.
| astee wrote:
| Yes. But we're talking about children too - not just adult
| voters.
|
| And the app collects every click, every face photo, all
| contacts, every keypress on external links, everything. The
| full social graph, shaping the trends of the younger
| generation.
| LZ_Khan wrote:
| The winner of the election is often the party that spent more
| money on political advertising, so I'm sure this is a well
| known phenomenon.
| Gormo wrote:
| > By saying China's using Tik Tok to subvert "democracy,"
| aren't we really saying voters are not individual agents but
| rather a mob subject to manipulation by propaganda?
|
| Yep. Same thing as the people arguing to reverse the Citizens
| United ruling. Lots of lip service is paid to "democracy" by
| people who have no faith in the electorate to actually exercise
| democratic sovereignty.
| dbetteridge wrote:
| I'd argue that Democracy cannot be exercised by the
| electorate when > 36% of the voting population did not vote
| (90m / 245m https://www.usnews.com/news/national-
| news/articles/2024-11-1...).
|
| You're dealing with 64% of the voting population, who
| inherently lean one way or the other so a small nudge can be
| the difference between one side or the other winning.
|
| e.g. Candidate swapping might bring votes from minority
| groups or Women.
|
| Imagine a scenario when even 5% more people voted, suddenly
| the margins are much wider and the results hold stronger
| validity.
| Gormo wrote:
| > 36% of the voting population did not vote
|
| If those people are eligible to vote but choose not to,
| than that _is_ their vote. It 's not appropriate to second-
| guess people who abstain any more than it is to second-
| guess the ballots of those who do vote. There's only a
| problem if people who want to vote, and are eligible to,
| are being prevented from doing so.
|
| If you're trying to engineer the process to contrive
| specific outcomes, that itself is anti-democratic.
| sega_sai wrote:
| For the record -- the law for TikTok divestment was not passed on
| its own, but was instead included in the foreign aid (including
| Ukraine) package
| https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/23/tech/congress-tiktok-ban-...
|
| It is not clear if it would have passed if not that procedural
| trick... So one has to take this into account when considering
| 'bipartisan support' of the thing.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| >so one has to take this into account when considering
| 'bipartisan support' of the thing.
|
| I do not. I can hold a person accountable to their vote on this
| legislation. Their vote on this legislation caused the Supreme
| Court to release an opinion that affects every citizens 1st
| amendment rights. Now if they released a statement at the time
| condemning this while also talking about the importance of the
| aid they might have some leeway.
| yreg wrote:
| Accountable for sure, but it's less clear who was in favour
| and who was against the bill compared to if it wasn't bundled
| together.
| sanderjd wrote:
| How does the ruling affect the 1st amendment rights of US
| citizens? It entirely affects foreign business owners.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| Thanks for this. It's the first I've heard of it.
| Karrot_Kream wrote:
| Yes it was included in a foreign aid package to make it more
| palatable to Congress. Advocates of the bill on this site are
| not bringing that up because they support the bill.
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| The standalone vote for it was overwhelmingly in favor of a
| ban. See other comments like
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42762082
| kristjansson wrote:
| Standalone vote in the house was pretty supportive and
| bipartisan too https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/202486.
| lalaland1125 wrote:
| This is a misleading view of history. It is true that it was
| included in the foreign aid package, but the TikTok ban was
| also passed in an isolated bill in an overwhelming bipartisan
| manner beforehand.
|
| 90% of Republicans in the House voted for the TikTok ban alone.
| 73% of Democrats.
|
| https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/202486
|
| It is very clear that it would have passed without that
| procedural trick, because it already did.
| dluan wrote:
| Now post the lobbying money received by lawmakers, as well as
| their history of trades of Meta stock.
| pixl97 wrote:
| And? The history of media companies operating in the US to
| have US citizens owners is likely much longer than you've
| been alive, just ask Murdoch about is US citizenship.
|
| You're highlighting a completely different problem that's
| longstanding and happening regardless if we're talking
| about enemy states. Be nice if we could solve the Musk/Zuck
| issues, but I don't suspect we will as we worship the altar
| of money.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > media companies operating in the US to have US citizens
| owners is likely much longer than you've been alive
|
| You do realise that, should US allies apply this
| principle themselves, US companies will suffer? Most UK
| media is foreign owned at this point. As is our water
| supply, transport and energy
|
| And Elon's rampant disrespect and general behaviour are
| inviting that day.
| x3n0ph3n3 wrote:
| The difference is China is an adversary, not an ally like
| the UK,and China already bans our social media there.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| They don't actually, the only British 'social network' is
| OnlyFans and it's allowed in China.
|
| As for the rest, what is the relevance?
|
| US money influences our politics through shadowy think
| tanks and pushes it to the right. US-owned water
| utilities take on loans, use them to pay dividends and
| drive themselves into bankruptcy.
|
| Being a US ally doesn't buy us better treatment from US
| billionaires, they are still predatory vultures.
| mvc wrote:
| > not an ally like the UK
|
| Let's see how long that lasts.
| weberer wrote:
| Top recipients of campaign donations from Meta:
|
| https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/meta/recipients?id=D000033
| 5...
|
| Congress members invested in Meta:
|
| https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/meta/members-
| invested?id=D0...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Correct. I advocated for both these bills. The TikTok ban
| carried Ukraine.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| > but was instead included in the foreign aid (including
| Ukraine) package
|
| I don't know why these kinds of shenanigans are still possible.
| It makes a complete joke of politics and legislation (and by
| extension: law).
|
| I know I'm shouting at clouds here, and I know the reason is:
| the sheeple don't care enough to change this thing for the
| better. But I still feel the need to point it out.
| spencerflem wrote:
| I don't think the sheeple can, sadly. Govt has been so
| thoroughly captured by corporate interests that I think the
| fall of America will happen before the govt starts governing
| for the people
| yunohn wrote:
| Congress has a limited amount of time and attention
| unfortunately, so omnibus bills are very common. That doesn't
| invalidate the contained legislature.
|
| I don't agree with the widespread usage of such "tricks", but I
| do understand the harsh reality and limitations of
| representative democracy.
| mixxit wrote:
| what about all the american apps that have no service in china
| Ylpertnodi wrote:
| Interested. What about them?
| bamboozled wrote:
| I think the criticism is that China can buy a seat at our
| table through flattery, and likely other favours , but we
| can't? So we're potentially corrupted / compromised, and they
| aren't.
| xyst wrote:
| TT playing both the public and politicians for their gain. Well
| played.
|
| Biden admin wasn't going to enforce ban but TT soft shutdown
| yesterday with message pandering to incoming admin (broadcasted
| to hundred millions of users).
|
| High suspicion of political theater.
|
| I wish ppl would see through this and realize this is yet another
| distraction to divide us via culture war.
| lumost wrote:
| This seems to imply that the president elect can make unilateral
| guarantees contravening US law. That's a surprising outcome.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| If this stands, it certainly is. It's a mockery of the whole of
| the system. Congress better act on overturning it post haste or
| enforcing it post haste.
| samr71 wrote:
| They only have one option for the next two years: Impeach and
| remove. GOOD LUCK LMAO
| HaZeust wrote:
| To be fair, he's already been impeached twice; this
| wouldn't be anything new to anybody.
| LastTrain wrote:
| "and remove"
| HaZeust wrote:
| Third time is the charm!
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| Yes, the republican dominated congress and senate are
| certain to do that. It's very clear this puppy has no
| bottom.
| kristjansson wrote:
| The law gives him some power to grant a 90-day reprieve, iff he
| makes some 'certifications' to congress w.r.t. progress toward
| compliance.
| jasonlotito wrote:
| That's only before the ban, not after. The ban is already in
| effect. This is a violation of the law, plain and simple, and
| the law does not allow for an unbanning after the fact. The
| 90 extension could have been done before the 19th, but not
| after.
|
| Simply put, this is law breaking. The President-elect is
| making promises to break the law day one. This is not
| surprising.
| NavinF wrote:
| I doubt judges would take your side on this interpretation
| of the law. Wanna put some money on this bet?
| oefnak wrote:
| He chose the judges.
| topspin wrote:
| He'll probably be choosing at least two more as well.
| hedora wrote:
| I don't think it matters.
|
| Scenario one: We get an FDR style leader to fix this
| stuff after a massive economic collapse and public
| backlash. (As Biden posited in his farewell address.)
| This will either lead to court packing or (like last
| time) the lapdogs on the court will accept their new
| leashes.
|
| Scenario two: The federal government suffers a partial or
| complete collapse, and the US ends up being city-states
| or like the former USSR. (I think this is more likely,
| and also what Putin wants, assuming he can't keep Trump
| under control.)
|
| It's also possible we'll continue to have fair elections
| and the courts will stop abusing their power. This seems
| the least likely to me.
|
| Under all other scenarios, we're completely screwed and
| the current courts will already go along with it.
| topspin wrote:
| It's like 2016, all over again.
| kristjansson wrote:
| Look I don't want to carry any water for him whatsoever,
| but I think it's going to be essential to couch criticism
| in the rule-of-law setting we think should prevail. To that
| end, the text of the relevant section is:
|
| > With respect to a foreign adversary controlled
| application, the President may grant a 1-time extension of
| not more than 90 days with respect to the date on which
| this subsection would otherwise apply to such application
| pursuant to paragraph (2), if the President certifies to
| Congress that, [...]
|
| where "would otherwise apply" is pretty clearly not
| predicated on the preceding section having come into effect
| or not.
| thomquaid wrote:
| Thank you for this post.
| streb-lo wrote:
| At least post the rest of the relevant text:
|
| >the President may grant a 1-time extension of not more
| than 90 days with respect to the date on which this
| subsection would otherwise apply to such application
| pursuant to paragraph (2), if the President certifies to
| Congress that-- (A) a path to executing a qualified
| divestiture has been identified with respect to such
| application;
|
| >(B) evidence of significant progress toward executing
| such qualified divestiture has been produced with respect
| to such application; and
|
| >(C) there are in place the relevant binding legal
| agreements to enable execution of such qualified
| divestiture during the period of such extension.
|
| It seems highly unlikely any of those criteria are being.
| Trump is not even suggesting it, never mind providing
| receipts.
| kristjansson wrote:
| Totally, he has to claim to congress those things are
| true. Claims are ... not his weak point.
| kelnos wrote:
| Both liberal and conservative presidents have made choices
| about whether or not they will enforce particular laws
| passed by Congress. This is nothing new. It's just getting
| a lot more media attention than most instances of this have
| gotten.
|
| (A very common example: many people in the US can walk into
| a store and buy marijuana without fear of prosecution
| because the last several presidents -- from both parties --
| have chosen not to enforce that particular federal law.)
|
| Certainly the courts can (and sometimes do) get involved,
| but the only thing that can force the executive branch to
| act is for the House to impeach the president, and for the
| Senate to convict. And the House is not going to impeach
| Trump over this, or pretty much anything.
| _heimdall wrote:
| Its a stretch to consider this law breaking. The president
| either does or does not have authority here, but the only
| one breaking the law would be ByteDance.
|
| Biden wasn't considered to have broken the law when courts
| threw out his plan to forgive school debt. The president
| tried something, the courts found the order to be invalid
| as _the rule_ didn 't fit the current laws, and everyone
| moved on about their business without claiming the
| president broke the law or implying he should have been
| charged.
| nemothekid wrote:
| > _That's a surprising outcome._
|
| It's President Trump, what are you going to do about it? The
| man has been regularly breaking the law since 2016 and there is
| never any political will to stop him.
|
| _Trump v. U.S._ established it 's not illegal when Trump does
| it.
| realusername wrote:
| I feel like Americans didn't realize that the country slipped
| into a mixed authoritarian regime now.
|
| As any other mixed authoritarian regime, the laws matter
| somewhat but are also balanced with the intent of the guy on
| the top.
|
| And I did say authoritarian, not dictatorship, those aren't
| the same level. There's a lot of shades of black between
| Norway and China.
| munificent wrote:
| Many many of us did, but were powerless to stop it.
| account42 wrote:
| More like you cheered it on while your club was the one
| benefiting.
| valval wrote:
| Writing in laws that allow you to selectively take out
| whoever is convenient at any time is lawmaking 101.
|
| Of course lawfare is the tool of the democrats, and not
| republicans, like you seem to believe.
| antigeox wrote:
| > regularly breaking the law since 2016
|
| You sweet summer child.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| Before 2016, some of the lawsuits succeeded. After 2016,
| he's pretty much safe from legal ramifications until his
| death.
| paxys wrote:
| The surprising part is that people are still surprised. Trump
| can do whatever he wants and there will be no pushback. We are
| talking about the guy who launched a meme coin a few days
| before taking office and made $50B+ overnight.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| I think those chickens just haven't come home to roost yet.
| His wife launched her coin today. There is no way this isn't
| being looked at closely. Impressively quick start to the new
| shit show.
| evan_ wrote:
| > There is no way this isn't being looked at closely.
|
| Who's going to look at it? Whichever sycophant ends up
| being AG?
| munificent wrote:
| _> I think those chickens just haven't come home to roost
| yet._
|
| People have been saying that about Trump's antics literally
| his entire life.
| jmb99 wrote:
| Exactly. He's a convicted felon, and so what? It doesn't
| matter. What's an investigation into a meme coin going to
| do, other than cost taxpayer money and give Trump the
| chance to say more sound bites?
| kelnos wrote:
| Closely by whom? Tomorrow, Trump and his sycophants will
| control the DoJ.
|
| If you're talking about a future administration, we've
| already seen what happens when Trump leaves office and
| people try to hold him accountable: absolutely nothing.
| lumost wrote:
| He is now immune from prosecution, financial crimes will be
| pretty low on the list of things that would breach the
| Supreme Court's ruling on this matter.
|
| I could see a world where the lawyers have cooked a
| progressively more egregious set of legal violations to
| test the bounds of the new authority granted by the Supreme
| Court. Up next is probably a mandate that foreign
| diplomats/us government employees stay at trump properties
| at exorbitant prices for "security purposes".
| ModernMech wrote:
| Up next? They already did that the last term, when Pence
| was forced to stay at a Trump property in Ireland. They
| actually had to go out of their way to stay there, so it
| cost all of us more in taxes, and Trump ended up with the
| profit. Totally fine, some consternation in the press,
| but ultimately Trump profited and no one did anything. So
| yeah we will see more of that in the next term.
| seanieb wrote:
| A wide open door to get foreign political donations (see:
| bribery) in plain sight.
| richardw wrote:
| Is the US dollar going to survive this presidency? Honest
| question. I can easily see a path to replacing it with enough
| political/VC will.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| > Is the US dollar going to survive this presidency? Honest
| question.
|
| 1000% yes. Not only is it going to survive, but it will
| probably beat out all other major fiat currencies over the
| next 4 years.
| _heimdall wrote:
| Beat them out in what way, or by what metrics?
|
| If you're comparing against other major fiat currencies
| that's a pretty easy bet. The only way the dollar loses
| meaningfully, or fails completely, is if it is no longer
| the reserve currencies given priority over those other
| fiat currencies. This has to happen eventually but it
| seems pretty safe to say it won't happen within four
| years.
| seizethecheese wrote:
| In my city, a great deal of laws are not enforced. Enforcement
| is a policy at most levels, it seems. The interesting thing, to
| me, is that there's no fear of future administrations
| enforcing, or even Trump pulling a 180 and using the law being
| broken as leverage.
| ttul wrote:
| See my comment above. This is a misunderstanding of how the
| executive branch works. Once Congress has enacted a statute
| and the _President_ has signed it into law, the executive
| branch MUST enforce it. An executive order cannot override or
| suspend a duly passed law unless Congress included an
| explicit waiver or suspension provision in that law. Nothing
| in the text of this act appears to grant the President such
| discretion, so there is no straightforward way for the
| President to "undo" or pause the ban by executive order. The
| only way to alter or lift the ban would be through new
| legislation or a valid constitutional challenge in court.
|
| In essence, the executive branch already had a chance to veto
| the law, but didn't do so. The signature of the President
| (whomever that is at the time) seals the fate of the law.
| sjs382 wrote:
| > the executive branch MUST enforce it
|
| Or what?
|
| (I'm not being flippant. Are there consequences I'm not
| aware of if he decides not to enforce?)
| dstanko wrote:
| Or nothing. Literally! No GOP representative will dare go
| against the Trump, or else they will be primaryied. The
| law only applies if there are consequences, and in this
| case there aren't consequences. If you don't realize this
| is how US operates, you are living in some la-la land
| like the democrats that insist on decorum, norms and such
| other BS.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| Your understanding of the law is incorrect when you say
| "the executive branch MUST enforce it". Administrations of
| all political stripes have decided not to enforce parts of
| particular laws. And this is precisely because
| "enforcement" means you need to use limited resources to
| prosecute someone for breaking the law, and the executive
| branch has always had wide latitude deciding who they
| prosecute. If Congress decides the president is _not_
| faithfully enforcing the laws, their option is impeachment.
| Well, we all saw how that went the last few times...
|
| The thing that is shocking to me about the current TikTok
| situation is that while Trump may be free to say "I won't
| enforce this law", he can't write any sort of executive
| order _overturning_ the law, and I think it 's pretty
| disgusting the media isn't pushing back against this more
| (except for Kara Swisher, who made this exact point) and
| saying this isn't possible.
|
| The law is explicit that any company (like Apple, Google or
| Oracle) that provides services for TikTok would be in
| violation of the law and subject to large penalties.
| Nothing Trump says as president can change that without
| Congress acting. So it is simply baffling to me that these
| major companies would be willing to put themselves in
| serious legal jeopardy with just what amounts to a pinky
| promise and a wink from Trump.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| You're ignoring established precedent. Look at Obama
| choosing not to enforce federal bans on marijuana use in
| states that have legalized it - that is a policy of not
| enforcing well established federal law that has been
| reinforced by every subsequent president for the past 12?
| 16? years now.
| ttul wrote:
| It will be interesting to see how this plays out from the
| perspective of the major App Store providers who are the
| ones with serious money on the line. If they reinstate
| the app, then they risk being prosecuted at some future
| date, which could even be after Donald Trump leaves
| office. But if they keep it banned, then they risk
| attracting the ire of the administration and its heavy
| powers of regulation.
|
| Donald Trump is very unpredictable, but one thing seems
| to be clear from his behavior. Anything that serves to
| benefit himself or his family tends to receive his favor.
| And there are billionaires swirling around him ready to
| do him favors two of whom are potential buyers for
| TikTok.
| ttul wrote:
| Here's the law: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-
| congress/house-bill/7521...
|
| No, Trump can't legally postpone or give reprieve to TikTok.
| The time has passed for that.
|
| Once Congress has enacted a statute and the President has
| signed it into law, the executive branch must enforce it. An
| executive order cannot override or suspend a duly passed law
| unless Congress included an explicit waiver or suspension
| provision in that law. Nothing in the text of this act appears
| to grant the President such discretion, so there is no
| straightforward way for the President to "undo" or pause the
| ban by executive order. The only way to alter or lift the ban
| would be through new legislation or a valid constitutional
| challenge in court.
|
| That seems unlikely considering the Supreme Court already rules
| on the matter.
| sjs382 wrote:
| The executive branch is responsible for enforcement of laws.
| He could just choose not to enforce it, no?
| Spivak wrote:
| I think replies to this will be one of two:
|
| * Legally the executive is not granted this power.
|
| * But in practice they are because who's going to make
| them?
|
| The entity responsible for enforcement always has this
| power. It's why DA races where the platform is essentially
| law nullification by way of non-enforcement have been
| happening for some light criminal justice reform that can't
| get through the legislature.
| lumost wrote:
| Historically it would have been congress or the Supreme
| Court. The issue is that no one seriously expects them to
| do anything against trump.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| The executive branch has a clear history of selectively
| not enforcing laws, so there is clear precedent. The most
| notable recent example is that the last three presidents
| have all chosen to not enforce federal law on marijuana
| in states that have chosen to legalize it.
| _heimdall wrote:
| That is a somewhat different scenario as the battle over
| marijuana laws would boil down to a state's rights issue.
| Many states have claimed authority over deciding whether
| marijuana is legal, effectively claiming that the federal
| government doesn't have jurisdiction on the issue.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| That doesn't change the fact that the president has
| instructed the DoJ to not enforce a federal law passed
| legally by Congress.
| _heimdall wrote:
| Sure, I'm not arguing that. The context is just different
| enough to be important in my opinion.
| energy123 wrote:
| Why would Apple or Google want to take the risk? They are
| not TikTok, they don't stand to lose hundreds of billions
| of dollars of value.
| alt227 wrote:
| Because they want to appease the new President.
| bobtheborg wrote:
| That's not the law that passed. The law that passed is
| https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/815
| (lengthy law -- see DIVISION H--PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM
| FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATIONS ACT), page 62 in
| the PDF.
|
| Also, both the House and the Senate have pending legislation
| to extend the deadline.
|
| https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/391
| https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/103
| ttul wrote:
| Thank you for correcting me
| eslaught wrote:
| Surely this is not the first case of a president not
| enforcing a law.
|
| So then presumably this goes back into court, and then what?
| honestSysAdmin wrote:
| A little bit difficult to get the president elect who is to
| be inaugurated today (the 20th) when that same president
| elect in his own words reasonably believes that the 2020
| election was stolen.
|
| I think we're all very certain that a thorough investigation
| into the 2020 election will clear up any concerns about it.
| throwawayq3423 wrote:
| Trump can choose to not enforce the law. That is of course
| illegal, and a high crime, but who is left to stop him?
| tsimionescu wrote:
| It's not illegal, nor a high crime. It is in fact
| established precedent that this is in the purview of
| presidential power. This is why FBI agents are not raiding
| every marijuana shop in DC or the states that legalized it:
| since Obama, every president has chosen to instruct the
| justice department not to enforce federal law in this
| matter in those states.
| zo1 wrote:
| As opposed to the Democrats that refuse to enforce
| immigration law, or refuse to prosecute all sorts of crime
| they don't feel like (Except when they have to "Get Trump
| by all means")?
|
| We can play this game all day, so let's just agree
| Democracy is broken.
| _heimdall wrote:
| Immigration isn't a democrat issue. From where I sit both
| parties are actually pretty well aligned on that one.
|
| Obama was surprisingly tough on immigration. ICE was
| doing raids at the time, I remember hearing about raids
| at the industrial chicken farms not far from where I
| live. Obama was also working heavily with Mexico to stop
| immigration at Mexico's southern border.
|
| Illegal immigration is going to be an unsolvable problems
| regardless of party, as long as we have the incentive of
| welfare programs that make it financially lucrative just
| to physically be in the country. I'm not arguing to get
| rid of those programs, but the incentives are there to
| come illegally and there's just no feasible way to secure
| such a large border with land, air, and sea travel.
| myvoiceismypass wrote:
| Which specific immigration laws did Democrats "refuse to
| enforce"?
| nprateem wrote:
| But that's the point isn't it. He's testing the waters.
|
| There will be no consequences and therefore few limits to his
| power.
|
| Welcome to the new dictatorship.
|
| I'll post this here for posterity:
|
| He'll find a way to get a 3rd term in power. Maybe he'll
| claim the constitution means no 2 consecutive terms, maybe
| he'll just ignore it, start a war, whatever.
|
| But I'd be willing to bet on it. In fact, I just might...
| nikanj wrote:
| It might be surprising, but SCOTUS confirms it
| kristopolous wrote:
| They're just 9 clowns in robes these days
| richardw wrote:
| He's also the guy that triggered all of this by signing a
| presidential order to change TikTok ownership during his first
| run.
|
| Does he have a coherent position on this that these actions
| support?
| silvester23 wrote:
| Does he have a coherent position on anything?
| arp242 wrote:
| His main policy seems to be to show the world that he's a
| big man with big genitalia. And in fairness, he is quite
| successful at that because much of the world thinks him a
| gigantic dick.
|
| I'm not really joking, because that really does seem to be
| the underlying philosophy in what he does: it's whatever he
| thinks makes him the "big man tough guy". Trying to analyse
| things beyond that just doesn't make much sense.
| heroprotagonist wrote:
| Not particularly "show the world" because he's been very
| demonstrably weak internationally. He's a showman who
| makes very bold sounds, but his actions show that he will
| give in to China on Taiwan, like he gave into them on
| Hong Kong, like he gave in to Russia on Ukraine, like he
| gave into North Korea on nukes...
|
| Now on Taiwan, he's already stated previously that he
| will _tax_ China if they invade Taiwan. This contradicts
| long standing US policy of not stating exactly what
| action the US will take in the event of invasion, and has
| had the result of pushing up projections of exactly WHEN
| China will invade Taiwan to be within the next two years,
| during Trump's presidency.
|
| The only thing that will possibly make this change is as
| a condition of financial supporter Elon Musk, who needs
| those NVIDIA cards that come out of Taiwan so he can
| pursue his religious mission of winning the AI race. And
| that's only if TSMC manufacturing capabilities can't be
| dragged out of Taiwan and set up elsewhere in a
| sufficient timeframe to reduce the impact if China were
| to invade Taiwan.
| arp242 wrote:
| > he's been very demonstrably weak internationally
|
| What you or I view as "big man tough guy" doesn't
| necessarily align with what Trump views as "big man tough
| guy". In Trump's view, "solving" the problem of Taiwan
| one way or the other, when so many other presidents have
| "failed" to do so, makes him the big man. Whether he
| completely screws over American interests in the process
| - never mind the people of Taiwan - doesn't really enter
| in the calculation.
| llamaimperative wrote:
| More power and more flattery, that's it.
| grey-area wrote:
| No, he does not.
| kristopolous wrote:
| To accumulate power for him and the people he likes
| grey-area wrote:
| Prepare yourself from many more surprises from this lawless
| regime. The US supreme court has already said he is immune from
| prosecution.
|
| The future has been clearly telegraphed, and who is going to
| stop him?
|
| In his own words years ago, he could shoot someone on 5th
| avenue and his supporters would find excuses for him.
| ActorNightly wrote:
| If you are surprised this happens given Jan 6 events you have
| been living under a rock.
|
| There is a good chance there will be no more fair elections in
| US.
| _heimdall wrote:
| This was a pretty big talking point during the election,
| towards the end I didn't go a day without hearing about how
| Trump will end democracy or how democracy was on the ballot.
|
| What the hell happened? For anyone that honestly believes
| that, why pack up and go home when Trump wins the election?
| NewLogic wrote:
| America spoke and said they wanted it, what more is there
| to be said? If there was marching in the streets, it would
| be torn to shreds by the online grift sphere.
| _heimdall wrote:
| If I honestly believed democracy would be ended by the
| next leader I would be marching in the streets, or better
| yet finding a group forming a rebellion.
|
| Ending democracy is a very serious thing. It shouldn't
| have been used hollowly by either party, and if it wasn't
| hollow then people should be standing up to stop it.
| ModernMech wrote:
| We did stand up, that was the entire 2024 campaign. We
| really truly believe the guy who incited the insurrection
| in 2021 that ended the history of peaceful democratic
| transitions of power in the USA is going to do more of
| the same damage to democratic institutions in 2025. Given
| what happened on 1/6 I don't know why you see that worry
| as hollow.
| _heimdall wrote:
| I see it as hollow mainly because the democratic party
| and many of its supporters seemed to go silent after the
| election. I can only speak for myself, but if I truly
| believed he would end democracy in a few short years I'd
| be doing whatever I could to stop it. I say it seems
| hollow because I just can't imagine it being a serious,
| real threat and also rolling over.
| ModernMech wrote:
| > I can only speak for myself, but if I truly believed he
| would end democracy in a few short years I'd be doing
| whatever I could to stop it
|
| We _did_ do whatever we could to stop it. We tried every
| avenue available.
|
| We tried impeachment twice, but he was protected by his
| party. The first time they protected him for extorting a
| bribe from a foreign government. The second time they
| protected him for inciting an insurrection. We tried the
| DOJ but he was protected by a federal judge he appointed,
| and supreme court justices two of which he appointed
| granted him sweeping immunity from prosecution. We tried
| to constitutionally disqualify him from running on the
| basis he incited an insurrection, but again he was
| protected by judges he appointed. Our last recourse was
| to run on a pro-democracy candidate during the election
| but the people rejected her.
|
| So we tried everything. But the election was fair. He
| won. That's that. We tried everything else, and anyway at
| this point it's too late without resorting to a violent
| coup, which supporters of democracy won't do. There are
| no other pro-democratic avenues left to protect democracy
| from Trump. Sucks it turned out this way, but at least
| you can't say you weren't warned.
| dragontamer wrote:
| > or better yet finding a group forming a rebellion.
|
| You mean like the two assassination attempts vs Trump?
| Which only made Trump's power greater and consolidated
| more support?
|
| Aggressive actions literally make Trump stronger. That's
| literally failing to work and we're living in the fallout
| of that. I'm not sure how to stop Trump but inciting
| violence seems like the wrong answer to me.
|
| Besides, its the US Military. We all know that its
| impossible to actually rebel vs the Army. What do you
| want a rebellion to do? Grab a couple of AR15s while the
| Army literally brings in tanks?
|
| -----------
|
| Aggression is a failing move. But so was a political
| campaign that tried to convince people of Trump's
| dangers. So that's that. Or are you seriously trying to
| bait people into arguing that more violence was the
| answer here? Did you literally forget the election
| already?
| _heimdall wrote:
| Aggression is often a failing move, yes. And I'm not
| saying we should go there. What I _am_ saying is that I
| don 't understand what happened to everyone claiming
| democracy would be over, and that if the threat is real I
| don't see marches solving it.
| dragontamer wrote:
| Because Aggression is a failing move.
|
| What more "marching" do you want? The only escalating
| point now is violence because all the marching from 2024,
| 2020 and all other years accomplished nothing. Indeed:
| even just "marching" in 2020 was apparently "too violent"
| as Black Lives Matter (a march to protect African
| American lives) somehow got twisted by Donald Trump and
| his politics into a "violent" march.
|
| I think it makes sense that people are cautious about the
| next steps. But what the hell are you wanting people to
| march for? To deny the election and cause a liberal Jan
| 6th event? What are you even talking about? Even if
| people did that, it'd only play to Donald Trump's
| persecution complex and he'd get more power anyway. And
| its not like anyone would be marching to force Biden or
| Kamala back into office, neither candidate is popular
| enough.
|
| ------
|
| The actual move is to retreat from Federal level politics
| and hold firm at the State-level side. If the Federal
| Government is lost, the focus should be on more local
| bastions and defenses.
|
| The fact remains: the resistance wants to be peaceful and
| non-violent. You've taken away the voice of the peaceful
| ones by labeling them as violent at every turn. So we
| know marching doesn't work anymore. Its not like the
| movement is dead, its just resting for now as people
| figure out what the new plans are. But its clear that a
| direct assault vs this ideology isn't working.
| _heimdall wrote:
| I think we may be talking past each other here.
|
| My point at the start of this thread was that, in my
| opinion, the level of certainty with which people claimed
| Trump's election was directly voting for an end to
| democracy does not align with actions since the election
| results were in. Either people didn't believe those
| claims even while saying it, they have since been
| convinced otherwise, or they rolled over knowing full
| well that democracy is over within a matter of years.
| dragontamer wrote:
| > they rolled over knowing full well that democracy is
| over within a matter of years.
|
| My point is why is the latter so hard to understand?
|
| There isn't a way to resist directly anymore (especially
| as both Biden and Kamala are insufficient to serve as the
| focus of a hypothetical coup). There are other plans in
| place to have resistance at the State levels, where it
| will be more obviously beneficial.
|
| Any most of the escalations we can do are once again,
| counteracted by the simple history that is the
| assassination attempts. It's clear that the path to
| violence to stop this madness is closed.
|
| --------
|
| It's not the time for direct confrontation at the federal
| level on this subject. It's the time to pull back and
| defend at the State level.
|
| Have you seriously thought about how to stop this in any
| way in the past few months? Your questions are so shallow
| it's making me think you only have talking points to
| share. After an election loss like that (not a landslide,
| but still an obvious loss), there is no coup potential or
| other kind of way for the Democrats to even try to hold
| onto power.
| _heimdall wrote:
| > Have you seriously thought about how to stop this in
| any way in the past few months? Your questions are so
| shallow it's making me think you only have talking points
| to share. After an election loss like that (not a
| landslide, but still an obvious loss), there is no coup
| potential or other kind of way for the Democrats to even
| try to hold onto power.
|
| Not quite sure what talking points you think I have to
| share here, I thought I was laying out a logical flow
| that doesn't make sense to me.
|
| Circling the wagons at the state level is a good short
| term approach, though if successful I don't see how it
| doesn't first run into the unfortunate need for violence.
|
| As a country we have spent the better part of a century
| moving a large portion of powers to the federal level.
| States can't just ignore that and do what they want
| without repercussions. Maybe more importantly, I don't
| see how a stage could continue to run democratically as
| part of the union if democracy is destroyed at the
| federal level, there would just be too much conflict
| there.
| dragontamer wrote:
| > they rolled over knowing full well that democracy is
| over within a matter of years.
|
| This point. The point I've been quoting specifically.
|
| I've stated why this is an incredibly shallow perspective
| on repeated occasions. I'm not going to repeat myself.
|
| > As a country we have spent the better part of a century
| moving a large portion of powers to the federal level.
|
| Tough shit. Democrats lost the Executive, both branches
| of the Legislative, and the Supreme Court. Democrats have
| literally nothing in the Federal level anymore. Or have
| you forgotten how this election has gone?
|
| Its all Republicans here on out at the Federal level. The
| ONLY plan is to fight at the state level to protect those
| close to us.
|
| The Federal level has been completely and totally lost.
| The ONLY plan that makes sense is to build bulwarks at
| the state level, and if that isn't enough then maybe even
| at the municipal / city level.
| ANewFormation wrote:
| Because it was mostly being astroturfed. Democracy
| obviously isn't going to end in any way, shape, or fashion
| under Trump.
|
| And so the organizations pushing these lies need to move
| onto the next lies to keep the rage and fear going. Maybe
| this time around it'll be Trump is secretly controlled by
| China - must be why he reversed the TikTok ban.
|
| His campaign is large enough that there's probably some guy
| in it, no more than a degree or two separation away,
| banging a Chinese spy a la Eric Swalwell. Tie it to Trump,
| start a new committee of absurdity and away we go.
|
| It'd actually provide some logic to banning TikTok which
| was just politically absurd when Trump would predictably
| reverse that, to much fanfare.
| drawkward wrote:
| While i dont think Democracy will end under Trump, it is
| manifestly _not_ obvious that it won 't.
|
| The president-elect literally floated the idea that his
| voters wont ever have to vote again if he won.
| blisterpeanuts wrote:
| This was clarified on Snopes; he was referring to groups
| such as fundamentalist Christians who rarely vote, urging
| them to come out this one time and vote. Not very
| eloquently worded, perhaps, but certainly his intent, as
| explained by spokespeople and by himself in subsequent
| interviews, was not to shut down voting.
| tremon wrote:
| Anyone trying to make sense of Trump's words has as much
| credibility to me as people who interpret tea leaves, or
| the Bible. Judge his actions; trying to divine anything
| from his words is about as effective as chasing wild
| geese.
| blisterpeanuts wrote:
| I judge every politician by their actions, not their
| words. In Trump's case, his words are more "salad-like"
| than most, but his actions generally speak pretty
| clearly.
| drawkward wrote:
| Right, he did incite that attempt to violently overthrow
| the peaceful transfer of power on Jan 6.
| _heimdall wrote:
| I also see it as astroturfing or a hollow threat of not
| voting for the "right" person. That said, if anyone
| honestly believed it I don't see how they could not sit
| by and watch it happen.
| TheCraiggers wrote:
| > That said, if anyone honestly believed it I don't see
| how they could not sit by and watch it happen.
|
| And what, exactly, is someone supposed to do about it?
| _Legally._ Besides voting, obviously. That ship already
| sailed.
| _heimdall wrote:
| There are plenty of examples of the people stopping their
| government when it went to far. Its not easy and should
| always be a last resort, but the people should never just
| roll over and give up if the threat is real - especially
| when a seemingly large portion of the population viewed
| it as a real threat.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Trump incited an insurrection based on lies in 2020. He's
| on tape demanding a state election official 'find' the
| exact number of votes he needed to win. His appointed
| judges have preemptively given him immunity from criminal
| prosecution. He routinely calls for physical violence
| against those who loudly disagree during his rallies. He
| has said he's willing to use the military against
| political opposition. He offers to deregulate (selling
| the health of the people) in exchange for campaign funds
| (which he spends like his own personal bank account).
| There has never been a president so openly corrupt and
| vitriolic in the US.
|
| Trump is the most willing and equipped to strike a fatal
| blow to Democracy.
|
| People have already marched against him. Now they rightly
| fear for their safety.
| _heimdall wrote:
| > His appointed judges have preemptively given him
| immunity from criminal prosecution.
|
| I get your point here, though if I'm not mistaken they
| defined the boundary of what _any_ president can be
| legally held accountable for while in office. It wasn 't
| a blank check or a one-off rule only for Trump.
|
| > People have already marched against him. Now they
| rightly fear for their safety.
|
| Marching really isn't the answer if democracy truly is at
| stake, unfortunately. I very much dislike Trump and don't
| expect him to do well by our country, though I don't
| personally see enough to think he is actually going to
| tear down our democracy. Hopefully that's right and we
| don't get to the point of actually having to defend it.
| ModernMech wrote:
| I'm really curious what kind of activity someone could
| exhibit that would cause you to believe they could end
| democracy.
|
| Genuinely. Because for me, it's enough for someone to
| incite an insurrection, and to argue in front of the
| Supreme Court it should be legal for him to use the
| military to murder his political opponents. Why does that
| not read "wannabe dictator" to you?
|
| Because I gotta say, if you're wrong and he wants to tear
| down our democracy, the time to defend it was the
| election. Now we just have to deal with the fallout.
| squigz wrote:
| Can you link a source on the "using the military to
| murder political opponents" thing?
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| "I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within,"
| Trump said. He added: "We have some very bad people. We
| have some sick people, radical left lunatics. And I think
| they're the big -- and it should be very easily handled
| by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really
| necessary, by the military, because they can't let that
| happen."
|
| https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-suggests-
| hell-us...
| ANewFormation wrote:
| Do you understand what others (who may not agree with
| you) think of your arguments when you use extremely
| hyperbolic language to describe things that do not appear
| to justify such?
|
| The Boy Who Cried Wolf is an excellent tale I regularly
| read to my children. The moral is one of the utmost
| importance.
| lumost wrote:
| What argument is being made by the parent? It's a direct
| quote.
| ModernMech wrote:
| Trump argued in front of the Supreme Court that his
| notion of presidential immunity covers the right for the
| president to use Seal Team Six to assassinate his
| political rivals:
|
| https://thehill.com/regulation/court-
| battles/4398223-trump-t...
| _heimdall wrote:
| Any president could end democracy, as could a many other
| groups. I really don't have a checklist of behaviors a la
| the DSM-5 that would allow me to know someone is likely
| to end democracy.
|
| I do think trump is capable of it, as where others in the
| past. I just haven't seen enough to think its an
| legitimate enough threat to have made me warn others that
| it will happen. I could always be wrong.
| ModernMech wrote:
| But you would agree that making the argument that it's
| fine for you to assassinate your political opponents
| would be a flashing red flag that person does not believe
| in the the ideals of democracy. I mean, generally someone
| who agrees with democracy would not argue, even for
| hypothetical purposes, that the highest power in the land
| reserves the right to murder with impunity people they
| don't like for personal political gain.
|
| And so if someone does make that argument in front of the
| highest court in the land with the intent to avoid
| accountability for inciting an insurrection, as Trump
| did, maybe that person would be a bad person to give
| immunity from criminal liability because of their outlook
| on the scope of their own power.
| jwarden wrote:
| A president can't end democracy just because they _want_
| to. There have probably been many presidents in the past
| that would have liked, in their secret heart of hearts,
| to be dictators. But they didn 't end democracy because
| they couldn't, because our Federal government has a
| system of checks and balances that limit the power of the
| president.
|
| He was president once, and was not able to pull off a
| successful insurrection, or murder any political
| opponents. And he probably won't do so this time.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| > But they didn't end democracy because they couldn't,
| because our Federal government has a system of checks and
| balances that limit the power of the president.
|
| Checks like Congress, a majority of which is terrified to
| stand up to him even after an attempted coup and
| comically bad cabinet appointments?
|
| Or the courts, many of whose judges he appointed and
| shamelessly render verdicts (often on his behalf) without
| recusing themselves over conflicts of interest?
|
| Or the executive branch, of which he is the head, and can
| cycle department heads like an episode of The Apprentice?
|
| > He was president once, and was not able to pull off a
| successful insurrection, or murder any political
| opponents
|
| The US passed an entire amendment to its constitution to
| prevent insurrectionists from repeated attempts to take
| over. The fact that he attempted to do so is already
| treason. One doesn't have to succeed to be disqualified.
| Otherwise what's the point of the amendment? Just keep
| trying until you succeed.
| jwarden wrote:
| Yes exactly those checks. Even if your characterization
| of the independence of the three branches of government
| is valid, the circumstances are far from unique in
| history.
| ModernMech wrote:
| In the past, there was always a threat that if a
| president got out of line, he could be impeached. But the
| impeachment clause has been rendered inoperable by
| Republicans.
|
| The first time Democrats tried to impeach Trump, Trump
| argued in front of the Senate that he's allowed to commit
| crimes, including extorting bribes, as long as he does it
| for the good of the country. On that basis, the Senate
| acquitted him. So now the the standard set by Republicans
| is that even in the case of extortion and bribery, the
| president should not be removed from office as long as he
| had a patriotic heart.
|
| Worse than that, the Supreme Court affirmed that the
| president has sweeping executive immunity, making any
| prosecution of an impeachment case impossible; the
| Executive controls all of the information Congress would
| need to prosecute the impeachment, and as we saw during
| Impeachment I, Trump is fine to just flout congressional
| subpoenas. Furthermore with the new doctrine of
| Presidential Immunity there is no judicial recourse for
| them to compel production of the documents they would
| need to prove an impeachment case.
|
| Finally, we further know impeachment is impossible
| because when they tried it, Trump argued the correct
| recourse was the courts. But when we tried the courts,
| Trump argued the correct recourse was impeachment. That
| cannot be the case in a functioning system.
| saturn8601 wrote:
| Where is it going to come from though? The news networks
| that propagated this nonsense seem to have realized this
| election cycle that its over for them. Comcast just spun
| off MSNBC and CNBC. That means they are going to milk it
| for whatever scraps are left and then toss it in the
| trash. The neoliberal left does not really have an
| effective online platform like the right and the
| progressive left have because they spent years dismissing
| online.
| aqme28 wrote:
| What do you mean "What the hell happened?"
|
| The question is about how we handle the coming elections
| four years from now, not the previous one. If he's going to
| be a dictator it will only be possible when he's in power.
| _heimdall wrote:
| I was specifically talking about claims that Trump is
| going to end democracy though. There wouldn't be
| elections in four years, that's a moot point.
|
| By what the hell happened I mean what happened to those
| claims? Did people not believe then, or are they resigned
| to the election results meaning we just accept the end of
| democracy?
| shigawire wrote:
| >Did people not believe then, or are they resigned to the
| election results meaning we just accept the end of
| democracy?
|
| If I revolt against the government that is 100% breaking
| democracy.
|
| If I wait and see what the next admin does, that is maybe
| 50% (fake numbers) likely to break democracy.
|
| You can think DJT is bad for democracy and also think it
| is more bad to try to toss out an election he won.
| _heimdall wrote:
| > If I revolt against the government that is 100%
| breaking democracy.
|
| If you're revolting because democracy is already lost, or
| the loss is imminent, you weren't breaking it.
|
| > You can think DJT is bad for democracy and also think
| it is more bad to try to toss out an election he won.
|
| Not if you truly believe democracy is doomed with his
| election. I don't believe that, but if someone does I
| don't see how waiting for it to happen helps.
| dragontamer wrote:
| Elon Musk literally held an illegal sweepstakes paying
| people to vote in Pennsylvania. And given Elon Musk's
| position in the new government, its clear that his
| sweepstakes has led to direct benefits from Trump. It was
| direct quid-pro-quo and no one is doing anything about it.
|
| The courts were too slow to stop the sweepstakes and now
| that Trump is in power, we all know Musk would be pardoned
| of this crime. So no one is bothering to prosecute.
|
| The election fraud already happened. Now tell me who the
| hell is going to punish the troublemakers?
| jmull wrote:
| > For anyone that honestly believes that, why pack up and
| go home when Trump wins the election?
|
| You're wondering why people who are pro-democracy are
| respecting the outcome of the election?
| _heimdall wrote:
| Well yes, are people willing to accept a loophole that
| democracy is so important that you must respect one final
| election ending it?
| jmull wrote:
| If results of elections aren't respected then the
| democracy is already over.
|
| Pro-democracy people will want to find ways to strengthen
| or preserve democracy (or at least limit the damage) in
| the face of threats to it, not blow it up themselves.
| dandanua wrote:
| It seems USA is completely blinded by some immaterial force.
| How can people not see all the blatant lie from Trump and his
| bootlickers? Why is USA refusing to fight (or at least help
| allies substantially) against Russia, which commits crimes on
| the level of Nazi Germany in WWII?
| valval wrote:
| It's of course always possible that you are the blind one.
| Maybe one day you'll grow out of it.
| mistermann wrote:
| > How can people not see all the blatant lie from Trump and
| his bootlickers?
|
| Not sure if you are serious, but the problem on both sides
| of the disagreement is caused by the illusory nature of
| consciousness, and is exacerbated the fact that our culture
| does not study that phenomenon despite how incredibly
| important it is.
|
| This is what people _should_ be arguing over rather than
| yet another consequence of it.
| mistermann wrote:
| Not a popular topic in certain contexts, apologies.
| hedora wrote:
| The US activity supported similar atrocities in Palestine,
| and there was bipartisan support for that.
|
| I don't have an answer to your question.
| LudwigNagasena wrote:
| The president can pardon whomever he wants. It's in the U.S.
| Constitution.
| _heimdall wrote:
| Do pardons extend to companies? That could be a really
| unintended consequence of the whole "companies are people"
| precedent.
| mihaaly wrote:
| Trying and doing takes a minute for him, fixing it is a long
| process with consequence on all others mostly.
|
| All those opportunist-narcissist shit-stirrers out there rely
| on the prudent and consequently slow self fixing mechanisms of
| societies (beyond the dumb and lazy childish masses vegetate
| below these figures and so looking up to them) like viruses on
| the delayed adaptation of the immune system. The host that feed
| them may easily die this way? Not their problem!! They have
| their shine and rule moment and they do not have much of
| miserable and futile life left anyway, f*ck others!
| ActionHank wrote:
| You're still thinking of him as a president and not as the new
| monarch of the US. I wouldn't be surprised if he is around for
| more than one term and incrementally greater and greater
| authoritarian powers.
| MisterTea wrote:
| Hes no spring chicken so that remains to be seen. I do
| however worry about who is waiting in the wings to ride on
| his coat tails.
| nottorp wrote:
| Are they going to do this daily from now on? Turn off turn on,
| turn off turn on...
| TomK32 wrote:
| Just a quick reminder: Tik Tok (a service by a Chinese company)
| is still blocked in China.
| 13415 wrote:
| That's very sad news.
| kittikitti wrote:
| The only thing I would have respected Trump for was the TikTok
| ban and now I don't have any. Trump loves fake news and brain
| rot, I was naive to think he would keep TikTok banned.
| afinlayson wrote:
| So the person who's not currently president saved a service
| turning off that didn't need to be turned off... sounds like
| marketing more than anything.
| randerson wrote:
| From China's perspective, I wonder if there's a workaround to
| sell 50% of TikTok to a US public company, and then through a few
| intermediaries purchase a large enough holding in _that_ company
| to give them a board seat or two.
| SOTGO wrote:
| I believe that they are required to have no more than 20%
| ownership by "foreign adversaries"
| wnevets wrote:
| I'm curious to know how all of those pearl clutchers who got
| super mad about Twitter removing dick pics of Hunter Biden are
| doing.
| whoitwas wrote:
| Alright. Hundreds or thousands of Chinese trackers on every
| military base in the world. Perfect.
| mpalmer wrote:
| The US military independently banned Tiktok on all personnel
| devices half a decade ago.
| layer8 wrote:
| How do they enforce the ban?
| bdangubic wrote:
| by dishonorably discharging :)
| whoitwas wrote:
| That's good. So it should be banned on military bases, why
| not elsewhere?
| rwietter wrote:
| But what about national security?? LMAO, political populism for
| the manipulable idiots.
| submeta wrote:
| > ,,China's using Tik Tok to subvert "democracy,"
|
| This is grotesque. Israel is massively influencing US foreign and
| domestic policy via AIPAC and other lobby groups. AIPAC pays US
| politicians significant amounts of money, practically buys them.
| And they are not even registered as foreign entities, something
| JFK wanted to enforce before he was assassinated.
|
| So who is really manipulating US policy.
|
| And this is the exact group that put pressure on US universities
| to suppress free speech and on US policy makers to sent Israel
| weapons worth billions to kill thousands of Palestinian
| civilians.
|
| Now start your downvotes.
| nikkwong wrote:
| The level of naivete in this discussion is absolutely astonishing
| to me. People are seeming to forget that dysfunctional states
| (totalitarian, facist, the like) all are sprung from one common
| thread: control of the mind through propaganda. We already have
| evidence that the CCP or otherwise is manipulating Tiktok's
| algorithm to influence American minds [1]. This was one study, by
| one relatively small and underpowered organization. That's to
| say, there's probably a lot that we've yet to unearth about how
| the algorithm is manipulated; or how the CCP is planning to
| manipulate it to further their agenda at the expense of an
| American one.
|
| It's simply unbelievable to me that a sophisticated community
| like HN is against a ban in the context of all of the meddling
| our biggest rival, China, has done in our country to our direct
| disadvantage. Russia and China's main M.O. has been to divide us;
| to sow discontent. And they've been pretty successful. Who knows
| if Trump would have been elected without the Russian election
| interference. Trump has been a divisive figure who has reveled in
| destroying social order and he has done so successfully; the
| amount of hate and distrust for one's opposing political party is
| at an all-time high in the US, and it shows. This is to say that
| China and Russia have already been very successful in their
| attempts. In China Xi likes to say that "The East is rising, the
| West is falling". This is completely his M.O. and part of his
| plan.
|
| And now Trump, aware of all of this, is attempting to bring
| Tiktok back. Knowing everything he knows about it's use and
| potential future use of a propaganda machine. And knowing full-
| well that this is good for the East, and bad for domestic civil
| peace of mind and social order. And in the most Trumpian way
| possible, _he doesn 't care_. And he's doing it for the most
| selfish reason possible--to feed his hero complex. Full. Fucking.
| Stop. This is such a glaring advertisement that he will do
| whatever he can to put his interests and reputation first over
| our country's and it's absolutely sickening.
|
| And the fact that there is actual debate and discussion around
| this issue on HN is just such a shocker. Again, this community
| should know better about how dangerous propaganda is, amplified
| by the fact that it's propaganda from our most rapacious,
| unethical and conniving enemy. An enemy that is planning wars of
| conquest, who's starving and torturing parts of its population.
| You want that enemy deciding what your kid spends an hour a day
| watching on their phone, while you're not paying attention? Yeah,
| good luck with that.
|
| https://networkcontagion.us/reports/the-ccps-digital-charm-o...
| imiric wrote:
| Hear, hear.
|
| > this community should know better about how dangerous
| propaganda is
|
| Bear in mind that a large part of this community is employed by
| the same companies that built the tools used to spread
| propaganda and disinformation. It wouldn't be in their interest
| to disclose that they're part of the problem, so it's easier to
| ignore that the problem even exists.
| nikkwong wrote:
| People seem to discount the way they are influenced by the
| media they are served. I'm seeing a lot of comments about
| "free agency" and how "people make up their own minds" rather
| than 1 to 1 believing what they read. This argument just
| ignores human nature. We evolved to catch onto ideas, good
| and bad, and be able to rationalize them in ways that often
| ignore the true outside state of the world. In this light we
| should strongly critique those who are the purveyors of
| information. Although I have many criticisms of even those
| who are serving information domestically, the idea that we're
| going to trust a malicious foreign actor with molding the
| shape of our minds is just nonsensical.
| seanvelasco wrote:
| THANK YOU!
|
| you articulated it perfectly
|
| the issue is not that tiktok harvests user data, not free
| speech, not that China is refuses to let US counterparts
| operate in China - the issue is, TikTok is an insidious
| propaganda machine that influences our your people, and entire
| generation, to abandon their values and replace them with views
| favorable to the CCP
|
| daily, hourly, and each minute young people interact with
| TikTok, they're influenced by a foreign adversary.
|
| it's telling them Ukraine is the actual aggressor, that Putin
| is "based", that China is a paradise, that the West is falling,
| that China has a valid claim on all the maritime disputes,
| among other things that are non-truths
|
| i owe the rise of antisemitism among young people to TikTok.
| young people who otherwise do not hold a negative opinion
| towards Israel suddenly became anti-Israel and hold hatred
| towards Jews
|
| i have experienced the above first-hand. my account doesn't
| interact with any current affairs, yet I am bombarded with
| anti-Israel narratives. there are thousands - yes, thousands -
| of antisemitic comments and replies under each video. and young
| people read them and think it's normal - that it's normal to
| think this way and say such things at loud
|
| i reported hundreds of such comments. all my reports, according
| to TikTok, did not violate their "community standards".
| instead, my replies to those comments were removed for
| violating their "community standards"
|
| (to the people who'll say it's not true, i have data to back it
| up, and i can send a link to a huggingface repo that contains
| the dataset)
|
| it is clear pro-CCP and CCP-aligned views are promoted while
| others are supressed.
|
| i live in a country with tensions with China, and my TikTok FYP
| page is flooded with pro-CCP narratives and narratives that
| suggest my country is weak and hopeless
|
| TikTok is a national security issue. it's not enough the TikTok
| divests from China. it must be banned for the sake of the next
| century.
| nikkwong wrote:
| Yes! Thank you for helping me affirm internally that I'm not
| crazy.
|
| I agree all of these other arguments that people are fixating
| on are complete red herrings. The 'fairness' of letting them
| operate their companies here and not letting us operate there
| --totally non consequential argument and a red herring. The
| free speech thing is a blatant red herring and the Supreme
| Court agreed in a unanimous decision. If America is the
| sinking ship, then these arguments are the deck chairs.
|
| Totally agree on the antisemitism points--the way that the
| platform is manipulating it's algorithm to shape opinions is
| very nefarious in that it's subtle and becomes difficult to
| prove directly. But researchers look deeper and deeper,
| they've been able to find evidentiary smoking guns. I would
| posit that there are many clues hiding in plain sight that
| have not been looked into yet.
|
| Anyways, I would have expected a lot more discussion around
| the points that you and I bring up (points of actual
| consequence) rather than what I'm currently seeing on HN.
| GordonS wrote:
| > young people who otherwise do not hold a negative opinion
| towards Israel suddenly became anti-Israel
|
| You're not seriously blaming TikTok for anti-Israel
| sentiment?! Couldn't possibly have anything to do with the
| _genocide_ being carried out by the apartheid state of
| Israel?
| seanvelasco wrote:
| i looked at your profile and just doing a ctrl + f on pages
| 1 and 2, there's 82 mentions of the word "Israel"
|
| why are you so obsessed with the State of Israel? and i
| thought i was a superfan of Israel
|
| do you seriously believe Israel is behind the TikTok ban
| (as you claimed in your other comment)?
|
| and do you seriously believe there are Hasbara in HN? most
| people in HN are anti-Israel
| GordonS wrote:
| > why are you so obsessed with the State of Israel?
|
| Because my government has suffered from Israeli
| interference, and because my government is supporting the
| apartheid state of Israel's genocide of the Palestinian
| people - providing weapons, financial aid, political aid
| and manufacturing consent for genocide.
|
| Because Israel is carrying out a modern day holocaust,
| all while _constantly_ lying and fabricating evidence.
| Because I 've seen/heard/read with my own eyes and ears
| the insane _horrors_ the IDF is inflicting on the
| Palestinian people - just such incredible, _unfathomable_
| evil. I can never unsee what I 've seen.
|
| Because Zionists and their Hasbara lackeys spread hatred,
| racism and Islamophobia, and have smeared opponents with
| false claims of antisemitism.
|
| > do you seriously believe there are Hasbara in HN?
|
| Yes, there are all over all forms of social media [0]
| [1]. It would be stretching credulity to believe they
| weren't active here.
|
| > most people in HN are anti-Israel
|
| Haha, laughably false! This is the same kind of tired
| deflection that Hasbara use all the time.
|
| [0] https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/the-art-of-
| deception-how-i... [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-
| news-from-elsewhere-2369589...
| tklanb wrote:
| The Guardian and many other newspapers appear to be
| controlled by the CCP as well:
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/dec/23/israel.
| ..
|
| The UN is controlled by the CCP:
|
| https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/11/1157286
| seanvelasco wrote:
| there's truth to your two statements. if not the CCP, then
| another foreign adversary.
|
| The Guardian is notorious for being biased against Israel,
| along with other news organizations like the New York Times
| and even the BBC.
|
| The UN and other organizations like Amnesty International
| are openly biased against Israel.
|
| there are good people working in those organizations. and i
| genuinely believe people who work there want to do good in
| the world.
|
| but there's no denying that those organizations they work
| for are compromised.
| GordonS wrote:
| Right... so _everyone_ is biased against Israel?
|
| But you simply cannot be taken seriously when you claim
| that _openly pro-Israel_ establishments like the NYT and
| BBC are biased _against_ Israel - it 's just utterly
| ludicrous, and demonstrably false.
| aa-jv wrote:
| >propaganda
|
| This word is incongruent with your use of this word:
|
| >enemy
|
| Especially in light of the fact that you consistently fail to
| identify which identity is doing this:
|
| >An enemy that is planning wars of conquest, who's starving and
| torturing parts of its population.
|
| Pop-quiz: which nations have been consistently at war since
| March, 2003? Which nations have established 1,000 torture
| dungeons around the globe? Which nations have portions of their
| populations, by design, living in desperate poverty, feeding a
| for-profit prison-industrial complex, every single day, with
| fresh meat?
|
| The ability to identify propaganda is not as important as the
| ability to identify _duplicity_. One cannot have the former
| without the latter.
| svilen_dobrev wrote:
| excuse my ignorance..
|
| AFAI-remember years ago Trump was "fired" out of presidency
| before end of mandate, AND banned in biggest social networks.
|
| Now he is playing president before officially entering a mandate,
| AND around that those same social networks bosses are cringeing -
| just in case?
|
| That's two things, one that the exact boundaries of period of the
| mandate doesn't seem to matter, and second, the social-media BS-
| dancing thing..
|
| so who's in charge ?
| TrackerFF wrote:
| Anyway, how many TRUMP coins did this cost them?
| czhu12 wrote:
| Whether you support trump or not, the level of patronage that
| corporations seem to think is needed is disturbing. I've never
| seen companies stoking a presidents ego so publicly.
|
| If there comes a day in the future where the header of every
| major website starts says "Long Live Donald Trump", we will all
| be worse off for it.
|
| I've been extremely surprised how eagerly people have accepted
| this as a new normal. I can't imagine it's in the long term
| interest of billionaires to be labeled as oligarchs by half the
| country.
| ericyd wrote:
| I'm not clear how Trump's assurances mean much in the face of a
| law passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court. I guess
| we're already in an autocracy controlled by a person not even
| formally in power yet?
| elfbargpt wrote:
| Clearly US lawmakers were convinced they could easily force
| ByteDance to divest by issuing an ultimatum. They were never
| prepared to actually see a ban of TikTok
| siliconunit wrote:
| when the state if the nation is so bad that you have homeless
| everywhere, healthcare, housing and education are something you
| have to fight for, prisons are a business, suddenly another
| perspective seems more alluring, a modern Nordic socialism?
| putting a brake to unhinged late stage capitalism? or on the
| darker side, a promise of better conditions in 'some ways'...this
| is no national security risk, people are getting simply fed up
| with appalling state of the nation.
| jdlyga wrote:
| The TikTok ban is worse for national security. It's trading in an
| imagined threat for a real threat. Though Xiaohongshu is having a
| cute little cultural exchange between Chinese people and
| Americans, there's so much more Chinese propaganda on that
| platform. I got recommended a few videos talking about
| Chinese/American wargames and how Americans were done for due to
| ultrasonic missiles and naval capabilities. You never see
| anything like that on TikTok. And the only reason Americans are
| exploring that platform is because of the TikTok ban.
| Taylor_OD wrote:
| "But what about!?!?"
|
| If a significant number of users were to join another foreign-
| owned platform with similar issues, it is likely that such
| platform would be banned as well, if it is not already banned
| under FACAA.
|
| TikTok is an issue in large part due to its popularity.
| cbzbc wrote:
| > I got recommended a few videos talking about Chinese/American
| wargames and how Americans were done for due to ultrasonic
| missiles and naval capabilities.
|
| You get those on youtube as well, for every combination of
| large power, I'm not sure why that its own should be a red
| flag.
| 1209412comb wrote:
| There are probably x10 America's propaganda on every social
| media sites, counting right-wing conservative politics alone.
| cookiemonsieur wrote:
| exactly. This is typical western hypocrisy.
|
| It's only propaganda because it's "them".
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > typical western hypocrisy
|
| How is it typical of Western countries, and how is it
| hypocrisy? US companies already do strange things to comply
| with China's requirements of them, for example.
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| Trump just issued a personal statement. Not even as president.
|
| It is still a Law.
|
| TikTok is still banned, the Supreme Court upheld it.
| nico wrote:
| Not worth it going back to TT. Will just stay on RedNote
| BrenBarn wrote:
| It's odd to me that people seem to be mostly viewing this as a
| free speech/democracy issue. To me it's more like if newspapers
| were printed with toxic ink or something. The negatives of TikTok
| have nothing to do with the speech expressed by the "creators" on
| the platform, but rather with the overall harmful effects of the
| algorithmic firehose.
|
| It's true that this means all similar US-based things should be
| banned as well, but banning them isn't a matter of suppressing
| the speech and letting TikTok continue isn't a victory for free
| speech. It's just a victory for a gross sort of psychological
| pollution.
| EcommerceFlow wrote:
| Where's the smoking gun for these privacy issues? Why hasn't
| the FBI or anyone else investigated and discovered these
| issues, if they exist?
| secstate wrote:
| Because the Chinese Communist Part is not stupid enough to
| just exploit their leverage over sovereign nations for shits
| and giggles. You don't need a smoking gun to understand how
| corporations in China operate. They operate with the blessing
| of the CCP, and regardless of whether they've ever done
| anything, the scale of what they could do if they wanted to
| would be some spectacular lessons in modern propaganda.
| c0nducktr wrote:
| This is simply more of the same fearmongering we've heard
| before. Not an answer to their question.
| KeplerBoy wrote:
| The fear is justified though. We fix security holes
| because they are security holes, not because they have
| been exploited before.
| remixff2400 wrote:
| Seconding this: you don't try and fix things after the
| damage has been done, you try and anticipate _where_ and
| _when_ the damage could be done. In this case, giving a
| foreign _adversarial_ (<- emphasis) government
| significant leverage over citizen sentiment is a massive
| security hole.
| pjc50 wrote:
| The US has very little privacy law.
| ori_b wrote:
| This isn't about privacy; it's about who gets to promote what
| ideas to Americans. Do you think that a post about Tienanmen
| Square, about Uyghur persecution, or about Taiwanese
| independence, will get nearly as far on a Chinese controlled
| media platform?
|
| They don't. https://networkcontagion.us/wp-
| content/uploads/A-Tik-Tok-ing...
| wildrhythms wrote:
| >the overall harmful effects of the algorithmic firehose
|
| What material effects are those?
| speff wrote:
| A diminished attention span. Assuming that's still considered
| a harmful effect.
| dagss wrote:
| There is by now "free speech" being published for every
| single combination of personal interests, demographic, and
| personal opinion and personality traits.
|
| If you wanted to push, say, white supremacy, to a trans
| mountain bike riding sci fi fan -- I am sure the content that
| will do that job is out there. Not with 100% certainty but
| enough to control a population. The question about
| controlling the population is only about picking the right
| reels to show to whom in what order.
|
| If you control the algorithmic firehose and control who sees
| what, you basically control the minds of the population.
|
| Not by explicit propaganda. Only by nudging and bumping
| content.
|
| People can make conscious decisions to not want their
| worldview defined by traditional sources, whether it is Fox
| News or The Daily Show or whatever. But with TikTok everyone
| gets something different and who knows how it is geared or
| rigged.
| LinXitoW wrote:
| As a left-ish person, TikTok is genuinely the only place I
| feel safe from braindead hate. EVERY OTHER platform I've
| interacted with has a fuckton of hate.
|
| I'm sure it exists in TikTok too, but at least the
| algorithm keeps those freaks far away from me.
|
| Can you establish somehow how a TikTok ban would help this
| situation?
| cosmic_cheese wrote:
| One way the free speech angle might make sense is that TikTok
| (and other foreign-run social media) normally aren't as
| susceptible to domestic pressure to throttle, shadowban, etc
| certain types of content (like airing of some politician's
| dirty laundry).
|
| I could absolutely see that being the case. Trump and the
| Republican Party now have a solid thumb on US-based social
| media via Musk/Zuck, which makes lack of control of foreign
| social media more of a pressuring issue than it had been
| before. It looks bad if the popular discourse taking place on
| uncontrolled media differs wildly from that on its controlled
| counterparts.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _TikTok (and other foreign-run social media) normally
| aren't as susceptible to domestic pressure_
|
| TikTok has been uniquely subject to political pressure over
| the last half decade. They didn't buddy up with Larry Ellison
| because Oracle has the best servers.
| anon84873628 wrote:
| At least for the time being, traditional media outlets don't
| seem to have a problem airing US politicians' dirty laundry.
| dagss wrote:
| You talk about censorship but if things are happening it will
| be a lot more subtle than that; more about what you _show_
| than what you _hide_. Peoples opinions are already shifted a
| lot by what reels they watch. By controlling what people see
| you control what people think; at least many enough.
|
| Censorship is outdated. With the amount of data and reach
| TikTok has they have something more akin to mind control.
|
| Principle being the same as traditional politisized media,
| but the effectiveness of TikTok is just on another level. You
| see "people like you" sharing what they honestly believe for
| good reasons. Only thing TikTok did was decide to show that
| clip, and not the other clip of a person like you saying the
| opposite thing, also hearthfeltly and for good reasons...
| blahedo wrote:
| > _It 's true that this means all similar US-based things
| should be banned as well_
|
| Or... regulated? I'd be all for privacy regulations and data
| handling regulations that would affect the algorithms of
| _everyone_ but as long as the law is targeting TikTok only and
| not also FB, Insta, Twitter, etc, the idea that this ban is
| about "the overall harmful effects of the algorithmic
| firehose" is a total red herring.
| packetlost wrote:
| It's not about the algorithmic feed, it's about allowing your
| #1 adversarial state to have control over that algorithms
| parameters. They don't let Twitter, Google, or Meta operate
| in China.
| BrenBarn wrote:
| I'm not saying the ban _is_ about that, but it does
| accomplish something in that direction, and we need more bans
| that _are_ explicitly about that.
|
| Ultimately though I don't think regulations about privacy and
| data handling are sufficient. To go just one level deeper, a
| large proportion of the data in question should not even be
| _collected_ , regardless of how it's handled or who it's
| shared with. But many of the problems are even deeper, and
| have to do with things like how big companies are allowed to
| get and how much venture capital is allowed to destroy things
| that work by funding things that don't.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| To me it's more like a newsstand selling only aliens magazines,
| bigfoot books and sexy (but not yet porn) magazines.
|
| Every magazin with a title "bigfoot found!" reveals another
| "mermaids discovered" magazine, and below that a "tony blair is
| a reptilian, proof inside", and if people want to stay there
| and consume all the magazines, why not? In the end, there's
| more quality content there, than on discovery channels (ancient
| aliens, mermaids, etc.)
|
| not even joking:
|
| https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11274284/
|
| https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1643266/
|
| https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1816585/
|
| ...
| gklitz wrote:
| > The negatives of ~Tiktok~short form videos have nothing to do
| with ...
|
| It feels silly with this coloring of TikTok as the evil when
| meta, Google and a dozen other American companies are doing the
| same, just less successfully because they let advertisers and
| corporate interests buy priority in the algorithm which
| literally just boils down to "you likely like the same stuff as
| people who like the same stuff as you".
| redcobra762 wrote:
| You really can't tell the difference between Americans doing
| it and a foreign nation doing it?
| geysersam wrote:
| It's not like the American companies have their users best
| interest at heart either! They're literally bound by law to
| prioritize their shareholders interests.
| anon84873628 wrote:
| Of course we can. But the hypocrisy shows how the
| government doesn't actually care about the health of
| citizens or society. If they did, they would start with
| regulations on algorithmic feeds as a first principal, then
| ban companies that don't comply.
|
| And that could include writing the regulations in such a
| way that ByteDance couldn't possibly comply, because of
| their ties to China. At least we would clean up our own
| home too in the process.
| redcobra762 wrote:
| To rephrase my question: can you really not tell the
| difference to democratic health between Americans doing
| it and foreign adversaries doing it?
| anon84873628 wrote:
| To rephrase my response: do you think this action will
| meaningfully improve democratic health?
| ramblenode wrote:
| For the most part I don't think there is a difference. It
| seems like once all the common factors of divisiveness
| and brainrot are removed, the main difference between
| TikTok and the others is that it would be harder for
| certain powers in the US government to corral TikTok into
| toeing the line on State Department foreign policy goals
| than western companies. Considering the largely
| homogenous, biased western media coverage of e.g. the
| lead up to the 2nd Iraq War, Patriot Act, US-Israel
| policy that has shaped American viewpoints, I don't think
| it is obvious why having a major non-aligned media source
| is a net negative.
| redcobra762 wrote:
| There's no difference between the people who have to live
| under the regime they're changing and the people who seek
| its destruction?
|
| I can't take that argument seriously, sorry.
| mvc wrote:
| Just for the record. Is Russia a foreign adversary of the
| USA as-of today?
| og_kalu wrote:
| Well you should be far more wary of what your government
| will do with such data than a foreign one continents away
| but i don't think that's the difference you were looing
| for.
| remixff2400 wrote:
| Hard disagree: your own government at least has the
| incentive to make the country better (or at least appear
| so) to seek reelection. A foreign adversarial government
| has the incentive to limit the growth and power of the
| other country, in so far as it affects their own country.
|
| Should you care about what your own government does with
| your data? Absolutely, 100%, no doubt, big ticket issue,
| fly the banners as visibly as possible. But more than an
| adversary? Not even close.
| sethammons wrote:
| one can make laws that affect my life. The other ... can
| maybe inspire me to dance? Or pray to the CPP I guess?
| lmm wrote:
| > your own government at least has the incentive to make
| the country better (or at least appear so) to seek
| reelection. A foreign adversarial government has the
| incentive to limit the growth and power of the other
| country, in so far as it affects their own country.
|
| "Adversary" is assuming your conclusion. My own
| government has plenty of incentives to attack my business
| (I've got plenty of competitors who would support them in
| doing so), far more so than the government of China.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| America IS a foreign nation doing it.
| justatdotin wrote:
| to me, america is a foreign nation. so no, I do not see any
| great difference, and yet I'm caught up in this censorship
| of the internet.
| jmye wrote:
| "Intentionally trying to destabilize the country and trying
| to sell you things are literally identical issues."
| geysersam wrote:
| As if America needs foreign influence to destabilize...
|
| I'd sooner blame viciously profiteering corporations and
| blatant disregard for democratic values among a significant
| fraction of American politicians.
| dagss wrote:
| The odds [edit: ^W^W^W^Wchances] are just lower that Google
| and Meta would rig the algorithm to subtly color peoples
| opinion in favor of China and Russia.
|
| If TikTok is doing propaganda by subtly promoting some reels
| over others -- who would know? Why would they not be doing it
| and how can anyone know they are not already doing it?
|
| Not anything blatant of course. Blatant stuff does not change
| peoples opinions anyway. Just subtly bump some reels that has
| been proven to shift a demography in a certain direction.
|
| TikTok has all the data it needs to work with the minds of
| people and also all the ability. And China has the
| motiviation..
|
| Of course Google and Meta might promote other goals in their
| algorithms, but the chances of a leak of that happening is
| definitely higher in current American companies
| justatdotin wrote:
| > the odds are just lower
|
| well, this is awkward..
| BrenBarn wrote:
| I agree. I'm not saying TikTok is much different than others.
| I'm saying when we see TikTok banned we shouldn't feel like
| "Oh no, not that!", we should feel like "Well, it's a start,
| but let's do more in that direction."
| MetaWhirledPeas wrote:
| "gross sort of psychological pollution"
|
| How do you define this? That's the problem. We _should_
| define it somehow, but instead we have a law written
| specifically for TikTok, making demands _because we said
| so_. A proper law is a law for everyone. A law for one
| company is foolish, wrong, and un-American. Its replacement
| was already gaining traction before the ban even hit.
| Without a proper law this is just a hydra waiting to sprout
| more heads.
| lm28469 wrote:
| > It feels silly with this coloring of TikTok as the evil
| when meta, Google and a dozen other American companies are
| doing the same
|
| Ban them all...
|
| You're arguing crack should be legal because cigarettes are
| nemothekid wrote:
| > _It 's odd to me that people seem to be mostly viewing this
| as a free speech/democracy issue._
|
| The catalyst for the ban was Israel/Palestine. You must
| consider this - TikTok did not adequately censor pro-Palestine
| content. This was confirmed as a major problem for Israel by
| the CEO of the ADL.
|
| When an app gets banned because it is not inline with the US
| military industrial complex you must consider the spirit of
| free speech laws.
| iLoveOncall wrote:
| Correct me if I'm wrong but TikTok was never forced to shut down
| for US users, it was just going to be removed from the stores and
| unable to be updated.
|
| Is it back on the stores or not? Because if not, nothing about
| the ban has changed, it's only that TikTok undid the decision
| that THEY took to shut down.
| throwaway287391 wrote:
| Yes, this is correct -- TikTok's own "shutdown" was never
| required by law. I'm not in the US so I can't check for myself,
| but from googling it still seems to be removed from both the
| Apple and Google stores.
|
| If Apple/Google don't change their minds, TikTok won't be able
| to get any new US users, and won't be able to distribute
| updates to current US users. To continue using it in the
| current state, US users will have to keep the same phone and
| TikTok will have to continue supporting whatever last
| version(s) they're on indefinitely. (Modulo the few that might
| jump through VPN and app store locale setting hoops.)
|
| And I don't see how Apple/Google could change their minds: the
| ban bill comes with a 5 year statute of limitations, so
| regardless of how convincing the Trump administration is in
| their promise not to enforce the law, the next administration
| inaugurated in January 2029 would still be able to impose the
| penalties on Apple/Google for 4 years of non-compliance. Those
| penalties would be cripplingly massive even for the world's
| largest companies (I'm reading an estimate of $850B [0]).
|
| As far as I can tell, the only events that could end this are
| (1) TikTok finding and agreeing to sell to a US buyer or (2)
| Congress overturning the ban.
|
| It's odd that people are talking as though the saga is over
| now...
|
| [0] https://www.theverge.com/2025/1/19/24347325/tiktok-
| service-p...
| tempeler wrote:
| This operation seems a bargain for buying Tiktok, nothing more.
| The main contradiction is preventing competition and being a
| monopoly. The government is trying to prevent more competition
| and create more confort zones for monopolies. They don't care
| about free speech. Finally, they are part of this business.
| Rapzid wrote:
| I guess we know now why TikTok voluntarily went dark.
|
| Wonder which companies will be assured by TikTok's assurances
| there will be no consequences for helping them break the law.
|
| I just hope this causes congress to dig their heels in again.
| Almost can't believe what I'm seeing.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| In a sane world Congress would be furious at the executive
| overreach.
| bsimpson wrote:
| I don't remember the last time either party called out their
| colleagues for questionable use of executive orders, but to
| do so would require principles, and we haven't seen those in
| decades either.
| rottencupcakes wrote:
| It would only take 38% of Republicans in the Senate to vote
| with Democrats to remove Trump from office to get him out of
| politics for good.
|
| Defying the literal law on a matter of national security
| certainly qualifies as treason, or at least a vague "high crime
| and misdemeanor."
|
| Now that he's done his job for the Republicans (delivered a red
| wave), is there any benefit to keeping a kleptocratic monster
| in power?
|
| Should Congress just remove him from office and let JD Vance be
| president?
|
| Edit: Not sure why being downvoted. China bots?
| lupusreal wrote:
| I downvoted your comment because you're wrong. The
| constitution defines treason pretty clearly, you're not going
| to get a treason conviction without the US being in a legally
| and officially declared war with China. There has never been
| a treason conviction for any act committed after WW2, the
| last time the US was officially in a declared war. The
| Rosenberg's selling nuke secrets, the Walkers who decrypted
| Navy communications for the Soviets, those guys who went over
| to the Taliban or ISIS... all highly illegal but _NONE_ of it
| was treason.
|
| Furthermore your comment is poorly thought out. Impeaching
| Trump would be very bad for the popularity of Republican
| senators, anybody should be aware of that regardless of how
| you personally feel about the people involved.
| myko wrote:
| Colloquially "treason" fits many of trump's actions, and
| the comment did hedge and mention "high crimes and
| misdemeanors" which trump has certainly been guilty of
| before (but I'm not convinced he is here)
| lupusreal wrote:
| _" Colloquially treason"_ isn't a crime anybody can be
| charged with, its just hyperbolic political rhetoric.
| HumblyTossed wrote:
| No, there's a LOT of MAGAts on HN.
| llamaimperative wrote:
| It's the pathology of fetishizing contrarianism.
|
| "I am contrarian because daddy Thiel said it's smart"
| without a hint of irony
| marknutter wrote:
| Dehumanizing people by calling them "maggots" or other such
| vermin isn't a good look considering history of the 20th
| century.
| HumblyTossed wrote:
| _slow clap_. Nice twist.
|
| But... this is a MAGAt:
|
| https://bsky.app/profile/patriottakes.bsky.social/post/3l
| g75...
| ijidak wrote:
| This whole charade has had me laughing since yesterday.
|
| The Caesars of Rome often played these public games to make
| themselves look magnanimous, while at the same time consolidating
| power and control.
|
| Julius Caesar's rise to power is one example.
| phatfish wrote:
| So Tiktok is the slave that got the thumbs up?
| polalavik wrote:
| sources?
| Havoc wrote:
| Sounds like a great PR success.
|
| People love being on the in circle of something "naughty".
| yreg wrote:
| Is TikTok currently available in the US App Store and PlayStore?
|
| I can maybe understand ByteDance breaking the rules on a promise
| from the president elect that it will be alright.
|
| I would, however, never expect Apple or Google to take that
| liability (while not getting much out of it).
|
| edit: It seems that the TikTok app has indeed not been reinstated
| in the stores yet.
| seanalltogether wrote:
| Not only that but will American advertisers take the risk of
| allowing their ads to continue showing to American audiences,
| or for us based payment processors handle in app payments
| hsuduebc2 wrote:
| "It's a strong stand for the First Amendment and against
| arbitrary censorship."
|
| That hit's different from Chinese company. lol
| fullshark wrote:
| Words don't mean anything, they are just tools to win PR
| battles.
| hsuduebc2 wrote:
| Couldn't agree more
| dankle wrote:
| Sad
| spacecadet wrote:
| I don't believe in conspiracy theories, I tend to believe most
| can be boiled down to power and/or stupidity. Which is what I see
| going on here, but if I were to attach a conspiracy theory to it-
| this was always the plan and now a portion of the voter base has
| been flipped. Well played by the Thiel, Musk, Zuck circle jerk.
| 9283409232 wrote:
| It blows my mind how easily people are swayed and how ByteDance
| is playing everyone like a fiddle. I need to walk into the ocean
| because this life ain't for me.
| khazhoux wrote:
| After being a non-stop news and politics junkie the last 15+
| years, I've gone beyond cold turkey.
|
| I stopped reading all political, U.S., and even world news the
| day after the election. Zero. Dropped reddit politics. I don't
| know who are Trump's cabinet picks. I assume Hulk Hogan and Kid
| Rock will be on the cabinet, but I don't know and don't care.
|
| On Nov 7 when I saw that not only did Trump win, but he won
| decisively, and I saw this is what the country wants, I decided
| that since I can't get rid of Trump's bullshit, I actually have
| full power to keep that bullshit from entering my personal
| reality. Whatever daily outrage and anger I would have felt
| since Nov 7, I don't have. My mind is relatively clear, and
| --surprise, surprise-- my life is unaffected.
|
| I plan to keep this up for 4 years. I assume at some point,
| I'll go to get a flu shot and be told vaccines are illegal. And
| if I notice suddenly a bunch of ads for iodine pills, I'll
| withdraw as much cash I can and get canned food and water and
| gasoline. I'll deal with it then.
|
| And in 2 years and 4 years I _will_ go to the voting booth. But
| I 'm powerless until then, except for what I allow into my
| life.
| SGML_ROCKSTAR wrote:
| Is there any way to still read all the political and world
| news while keeping your self from over-entertaining or
| internalizing it?
| khazhoux wrote:
| Even 5 seconds of Trump is enough to cause rage. I'm
| powerless to change what he says and does, but I'm only
| empowered to keep it away from me.
|
| My friend's house (and entire town) burned down, so I'm
| following that news. But even 2 minutes of reading Trump +
| Republicans saying the fires happened because the LAPD
| chief is a gay woman, and I had enough for the month.
| pesus wrote:
| I think reducing the amount of news one consumes at least
| slightly improves things. Unfortunately, my wife and many
| of my loved ones are targets of Trump and his minions, so I
| can't totally tune things out, but consuming less news
| media at least makes for less internalization.
| khazhoux wrote:
| I'll challenge you: what _action_ are you and your
| wife+family going to be taking based on the news? If that
| approximates zero, then you are only just stressing
| yourself.
| 9283409232 wrote:
| It depends on who you are. If you're a straight white guy
| then completely zoning out might be the right answer. If
| you are an immigrant then knowing that ICE is raiding
| Chicago on Tuesday is very important information.
| nikvaes wrote:
| As I had the same feeling as you, I subscribed to a
| quarterly news magazine called delayed gratification. I
| feel it's a good balance between keeping up-to-date, while
| not letting the news interfere with my daily life and
| emotions.
| foretop_yardarm wrote:
| I've not followed the news for about 7 years now. A niche
| benefit of WFH is that I don't have to accidentally hear
| coworkers talking about it either.
| warner25 wrote:
| I'm debating trying to do this. I've seen it recommended by
| other people who I think are smart. Honestly, I tuned out
| most of the 2010s after being a political news junkie in the
| 2000s, and it was probably good for me. I couldn't sleep or
| concentrate on work for a couple days after this election.
|
| > And in 2 years and 4 years I will go to the voting booth.
| But I'm powerless until then
|
| What's really depressing is that I'm already happy with my
| representation in congress, and they'll probably win again
| comfortably in 2026 and 2028, but _they 're_ powerless too.
| khazhoux wrote:
| I've wanted to do this since 2016. It was November of 2015
| when I first thought, "How long could I go not knowing if
| Hillary won or lost?" Eight years later, I've put it into
| effect, and my mind is so much clearer for it.
|
| My whole life I've believed that "it's important to be
| informed." I now challenge that. I mean: yes, obviously
| before the next election I will read up on the candidates
| and propositions. But apart from that, me being informed
| has zero effect on the world.
| warner25 wrote:
| Another forum that I frequent is bogleheads.org (about
| investing and personal finance), and one of the rules is
| that discussing politics and _proposed_ legislation is
| off-limits. But obviously when a new law (e.g. on taxes)
| is actually passed then discussion of how we 're
| personally affected becomes appropriate and necessary.
|
| That might be a good model for generally striking an
| appropriate balance: be informed about new major
| legislation (or executive orders, court decisions, etc.)
| when they happen, but skip all the day-to-day drama about
| who said what on the House or Senate floor, or in an
| interview, or on X in between such things. I've seen it
| suggested many times that the Wikipedia current events
| portal is _all_ that one should look at, and it would
| probably accomplish this.
| BobbyTables2 wrote:
| Good for you.
|
| I also feel the concern over who is President is largely
| overrated. It's as perverse as deeply worrying about who the
| next CEO of one's employer will be -- even they aren't that
| concerned!
|
| Frankly, we should be more concerned about school board and
| sheriff elections but society is too broken for that to
| happen or be meaningful.
|
| People act like they know Congressional/Presidental
| candidates as well as their own relatives yet they cant even
| name the local office candidates.
| 9283409232 wrote:
| I think you're very naive if you think worrying about the
| President is equal to worrying about who the next CEO will
| be.
| dingosity wrote:
| meh. i always thought the real reason for the ban was EVERYONE in
| the states who has had to deal with ByteDance walks away from the
| experience thinking they've been dicked. Or at least everyone
| I've talked with. In my own experience, we signed a deal with
| US/TikTok and started spending money on things to uphold our part
| of the bargain. Then ByteDance steps in and says "no. we're
| canceling this contract," and we point out, "uh... hey bevis...
| we just spent money on your behalf," and their response is "sucks
| to be you." The case has been in California courts for about 5
| years. We may get our money back before TikTok/US goes out of
| business.
| linuxhansl wrote:
| Oh man. So much fuzz over a site that shares video snippets. Is
| it just me? I feel like I am witnessing some kind of end of US
| society.
|
| Fear disseminated by politicians and social media (pick whatever
| we are supposed to be afraid of this week.) Paired with an
| addictive desire to be relieved and distracted from this fear, in
| part from the same politicians/social media.
| HaZeust wrote:
| >I feel like I am witnessing some kind of end of US society.
|
| Have you been paying attention since covid? It's just terminal
| now.
| bearcobra wrote:
| Despite my own feelings on the ban, this kind of royal court
| politics is the worst potential outcome. Disregarding a law that
| was passed by a bipartisan majority, signed into law by the
| president and ruled on by the supreme courts feels like the start
| of a very dangerous path. Not to mention the prosecutorial
| discretion may be creating massive liability that the new
| administration could use to extract favors from some of our
| largest tech companies.
| slg wrote:
| >Disregarding a law that was passed by a bipartisan majority,
| signed into law by the president and ruled on by the supreme
| courts feels like the start of a very dangerous path
|
| I don't understand why this is not the primary takeaway.
| Regardless of the specifics of this issue, it is objectively a
| huge power grab for a president to vow to not enforce a law
| that had bipartisan approval of both the legislative and
| judiciary branches.
| ternnoburn wrote:
| The law has a provision permitting the President to grant 90
| day exceptions. Trump has indicated he'll sign one tomorrow.
| This isn't going around the law, it's just the law as
| written. We can debate whether the law was good or bad, but
| this is an outcome the law directly supports.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _law has a provision permitting the President to grant 90
| day exceptions_
|
| "A 1-time extension of not more than 90 days," SS 2(A)(3)
| [1].
|
| [1] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-17758/pdf/COM
| PS-17...
| ternnoburn wrote:
| Yep! Thanks for finding the source. I was on my phone,
| couldn't get the actual text.
| rayiner wrote:
| That requires a legal agreement to divest to be in place,
| which I suspect isn't the case yet.
|
| That being said, the law is enforceable today and Biden
| said he won't enforce it.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > That requires a legal agreement to divest to be in
| place, which I suspect isn't the case yet.
|
| Nope, it merely requires that the president certifies
| that it is in place, and that's something entirely
| different given who the president will be.
| foobarbecue wrote:
| Except it doesn't sound like he's satisfied any of the
| criteria, unless he's promising to buy it himself:
|
| (A) a path to executing a qualified divestiture has been
| identified with respect to such application; (B) evidence
| of significant progress toward executing such qualified
| divestiture has been produced with respect to such
| application; and (C) there are in place the relevant
| binding legal agree- ments to enable execution of such
| qualified divestiture during the period of such extension
| redcobra762 wrote:
| Those are criteria the President has to certify are the
| case, not criteria that have to be the case.
|
| Zero clue how that would play out in the courts, but it
| wouldn't resolve in anything resembling a timely manner.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| His administration will lie, because TikTok has made it
| clear they will not divest in order to stay in the USA.
|
| But so what? His administration, and he himself, lied
| about a bunch of stuff during his previous term, and what
| happened? Nothing. Never tried, never convicted (he was
| impeached, but so what?)
|
| We do not have a mechanism for dealing with a president
| or administration that is willing to just lie. Even if
| the SCOTUS were to determine that the administration did
| in fact lie about certifying those things, so what?
| Nothing will happen.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _We do not have a mechanism for dealing with a
| president or administration that is willing to just lie_
|
| Of course we do. We'll just fine Apple, Google and Oracle
| tens of billions of dollars if they don't cut ties with
| Bytedance. The law can be patient.
|
| I advocated for this bill. My personal guess is the tech
| companies bend at the knee and then pay for a new train
| system in New York or whatever.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| (A) is intentionally vague and deferential. The
| possibility of a Trump Presidency was in everyone's mind
| in drafting; he's not a guy you tell what to do, he's a
| guy you give discretion to with an opportunity to blame
| unsatisfactorily deferential third parties.
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| It says the conditions of the extension must be certified
| to Congress. That means the deal is identified, has been
| significantly executed, and legally binding. I doubt
| Trump has any of that, which is probably why he's
| resorting to an executive order.
|
| More worryingly he stated in his Truth social post that
| he's seeking 50% ownership. That doesn't meet the
| definition of divestiture in this bill, since China would
| still effectively steer operations, including content
| recommendations.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| He's not resorting to an executive order to ignore the
| law. He's using the loophole in the law that allows him
| to grant a 1-time 90 day lift of the ban, given that he
| certifies that certain conditions have been met.
|
| The conditions have not been met, but he will lie and
| state that to his satisfaction, they have. Nothing will
| happen to challenge that except some noise from a couple
| of Democratic senators.
|
| What happens 90 days later is anyone's guess.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _using the loophole in the law that allows him to grant
| a 1-time 90 day lift of the ban_
|
| It's not a loophole, it's a clear power granted--with
| strict limits--within the scope of a short bill.
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| Then why does it need an executive order? And doesn't
| "certify" mean more than just "claim"?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _why does it need an executive order?_
|
| It doesn't. That's Trump being Trump.
|
| > _doesn't "certify" mean more than just "claim"?_
|
| Not to my knowledge.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Sure, the loophole is a part of the law, as I (and
| others) stated. Congress passed the law, which included a
| simple and easy way for a president to suspend it once of
| 90 day, with weak and unenforceable requirements to
| invoke it. Given that this is an unusual clause to have
| in a law, I feel comfortable calling it a loophole.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _the loophole is a part of the law_
|
| That's not a loophole. It was intentionally designed the
| way it's been written to be used the way Trump is using
| it--to give the President leverage and the ability to
| save face for Beijing.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| You're saying it is not possible to build a loophole into
| a law.
|
| I'm saying that it is.
| kelnos wrote:
| The president can grant _one_ 90-day exception, _if_
| certain conditions are met. Those conditions have not been
| met.
| sethammons wrote:
| My read says the law itself is a presidential power, doesn't
| have to be pushed unless the President wants it
| llamaimperative wrote:
| There is no way the President can commit that these
| services will not accrue massive fines throughout his non-
| enforcement period.
|
| And actually your read is wrong: the President does have an
| obligation to enforce laws, it's just _in practice_ there
| are all sorts of ways one can effectively bury this
| obligation under claims of different prioritization. They
| are not really allowed to come out and just say: "I am
| choosing not to enforce this law because I disagree with
| it."
| reubenmorais wrote:
| > the President does have an obligation to enforce laws
|
| This is only true as far as other people are ready to
| keep the president in check. I only have the surface
| knowledge of US politics, but from the outside, it seems
| like the American institutions that were supposed to
| balance the executive power are all being quite
| successfully sabotaged.
| llamaimperative wrote:
| That's a different argument than the one GP made.
|
| One of the things that makes it more difficult to
| _enforce_ those obligations is people 's mistaken belief
| that those obligations _do not exist._
|
| So when people say those obligations don't exist, they
| should be told they are wrong.
| reubenmorais wrote:
| Fair enough.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| Disclaimer: IANAL.
|
| The Executive Branch (President, White House) has a
| responsibility to execute the law as legislated by the
| Legislative Branch (Congress) and judged by the Judicial
| Branch (Supreme Court) if applicable.
|
| Trump is citing _House Resolution 8038_ [1], _Division D,
| Section 2, subsection A, paragraph 3_ [2] which states
| (emphasis mine):
|
| >(3) EXTENSION.--With respect to a foreign adversary
| controlled application, the President may grant a _1-time
| extension of not more than 90 days_ with respect to the
| date on which this subsection would otherwise apply to
| such application pursuant to paragraph (2), if the
| President certifies to Congress that--
|
| >(A) a path to executing a qualified divestiture has been
| identified with respect to such application;
|
| >(B) evidence of significant progress toward executing
| such qualified divestiture has been produced with respect
| to such application; and
|
| >(C) there are in place the relevant binding legal
| agreements to enable execution of such qualified
| divestiture during the period of such extension.
|
| In plain English, this means Trump once he is President
| will have authority to order a one-time up-to 90-day
| extension to enforcing the ban if TikTok can present
| evidence that they are in the process of selling to an
| American entity.
|
| If TikTok cannot present the evidence or they still do
| not complete a sale within the 90-day extension, the ban
| will apply and must be enforced by the President.
|
| As the law in question was passed by Congress and signed
| into law by the President (Biden), the President (Biden
| and Trump) cannot overrule or otherwise refuse the law
| with an Executive Order. The President must enforce and
| act within the powers vested in him by the law.
|
| It is questionable if Trump's claim of not penalizing
| violators of the law prior to an approved 90-day
| extension is legal; the law allows no such powers to the
| President.
|
| Disclaimer: IANAL.
|
| [1]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-
| bill/8038...
|
| [2]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-
| bill/8038...
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| >In plain English, this means Trump once he is President
| will have authority to order a one-time up-to 90-day
| extension to enforcing the ban if TikTok can present
| evidence that they are in the process of selling to an
| American entity.
|
| There is zero chance he can satisfy A, B, and C tomorrow.
| Zero.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| I agree, the realistic chance of TikTok providing
| evidence of an active and ongoing sale process when they
| hadn't entertained even the mere thought of a sale is
| astronomically low.
|
| Then again, reality can be weird sometimes. Never say
| never until the fat lady sings.
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| > It is questionable if Trump's claim of not penalizing
| violators of the law prior to an approved 90-day
| extension is legal; the law allows no such powers to the
| President.
|
| The president has the power to pardon, which could be
| interpreted in that way.
|
| I'm no legal scholar, but I think offering the pardon up
| front with the intention of circumventing the law would
| itself have been a crime up until the recent July supreme
| court ruling that now appears to make it perfectly legal:
| absolute immunity for all official acts including
| pardons.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| Yes, the legal question was decided last year by the
| Supreme Court (and it will work in all Presidents' favors
| going forward, Trump included). The question of duty
| however lies with Congress. The Executive Branch is
| tasked with executing the laws passed by Congress, and
| Congress always has the option of impeaching a President
| who refuses his duty to execute and enforce the law.
| sethammons wrote:
| They impeached Trump. Twice. Didn't do anything.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| He was acquitted on both counts, so no he wasn't
| impeached.
|
| In fact, there has never[1] been an impeached President
| in American history.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_impeachment_tr
| ial_in_t...
| CyberDildonics wrote:
| https://time.com/5552679/impeached-presidents/
| sanderjd wrote:
| Not yet, but maybe in the near future. We'll see! The
| ultimate check is too many people getting too pissed.
| AngryData wrote:
| Why are they not able to not enforce the law? The right
| for law enforcing entities and persons to not enforce the
| law due to personal discretion has been upheld many times
| in the past. Cops don't have to do it, prosecutors don't
| have to do it, not even judges have to do it although
| they almost always do because otherwise it creates
| friction between prosecution and the judge and the judge
| is likely to get booted for it eventually because
| successful prosecutions is how law enforcement and courts
| earn most of their money and unsuccessful arrests and
| prosecutions is how they lose money. I don't see how or
| why the executive branch is under any obligations to
| enforce any laws, feds don't often enforce marijuana laws
| in legal states despite being federally illegal still is
| an easy example.
|
| The only real check against the president/executive
| branch is the legislative branch having the power to
| impeach the president and get them replaced, or by
| legislatively dismantling or changing the internal rules
| of a department. They lose their jobs, but aren't liable
| for anything or breaking any laws I know of. Just the
| same as states can boot out judges or prosecutors if they
| don't like how they operate, and police departments can
| fire officers if they don't like how they operate. At no
| point did cops or prosecutors or judges break the law by
| not enforcing the law, they merely piss off the state
| that is funding them and now losing additional money due
| to lack of enforcement and prosecution, and I don't know
| how the president or executive branch is any different.
| llamaimperative wrote:
| Go look it up instead of having me explain it to you.
| You're just verbosely asserting your opinion, and at
| least in the US, your opinion does not map to how the law
| actually works.
|
| US Constitution Section 2 Article 3: "[The President]...
| shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..."
| bdangubic wrote:
| you missed few US government and US history classes
| growing up, eh? :)
| sanderjd wrote:
| You're the one who has this wrong, and now you're being
| rude about it.
|
| The enforcement of the law is not at the president's
| discretion. That would make Congress powerless. Congress
| is not powerless.
| sethammons wrote:
| So when past presidents have said they wont prosecute
| marijuana laws, what was that?
|
| Your argument reminds me of the clip where the guy who
| had his license revoked for DUI is surprised when the car
| starts anyway. Just because a law says a thing, a person
| still has to action something. If the boss says don't do
| it, you don't do it. Don't rightly matter if the law says
| you should.
| llamaimperative wrote:
| > So when past presidents have said they wont prosecute
| marijuana laws, what was that?
|
| Can you cite an example? If you're talking about the
| Biden admin, here is what the AG said:
|
| "I do not think it the best use of the Department's
| limited resources to pursue prosecutions of those who are
| complying with the laws in states that have legalized and
| are effectively regulating marijuana..."
|
| I.e. exactly what I said _is_ defensible in certain
| scenarios - and indeed must be defended, potentially in
| court. It _is not_ POTUS simply saying "I won't do it."
| kelnos wrote:
| I'm not sure how you can hold that position; the AG is
| the arm of the president. If the AG says "I won't do it",
| then that is, by extension, the president saying the
| same.
|
| And I don't think Garland's longer, winding way of saying
| what he said doesn't reduce to "I won't do it".
| llamaimperative wrote:
| I have explained the difference already and cited
| specific examples. It's a you problem if you're trying to
| interpret the words another way.
| sanderjd wrote:
| So under this logic, the president can decide not to
| enforce the laws that require they and their family,
| friends, associates, and allies to pay taxes?
|
| Don't think so!
| bokoharambe wrote:
| Still not quite right, not in a modern state. Law has
| always been sovereign power, and in the modern period the
| entire state is the sovereign (think Leviathan.) It is
| strange that Americans seem to think these are personal
| powers.
| hot_gril wrote:
| Well, the law as agreed upon by Congress designates it as
| a personal power.
| bokoharambe wrote:
| This is kind of the point, the text of the law is totally
| ephemeral because the power to violate it is entrusted in
| the state itself.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _the law as agreed upon by Congress designates it as a
| personal power_
|
| No, it does not.
|
| The extension is discretionary, the liability is not.
| (And the liability specifically accrues to the operators
| of the app stores and hosting companies.)
| gsibble wrote:
| The law gives the President discretion to decide what apps
| to ban essentially. It didn't specifically target TikTok.
|
| So Biden decided to ban it and Trump decided to unban it.
| It's all perfectly within the law.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _law gives the President discretion to decide what apps
| to ban essentially. It didn 't specifically target
| TikTok_
|
| Wrong.
|
| SS 2(G)(3)(A)(i) and (ii) name Bytedance and TikTok [1].
|
| [1] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-17758/pdf/C
| OMPS-17...
| Spivak wrote:
| Yep, that being said I'm not mad at ignoring this part.
|
| Of all the shittyness of this bill, least of which giving
| the president pretty much unchecked power to ban foreign
| social media, the fact that it named a specific entity is
| to me just bad form. Law shouldn't ever include "fuck you
| in particular" even if the effect of the law when applied
| will be that.
| afiori wrote:
| I am actually surprised that it was not deemed
| unconstitutional on this basis alone
| sanderjd wrote:
| What is the constitutional provision that covers this?
| bmelton wrote:
| In context, you're both wrong. You're correct that SS
| 2(G)(3)(A)(i) and (ii) explicitly name Bytedance and
| TikTok [1], so it is not up to presidential discretion to
| add more apps, but SS 2(G)(3)(B)(ii) indicates that it is
| within the president's discretion to not enforce.
|
| There are some paperwork qualifiers that for certain have
| not been met (the not-yet president almost certainly
| could not have briefed Congress as president 30 days
| prior) -- but they seem trivial _to_ satisfy, and it
| would be pointless to initiate enforcement actions for an
| event nobody intends to follow through on
| speff wrote:
| SS 2(G)(3) A/B seem more like OR conditions to me, not
| AND. I don't think Bytedance can get out of it by the
| president saying they're not a threat.
|
| [1]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-
| bill/7521... Ctrl+F "(3) FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED
| APPLICATION"
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _but SS 2(G)(3)(B)(ii) indicates that it is within the
| president 's discretion to not enforce_
|
| Wrong.
|
| That SS lets the President designate other entities.
| That's why we wrote "any of" at the top--Bytedance,
| TikTok or any of the things the President may designate.
| sanderjd wrote:
| That's not what the law says. What gave you that
| impression?
| remarkEon wrote:
| >I don't understand why this is not the primary takeaway.
|
| Because this takeaway is wrong.
| cluckindan wrote:
| Yeah, Trump himself signed the executive order to ban
| TikTok.
| bboygravity wrote:
| Trump is not in power now.
| rvense wrote:
| Power is when people do what you say.
| cluckindan wrote:
| He did it in 2020?
| nordsieck wrote:
| > Regardless of the specifics of this issue, it is
| objectively a huge power grab for a president to vow to not
| enforce a law that had bipartisan approval of both the
| legislative and judiciary branches.
|
| Isn't that the road we've been walking down for a while now
| with the proliferation of executive orders?
|
| I'm not a fan of this outcome either, but it doesn't strike
| me as a revolutionary departure from current norms.
| bearcobra wrote:
| I think this is different. I generally feel like executive
| orders are 1) used to take some kind of affirmative step
| that the dysfunction in congress is blocking 2) have some
| level of defensible legal theory. This feels like the
| opposite. My understanding of the 90 day extension is that
| it's supposed to be there to allow a deal to close, but
| there is no evidence I've seen of a deal being worked on so
| the legal theory seems to be really flimsy. Disregarding a
| law, while not unprecedented, is not a great sign given
| some of the incoming administration statements on a ton of
| other topics.
| slg wrote:
| >My understanding of the 90 day extension is that it's
| supposed to be there to allow a deal to close
|
| It is also important to recognize that Trump isn't just
| talking about invoking the 90 day extension. He is
| promising companies they won't be held responsible for
| the fines they should be accruing for violating the law
| before he even takes office.
| rayiner wrote:
| Biden is still the president and he's not enforcing the
| law. It's not clear to me that the president can't grant
| an extension later once all the statutory requirements
| are met. What's the difference between one day and say 10
| days?
|
| Putting that aside, the legal theory here--where an
| exception is there for this purpose and we're quibbling
| about its application--is nowhere close to "flimsy" when
| it comes to constraints on executive prosecutorial
| discretion.
| bearcobra wrote:
| Biden's ability to enforce the law seems to be pretty
| constrained given the amount of time left in his term.
| Like asking Garland to start a prosecution isn't exactly
| practical. I think it's also worth noting that TikTok was
| complying with the ban until they were given a signal by
| the incoming administration that they weren't planning on
| enforcing it.
|
| The text of the law isn't totally unambiguous, but I
| still think it's quite clear that the conditions where a
| 90 day extension could be granted aren't being met, so
| we'll have to agree to disagree on how flimsy it is.
| AlchemistCamp wrote:
| The number of executive orders has decreased every
| president since Bill Clinton.
|
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/1125024/us-presidents-
| ex...
| yellowapple wrote:
| If you look at the "per year" it increased again under
| Trump.
| TheNightman wrote:
| Why would you look at it "per year" when speaking in
| terms of "per president" other than to say "except trump"
| yellowapple wrote:
| Because not all presidents have served for two full
| terms. Examining things while ignoring the time period
| over which they happened does not a meaningful analysis
| make.
| kelnos wrote:
| In that case, neither metric is appropriate, and we
| should be looking for the trend per presidential term.
| LastTrain wrote:
| Why would you not?
| BobbyJo wrote:
| Couldn't agree more. Each incoming administration since
| Bush has only expanded executive power, despite decrying
| its usage in the admin they replaced. This is a very
| predictable outcome even when looking ahead from 20 years
| ago, and its easy to see where things will stand in another
| 20 years.
| sanderjd wrote:
| It depends on what happens after the litigation over it. It
| will be a revolutionary departure if the law continues to
| not be enforced, after the courts demand it be, if they do.
| tw04 wrote:
| Executive orders have historically been a way to get things
| done when the law is ambiguous. It has not, as far as I
| know, been used to try to directly contradict existing law
| that has been upheld by the judiciary branch. I don't even
| know how that would be legal - if it were then it upends
| literally the entire basis of our government.
|
| We're essentially saying the president is a dictator -
| which I know is what the current president wants, but I
| sure hope the rest of the country doesn't.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _Executive orders have historically been a way to get
| things done when the law is ambiguous. It has not, as far
| as I know, been used to try to directly contradict
| existing law that_
|
| Isn't this the case with the federal government not
| enforcing its own marijuana sale, possession, and use
| laws for at least a decade now (in states that have
| legalized or decriminalized it), across several
| presidents from both parties? I don't think it's
| ambiguous what's supposed to happen legally when it comes
| to Schedule I controlled substances.
| tw04 wrote:
| The federal government deciding to bring charges or not
| are a completely different matter from an executive
| order. If you can point to an executive order that
| "legalizes" marijuana when there are laws explicitly
| making it illegal, cite away. It would be news to me.
| mrkeen wrote:
| The current norm that comes to mind is Biden trying to
| cancel student debt, to which the SC said no.
|
| It's nothing new in that it's something that should have
| been decided by Congress, not the executive. But I think
| it's new for the executive to ignore the SC like that. Any
| counter examples?
| incognition wrote:
| Let me introduce you to Andrew Jackson
| kelipso wrote:
| The executive branch has the power to decide whether or not
| to enforce a law. For example, see weed laws not being
| enforced.
| jmyeet wrote:
| This should be a lesson: most prosecution and enforcement is
| discretionary.
|
| This isn't a power grab. That already happened when the
| Supreme Court invented out of thin air the idea of
| presidential immunity. There was no basis for that.
|
| Supreme Court justices are political operatives and the
| conservative supermajority has gone on a spree of overturning
| precedent and inventing law on a scale not seen since Marbury
| v Madison.
|
| "Historical tradition" as a legal doctrine is completely
| invented. "Major Questions Doctrine" is a massive power grab
| over the other two branches. Presidential immunity is simply
| the "unitary executive" doctrine, also completely invented.
|
| We already have a dictator.
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| It's a potentially successful power grab because the law
| isn't widely supported by the populace. Trivial to say "those
| eggheads can pass what they like, I will protect you from
| them"
| ikiris wrote:
| How do you figure? The explicit domain of enforcement is the
| executive branch, so if the new guy coming in says something
| akin to "They've made their decision, let them enforce it"
| that's somewhat by design even if you may not agree with it.
|
| The system was designed with these checks and balances in mind
| explicitly.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _if the new guy coming in says something akin to "They've
| made their decision, let them enforce it" that's somewhat by
| design even if you may not agree with it_
|
| It's absolutely not. Which is why non-enforcement doesn't
| release liability; if you break a law that the President
| declines to enforce, people can sue the government to force
| enforcement today and the next President can enforce
| tomorrow.
| llamaimperative wrote:
| And in this case they'll just accrue (massive) fines.
| ajmurmann wrote:
| The ultimate consequence of that interpretation would mean
| that the executive does whatever it wants since all
| enforcement of court rulings or laws fall to the executive.
| ikiris wrote:
| Yes, this is how government works if the judicial +
| legislative branches have no enforcement power. That is not
| at all how this government works however. I suggest taking
| an American civics course if you want to learn more.
| pixl97 wrote:
| > how this government works however.
|
| I mean, with some of the decisions by SCOTUS in the last
| few years we should really be at the point of "This
| government works?"
| bearcobra wrote:
| Yeah, I think that's bad. Some level of prosecutorial
| discretion is obviously needed but furthering a state of
| affairs where laws are meaningless depending on if you have
| the favor of the executive is dangerous. The checks and
| balances in the passing of the law make sense but there
| should be a strong norm towards actually enforcing things and
| pushing the legislative branch to change the law if there is
| something wrong with it or the judiciary to rule on if it is
| actually legal.
| afiori wrote:
| Prosecutorial discretion is not a "check and balance" it is a
| cost cutting approach that allows worse laws to last longer
| intended wrote:
| >feels like the start of a very dangerous path
|
| Start?
| davidw wrote:
| I'm old enough to remember how things used to be and it sure
| wasn't perfect, but JFC is it bad now.
| zouhair wrote:
| Oh yeah, the good old segregation times.
| justatdotin wrote:
| really? cos I feel old, but as far back as I remember usa's
| vaunted democratic institutions have been a sideshow while
| the wealthy favour global militarist domination over the
| needs of ordinary american people.
|
| when did you decide that things went bad?
| davidw wrote:
| Let's see:
|
| SC decision that presidents are above the law.
|
| Violent assault on the Capitol.
|
| Journalism imploding.
| justatdotin wrote:
| OK.
|
| I'm looking for a year.
|
| I think the SC decision was last year, whereas the
| capitol riot was 4 yrs ago.
|
| sorry, I don't know a date for 'journalism imploding',
| but I'm guessing you mean 2016?
|
| so you think the WMD lies were before things turned bad?
| intended wrote:
| I've personally harped on the failure of globalization
| since the 1990s, before it was cool.
|
| Nothing has been this bad.
|
| But perhaps I'm wrong. Could you point out how today is
| the same as before?
| justatdotin wrote:
| broad brushstrokes: democracy as a sideshow while the
| rulers prioritise warriorism over the material needs of
| the population was clear last century.
|
| what's worse? I mean, I'll readily admit that the
| sideshow has got more ridiculous, but the main game is
| the same.
| intended wrote:
| How much worse would you say has the side show gotten?
|
| Would you say the sideshow itself is being undermined at
| this point?
| justatdotin wrote:
| I dunno about worse, but wildly more ridiculous. Not sure
| how to measure, but the scattergun disinfo is certainly
| another level beyond targeted lies.
|
| maybe we need to undermine it? if the institutions of
| 'democracy' that tower over us are not working we might
| need to build some from the ground up that do.
| hot_gril wrote:
| The actual bad precedent set here is that the US executive
| branch has the authority to censor the media.
| tomtomtom777 wrote:
| That is incorrect in this case. The "censoring" was done by
| the legislative branch, congress.
|
| The "uncensoring" is done by the executive branch.
| hot_gril wrote:
| It's both. It gives the President the authority to
| designate an app as controlled by a foreign adversary,
| forcing it to be banned or sold. It also names TikTok in
| particular. I didn't know about the second part until I
| read the original text* just now, since every summary
| missed that, but I'm not happy about that part either.
|
| * https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-
| bill/7521...
| hot_gril wrote:
| To clarify, the law bans TikTok and also lets the
| president ban other apps in the future.
| myko wrote:
| > The "uncensoring" is done by the executive branch.
|
| Interestingly, the executive branch is still under Joe
| Biden at the moment.
|
| TikTok content has changed in tone and tenor since
| President-Elect trump's policy reversal. Looks like he'll
| have ByteDance working for him like he did Russian fake
| news during his last regime.
| LeafItAlone wrote:
| That's actually the exact opposite of what has happened.
| maxerickson wrote:
| Mechanistically, the law applies to the app, not the service.
| It's not clear to me that serving videos to users that already
| have the app is a violation of the law.
| lokar wrote:
| It also applies to their cloud providers
| maxerickson wrote:
| Yeah, a.1.B, _(B) Providing internet hosting services to
| enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of such
| foreign adversary controlled application for users within
| the land or maritime borders of the United States._
|
| Is distributing content an "update"?
| warner25 wrote:
| Yes, and what's even worse to me is Trump's explicit motivation
| for supporting TikTok now. Like there are some interesting
| philosophical, moral, and maybe legal arguments against the
| TikTok ban _but what he 's seized on_ is simply that TikTok was
| a useful tool (as far as he's been told) for gaining votes.
| Keeping it around just benefits him politically and personally,
| so that's it.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| You know what, that's is actually correct.
|
| Practically necessarily trumps concerns of fictitious and
| imaginary constructs
| konschubert wrote:
| That's how all dictatorships work.
|
| Everything is illegal.
|
| You live by the KING.
| mullingitover wrote:
| > Disregarding a law that was passed by a bipartisan majority
|
| It was a rider tacked onto a must-pass bill. There's nothing
| about the manner it was passed that makes it special or
| particularly blessed. This was classic congressional sausage-
| making.
| LZ_Khan wrote:
| And yet the law is the law. There's no premise that says the
| manner in which a law is passed determines its
| enforceability.
| mullingitover wrote:
| Also nothing saying that it will be enforced at all as long
| as the bribes are deposited on time.
| afiori wrote:
| Sorry but this argument does not make sense, AFAIK this
| extension is lawful and explicitly permitted by the same
| law, so the law was followed any way.
|
| Or are you saying that the public perception of the law
| should itself be the law?
| LZ_Khan wrote:
| I'm not saying the extension is unlawful. The person I
| replied to seemed to imply an addendum to a law should be
| less enforceable than the primary focus of the law. I was
| simply addressing that statement.
| mullingitover wrote:
| I didn't say it was unenforceable, just pointing it
| there's nothing special about which parties voted for it
| out by how much.
|
| But also at the end of the day the executive branch has
| sole power to enforce it or not, and if the president
| doesn't want to enforce it there's really nothing
| Congress or the courts can do about it other than
| impeaching him, which realistically won't happen. The two
| parties have captured the system of three-way checks and
| balances, and a cult of personality has captured the
| party with trifecta power. That's the game, folks. We
| live in an autocracy now.
| tim333 wrote:
| Only four more years of this stuff to go. In other news Trump
| coin has plummeted by a few billion as Melania launched her own
| meme coin with a ~4bn market cap.
| tzs wrote:
| > Disregarding a law that was passed by a bipartisan majority
|
| I wonder if there was actually a bipartisan majority in favor
| of getting rid of TikTok?
|
| Yes, the _bill_ passed by a bipartisan majority, but TikTok was
| not the only thing in that bill. Previous attempts to advance a
| standalone TikTok bill had failed to get majority support.
|
| This time it got attached to a bill that provided $60 billion
| in aid for Ukraine, $26 billion in aid for Israel, and $1
| billion of additional humanitarian assistance for food, medical
| supplies, and clean water for Gaza. There was also $8 billion
| for security in Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific.
|
| A lot of Congress considered that aid (or parts of it) to be
| critical, and it had taken a lot of time to get there. I bet as
| a result of that a lot of Congress members would vote "yes"
| even if they disagreed with the TikTok part.
|
| When Biden signed it he spoke about the importance of all the
| aid provisions and didn't mention TikTok at all.
| sanderjd wrote:
| The executive order will just be baldly illegal, and what
| happens in the litigation on it is the next battle.
|
| TikTok is, as we speak, breaking US law.
| Karrot_Kream wrote:
| No there's an actual provision in the law that allows the
| President to delay enforcement one-time for 90 days:
| https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-
| bill/7521... . This was an explicit provision of the bill.
| Jare wrote:
| > Disregarding a law that was passed by a bipartisan majority,
| signed into law by the president and ruled on by the supreme
| courts feels like the start of a very dangerous path
|
| The very dangerous path started a long time ago, or at least
| that's how it feels from abroad. "He can't" followed by "He
| wouldn't" then "He did".
| afiori wrote:
| IMHO this is the reason things should be laws not weird
| tradition and conventions if they really matter, (same reason
| that the fault of things like SCOTUS upturning Roe v Wade is
| in Congress for never making it a law instead of just a
| precedent
| encoderer wrote:
| The law specifically gives the president a 90 day extension.
| jameshart wrote:
| We are watching the norm be created that 'what apps we are
| allowed to use' is something that is in the personal gift of
| Donald Trump.
|
| That is a very weird precedent for us to be setting.
| Zak wrote:
| I won't argue against the idea that Trump is on a dangerous
| political path based around patronage and personal favors, but
| the law does grant him the authority to give TikTok a 90 day
| extension. If TikTok has not sold by then and he fails to
| enforce the law, that's a bigger problem.
| maeil wrote:
| > feels like the start of a very dangerous path.
|
| I'm baffled people keep saying this. You're miles down the
| dangerous path - you've almost reached the end of it. This is
| nothing new.
| OhMeadhbh wrote:
| Dang. Comments seem to be accumulating on this thread faster than
| they can be moderated. I'm not trying to call anyone names, but
| there seem to be A LOT of different political opinions and more
| than a few conspiracy theories. But who knows... maybe the
| conspiracy theorists are right... Just wanted to say thanks to
| the community for not being as flamey as one might expect for a
| comments section on the internet.
| _nickwhite wrote:
| This is Trump playing chess. ByteDance, Greenland, The Gulf of
| Mexico, Panama Canal- All this, and he's not even President yet.
| It's all part of a bigger picture and a bigger plan with sizable
| levers. Some love this, others find it terrifying.
| gcanyon wrote:
| Trump has clearly neutered both houses of Congress and the
| Supreme Court. Welcome to a unitary government, with one god-
| emperor and no checks nor balances. It's going to be a wild two
| (few?) years.
| bamboozled wrote:
| If what you're saying is true, why would there be a term limit
| at all?
| gcanyon wrote:
| Hence "few". Two if there are real elections in 2026, and the
| dems retake a majority. "few" if there aren't, or they don't
| -- in that case maybe 3-4 if term limits hold, or "who
| knows?" if as you say term limits don't apply, or Trump
| manages to put someone in place after him.
| gcanyon wrote:
| Correction: it appears there is a 90-day presidential delay
| written into the law, so we're not quite at god-emperor status
| yet...
| mrlonglong wrote:
| Executive orders cannot supersede or go against the law. The
| courts would quite rightly shut him down.
| runlevel1 wrote:
| Yes, but the president is the head of the executive branch,
| which includes the DoJ. He can simply instruct them not to
| prosecute.
|
| That does leave companies like Oracle, who TikTok uses to host
| their content, in a weird position where they could be fined by
| future administrations for continuing to provide them service
| now.
|
| However, the law does give the president the ability to give
| them a one-time 90 day stay of execution. So, theoretically,
| they could repeal the law in the next 3 months.
| ForOldHack wrote:
| The average Maga got the attention span of a braindamaged
| goldfish so obviously this is long forgotten.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| How does an executive order just pause a law passed by Congress?
| Does Trump think he really has that kind of authority?
| kgeist wrote:
| >The law banning TikTok, which was scheduled to go into effect
| Sunday, allows the president to grant a 90-day extension before
| the ban is enforced, provided certain criteria are met.
| FpUser wrote:
| The whole thing is starting to look like a circus.
| whalesalad wrote:
| Nothing is real anymore.
| junto wrote:
| > Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the
| People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a
| time handed out military command, high civil office, legions --
| everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two
| things: bread and circuses
|
| "panem et circenses", Juvenal 100AD
| gradus_ad wrote:
| The CCP has a propaganda and spying tool in the hands of 170M
| Americans. Yet the new Administration is more interested in
| playing politics than taking necessary steps to secure us against
| our primary adversary.
|
| It's not just Trump though. Neither the Republicans nor Democrats
| are taking the China threat seriously enough. The CCP must be
| destroyed.
| DavidPiper wrote:
| We've been saying for quite some time that large multi-national
| companies have more power than entire democracies. I guess now we
| have proof.
|
| Republicans will see this as a political stunt that glorifies
| Donald Trump
|
| Democrats will see this as a political stunt that glorifies
| Donald Trump.
|
| China will see this as proof they have some control over the US
| citizenry.
| gonzo41 wrote:
| So laws don't matter now. That's a great trend to start on day 1.
| duxup wrote:
| That shoutout has the vibe of some Banana Republic corruption...
|
| GOP in the US has constantly been fear mongering about social
| media bias, but what they really mean is they want their own
| ideas / bias and nobody else.
| mcintyre1994 wrote:
| > We thank President Trump for providing the necessary clarity
| and assurance to our service providers that they will face no
| penalties providing TikTok to over 170 million Americans
|
| These are literally just promises from Trump that these companies
| are relying on, not an actual change to the law, just a promise
| that he won't enforce it against them? Sounds like an utterly
| insane business decision that they'll regret as soon as they fall
| out with him. Each to their own I suppose.
|
| > The app was still unavailable for download from Apple's and
| Google's app stores.
|
| I guess I wonder if that's going to change specifically. They
| strike me as the two companies that would be most insane to take
| Trump at his word here.
| tokioyoyo wrote:
| It's not an insane business decision, but the easiest way to
| garner support for your preferred candidate. Anyone who is 24/7
| on TikTok (there are a lot of them) will now say how Trump
| saved the app. And kinda, technically, they're not wrong (if
| you ignore the history).
| mcintyre1994 wrote:
| Sure, but Trump will have the threat to enforce this law
| hanging over any of these companies for his entire term.
| That's a terrible position to put yourself in. I just can't
| believe any of these companies are stupid enough to trust
| him.
| dagss wrote:
| I feel like the free speech enthusiasts are missing some
| imagination and failing to see the situation we are in post-
| algorithms.
|
| By now -- people have used their free speech to make reels for
| every possibly viewpoint convincing any possible demography about
| anything. The trail of reels needed to convert a mountain biker
| to a racist, or a Lego builder to an LBTQ ally, is out there.
| Making the free speech isn't the issue in 2025.
|
| The question is: Who sees what, and whose opinions are shifted in
| what direction.
|
| The big social networks controls the algorithms. Controlling who
| sees what is the new "speak", where you directly influence
| peoples minds simply by showing the right reels at the right
| moments.
|
| We have always had propaganda and media leaning in different
| directions. But people would _know_ they are looking at Fox News
| or The Daily Show or Pravda. With TikTo... you find that people
| 's opinion change very gradually and without perception over the
| course of half a year. Never seeing "TikTok" -- only seeing
| "people like you" (which can be a function of time, and evolve)
| sharing their heartfelt opinions.
|
| Not anything blatant of course. Blatant stuff does not change
| peoples opinions anyway. Just subtly bump some reels that has
| been proven to shift a demography in a certain direction.
|
| TikTok has the means to do it -- all the data about what reels
| cause what effect on what demographic, if they just wanted to.
|
| If TikTok is doing propaganda by subtly promoting some reels over
| others -- who would know? Why would they not be doing it and how
| can anyone know they are not already doing it?
|
| I am not saying this is definitely happening. But any discussion
| that isn't treating all the social networks as weapons of mass
| propaganda that CAN be used is awfully naive.
|
| And focusing on the "speech" thing seems so misplaced. It's all
| about who is heard and seen, and that is today all about power
| and algorithms.
| lmm wrote:
| > With TikTo... you find that people's opinion change very
| gradually and without perception over the course of half a
| year. Never seeing "TikTok" -- only seeing "people like you"
| (which can be a function of time, and evolve) sharing their
| heartfelt opinions.
|
| > Not anything blatant of course. Blatant stuff does not change
| peoples opinions anyway. Just subtly bump some reels that has
| been proven to shift a demography in a certain direction.
|
| > TikTok has the means to do it -- all the data about what
| reels cause what effect on what demographic, if they just
| wanted to.
|
| > If TikTok is doing propaganda by subtly promoting some reels
| over others -- who would know? Why would they not be doing it
| and how can anyone know they are not already doing it?
|
| > I am not saying this is definitely happening. But any
| discussion that isn't treating all the social networks as
| weapons of mass propaganda that CAN be used is awfully naive.
|
| Sure. But that's something that applies to every social
| network. Do you think e.g. Instagram doesn't subtly adjust
| which videos it shows you? They openly acknowledge that they
| limit the spread of videos that they consider "hate speech",
| and of course which videos they classify as hate speech is a
| politically dependent question. Or maybe you think Zuckerberg's
| interests are more aligned with what's good for you personally
| than the CCP's?
|
| Like with your examples of Fox News or The Daily Show or
| Pravda, if I can see all the networks then I at least can
| compare and consider. Closing my eyes to one of them makes me
| worse off, especially when it's the only one that's not run by
| a handful of very similar people with very similar interests.
| dagss wrote:
| I am not sure why you think I think Instagram etc. are
| innocent. For all I care all social media could be shut down.
|
| My point was that the free speech discourse around this is
| naive. The "speech" in question is providing ammunition for
| the owners of the algorithms, who are doing the most
| important expression through how those algorithms are tuned.
|
| My point was that social media should be discussed more like
| nuclear weapons are discussed.
|
| It makes strategically sense for US to not have Chinese
| nuclear weapons/social media deployed on its soil/in the
| heads of its citizens; regardless of whether US nuclear
| weapons/social media is morally superior.
| sensanaty wrote:
| This was basically a 12 year old's plan for making Trump seem
| like a "champion" - and it somehow seems to be working, even in
| this comment section (assuming half the comments aren't just bots
| which I wouldn't discount personally).
|
| And then people in this thread apparently unironically don't see
| why banning foreign propaganda is a bad thing lol
|
| It's quite fascinating to see a nation's televised descent into
| absurd cronyism and corruption like this. You've got the prez-
| elect singlehandedly overturning laws that have just been passed
| a mere 24 hours ago, making shitcoin scams and getting rich off
| it, aligning all the psychotic techbros into his corner because
| they fear what kind of insane bullshit he's gonna pull off on
| them...
| ourmandave wrote:
| Just google Salt Typhoon, (I'll wait), and then tell me you want
| the TikTok app on 102M+ US citizens devices.
| ralfhn wrote:
| I see nothing Israel hasn't done yet we give them billions of
| dollars in aid.
| talldayo wrote:
| If China had America by the balls half as bad as Israel does,
| we'd be watching Biden and Trump take turns kissing Xi
| Jinping's feet on live television right now. It's besides the
| point and doesn't contribute to better foreign policy
| choices, just gives justification to the wrong ones.
| GordonS wrote:
| This is a valid point, and reminds me of those appalling
| scenes when Netanyahu received a standing ovation from the
| sycophantic US Congress, in the middle of his genocide of
| the Palestinian people [0]. And that scene in turn reminds
| me of old footage of Adolf Hitler being applauded by
| crowds.
|
| https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/columns/a-standing-
| ovatio...
| hooverd wrote:
| You're saying that this Chinese app has a US government
| mandated back door that the Chinese could use?
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Some 4D chess there, not sure who is playing whom at this
| point
| blogrt10 wrote:
| On the phones of Trump and Vance, according to Wikipedia. Let's
| compose a Trump tweet on the issue:
|
| "I was told that China had Salt Typhoon on my phone. I have
| always loved Salt Typhoon, it's a good thing. I talked to Elon,
| he'll fix it by merging TikTok with X paid in X shares. Let's
| focus now on making America great again."
| replwoacause wrote:
| The language surrounding this which basically heaps praise on
| Trump makes it seem like it was a condition he gave, that he must
| be given clear unambiguous credit, so he can go around saying he
| saved it, even though he was the one who signed an executive
| order in 2020 to ban it[0]. Anything to manipulate the American
| people's perception of him. It feels like we're living in Russia
| or North Korea with the stuff that goes on these days. Truly
| scary watching an oligarchy take shape realtime.
|
| [0] https://www.npr.org/2020/08/06/900019185/trump-signs-
| executi...
| eunos wrote:
| Well Dem and Biden already sealed their fate as the party that
| ban Bytedance universe (TikTok + Capcut), while Dear Leader Trump
| restored the services :).
|
| Let's see what the zoomers and millenials will say for next
| elections
| Zak wrote:
| This satisfies my curiosity about why TikTok didn't try to push
| app users to the website, which is not so easy to ban. They were
| always hoping to cozy up to Trump by offering him the opportunity
| to "save" TikTok.
|
| It's only for 90 days though, unless Trump decides to completely
| ignore his duty to enforce the law (a distinct possibility).
| bcye wrote:
| Couldn't the web version still pretty essily be enforceable via
| ISPs, etc.
| Zak wrote:
| My reading of the law does not require ISPs to block
| customers from accessing TikTok. US-based CDNs would be
| unable to provide hosting, but that just makes it less
| efficient, not inaccessible.
| xp84 wrote:
| All of this is really simple. Reasonable people know the CCP
| having full control of public opinion by having ultimate control
| of the algorithm that literally sets public opinion of everyone
| under 30... is problematic. When you consider that in a year or
| so they're going to invade Taiwan and no doubt simultaneously get
| all of Gen Z and Alpha on their side with propaganda, this is
| horrible for anyone who doesn't love dictatorships.
|
| BUT, Trump wants Gen Z to like him and that's all there is to it.
| So he's just going to come in on a white horse and "Save TikTok"
| -- handing President Xi a gift on a silver platter. Because he
| doesn't actually give a fuck about anything besides being
| popular.
| marbro wrote:
| Congratulations to Trump to standing up for freedom and against
| all 9 Supreme Court justices that refused to enforce the First
| Amendment. People should be free to speak as much as they want on
| TikTok even though it's mostly useless chatter. In the Koramatsu
| decision of 1943, legalizing concentration camps for Japanese-
| Americans, there were 3 dissenting justices. I wish we had some
| this time.
| taimurkazmi wrote:
| Gotta turn it off long enough for people to notice, but not long
| enough for people to find another platform.
| sheeshkebab wrote:
| Enjoy your CCP dripfeed while it lasts. This crap is going
| byebye.
| donohoe wrote:
| This isn't about politics, just noting the facts and the
| hypocrisy...
|
| The Trump administration (back in 2020) were the ones that set
| this in motion.
|
| "Executive Order on Addressing the Threat Posed by TikTok"
|
| August 6, 2020
|
| https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/ex...
| throwawo wrote:
| As I expected China wins no matter what
| bikamonki wrote:
| Did the US president just told a private company to go ahead and
| break the law?
| grosales wrote:
| The whole way Tiktok went black and the number of times it has
| mentioned President Trump in a positive note - to me - reinforces
| the idea that Tiktok is just a propaganda tool (in this case, for
| Trump). I would not be surprised if the whole act of going dark
| last night was because Trump told them that's how it needed to go
| so he could be a hero by Monday.
|
| The way most of our biggest companies and wealthiest are just
| lining up to do Trump's bidding is what I would expect from
| unstable 3rd world countries but never from the US (I know cause
| I came from one).
| JimmaDaRustla wrote:
| While jerking off Trump. We all know what's happening behind
| closed doors.
| Footnote7341 wrote:
| Foreign countries are already banned from owning TV stations in
| the United States so this is certainly not a speech issue. I dont
| think its clear that Trump can really save TikTok without passing
| a law through congress though.
| rapjr9 wrote:
| Large corporations blackmailing countries seems to be becoming
| more common. There was probably some of it going on throughout
| history (oil companies?, pharma?) but recently we've seen AT&T,
| Pornhub, TikTok, Google, Meta and others threaten to or actually
| stop services in areas that try to regulate them. There has been
| no legal reaction to this so far, rather companies "voluntarily"
| leave. Might we see large corporations seized in the future for
| blackmail?
| tomnipotent wrote:
| Private companies are not obligated to offer services, and in
| the US the government cannot compel private companies to do so
| (except rare circumstances). "We will stop offering services if
| X does not happen" is not coercive, it's an ultimatum.
| Companies should not be expected to operate in a market hostile
| to them.
| gmueckl wrote:
| What about privatized utilities then? What prevents e.g.
| electricity or phone companies from shutting down when they
| don't like some rules? It's a little more nuanced than "all
| or nothing".
| taberiand wrote:
| Good point. Nationalise essential services
| alephnan wrote:
| But TikTok is an entertainment, not utility, company
| loa_in_ wrote:
| Because it's endlessly profitable and very low risk to run
| a utility, the company's board is... unlikely to ever
| decide to do a stunt. For what payoff?
| kelnos wrote:
| Losing TikTok for a few hours or a day is perhaps going to
| make TikTok users more angry at the government than TikTok.
|
| Losing electricity or phone service for a day is going to
| make people more angry at the utility or phone company,
| regardless of why the shutdown has happened.
|
| And if a utility threatened to shut down service instead of
| complying with a new government regulation, you can bet the
| government would immediately jail anyone involved in that
| decision.
| golly_ned wrote:
| In cases like AT&T where they provide telecommunications
| infrastructure for much of the country, threatening a
| shutdown is coercive.
| jimkleiber wrote:
| Maybe it's time we have a global government that can have more
| power than global corporations?
| kelnos wrote:
| I'm torn on this, though, because it's not really the companies
| blackmailing the countries. It's the companies telling their
| users, "hey, your country is doing this, and if you don't want
| them to do this, make some political noise".
|
| Sure, if that message is dishonest or manipulative, that's
| dangerous, but TikTok telling their US users that they're going
| to lose access to TikTok if they don't "do something" seems
| like a pretty reasonable use of free speech.
|
| But at the same time, I don't like that companies have the
| clout to influence politics to the degree they do. But they
| have far more (and IMO often better) levers they can pull than
| what TikTok has done here, and I think those levers (campaign
| contributions, for one) are much more dangerous to democracy
| than stuff like this.
|
| (For the record, I am loosely in favor of a TikTok divestiture
| or ban, though not for the reasons touted by the US
| government.)
| karmajuney wrote:
| While it's back in the US, it seems to be a separate version from
| the rest of the world. My account is European and I can no longer
| log in within the US without a VPN out of the country. My GFs
| account is American and she can login but has lost access to some
| accounts and the ability to watch livestreams which my version of
| the app still has. I wonder if the 13 hour "outage" was for a
| larger scale data migration for a separate US version
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| If so, all the more reason to distrust and ban this product.
| They've clearly not been honest with the public.
| kshacker wrote:
| I also can not see livestreams. It says "Unstable Network
| Connection". And I have 2 separate "air gapped" phones and TT
| accounts - no shared details and both behave the same.
|
| There are lots of conspiracy theories online. However, I think
| it is just that the process of bringing the stack back up may
| be difficult. They also have a huge shopping network, that has
| also been down, and there are emails/communications to shops
| saying they are working on fixing it. Also, when I take a link
| from TikTok and post it in a downloader app, it no longer works
| since the URL is broken.
|
| Maybe some microservices did not come back up (outage), or
| maybe they were knowingly compromised as part of the extension
| deal. While I can see that Lives can not be censored, I do not
| know the reason for shopping to be disabled, so I suspect it is
| an outage.
|
| [ Actually shopping is also "live", so maybe that's why ]
|
| We will probably find out over the coming days.
| kshacker wrote:
| Today morning, lives are back, link sharing (downloads) are
| working. Have not seen shops yet in 2 minutes of scrolling
| karmajuney wrote:
| Glad lives are back, I was actually inspecting the traffic
| using my PiHole from when my GF's US tiktok was browsing
| and when my European account was attempting to connect.
| Both of them his a CDN within the US but after that it
| looks like we had traffic going to different versions.
| Her's was routing to a tiktokv.us while mine was sending
| traffic to tiktokv. I'm not sure if this has been in place
| before or if I'm just realizing now but I believe a split-
| brain scenario is pretty likely.
| oefrha wrote:
| Maybe it's intentional, maybe it's just the technical reality,
| it's a bit early to call. We on a tech site ought to know what
| a shitshow split brain scenarios can be.
| OGWhales wrote:
| > I wonder if the 13 hour "outage" was for a larger scale data
| migration for a separate US version
|
| First I've seen this theory and it makes a ton of sense in
| light of the new discrepancies between what US and non-US
| accounts can see and search for.
| ulfw wrote:
| Utterly pathetic like that whole "new" country and it's
| government.
| matt3210 wrote:
| USA politics is pretty much a joke or reality tv these days so
| anything can happen. Not a presidential crypto rug pull though,
| tHaT wIlL nEvEr HaPeN.
| alkonaut wrote:
| Where does this leave US federal privacy regulations? What can an
| app do with the data of US users?
| Synaesthesia wrote:
| That was never the issue, if it was, the US would simply force
| certain privacy legislation upon companies, like the EU did.
|
| It's about the global monopoly on tech products that the US
| has, which is obviously threatened by Chinese competitors. You
| saw the exact same thing with Huawei.
| alkonaut wrote:
| Even if you think this is about protectionism rather than
| state sponsored espionage (I don't think many would agree
| with you) your comment makes little sense. Because if you
| wanted to enforce that kind of protectionism you would still
| _do it_ under the guise of privacy or security. Meaning you
| would simply impose such laws that would make it impossible
| for TikTok to operate, while at the same time being good for
| privacy.
| Synaesthesia wrote:
| >Because if you wanted to enforce that kind of
| protectionism you would still do it under the guise of
| privacy or security. Meaning you would simply impose such
| laws that would make it impossible for TikTok to operate,
| while at the same time being good for privacy.
|
| Well that's exactly what happened. Except it's just a
| pretense that it's about security or privacy, which is a
| very easy thing to do.
| alkonaut wrote:
| So Ericsson was banned together with Huawei I take it,
| and some non-Chinese apps are being investigated similar
| to TikTok?
|
| No. This whole "it's just protectionism" doesn't hold
| water for one second. Huawei has been banned in other
| places as well, and no other companies in the telecom
| were simultaneously banned. It's just not good policy to
| build critical infrastructure using hardware from a
| Chinese company.
| ornornor wrote:
| President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho to the
| rescue!!
|
| For those who haven't seen it yet, go watch Idiocracy from Mike
| Judge. It's a preview of the years to come.
| leokennis wrote:
| Money quote from President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert
| Camacho to cement how he and Trump align on values:
|
| > _Come on, scro! Don 't be a pussy! Besides, you do a kick-ass
| job and you get a full pardon._
| simianparrot wrote:
| Remind me again who pardoned his own son.
| hansihe wrote:
| After the precedent around pardons set by his predecessor
| I'll give him that one.
|
| At least Biden let the process play out before issuing the
| pardon so the public got to know all the details.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| At least Hunter Biden won't be our Ambassador to France.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Kushner
| askl wrote:
| That's a unfair comparison towards President Dwayne Elizondo
| Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho. Didn't he give up his position in
| the end towards the more qualified main character of the movie?
| clarionbell wrote:
| After attempting to murder him first. But yes.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Arguably DJT consented to the murder of his VP, before
| cedeing power once the coup failed. So not too far off.
| red-iron-pine wrote:
| yeah but president camacho went willingly; DJT only went
| because his coup failed
| Anarch157a wrote:
| More like a documentary of the last eight.
| _heimdall wrote:
| The last two felt more like Weekend at Bernie's.
| Leires wrote:
| iT's a doCuMentArY!
|
| It's a film that was intended as a joke, and uses Eugenics as
| its premise. Yes, the Internet has made idiots louder, but it
| has also helped intelligent people become smarter. The next 4
| years will be like the last 8, minus the pandemic.
| drawkward wrote:
| >uses Eugenics as its premise
|
| Uh, false?
| lambaro wrote:
| there's an implied (if tongue-in-cheek) pro-eugenics
| message, since the premise is rooted in dysgenics being a
| real problem
| drawkward wrote:
| How you go from "smart people should reproduce more" to
| "cull the population of the unfavorable" is on you, but
| thats certainly not the conclusion _I_ would draw.
| jpadkins wrote:
| eugenics != "cull the population of the unfavorable"
|
| eugenics includes positions like "unfavorable should
| reproduce less than the favorable"
| ornornor wrote:
| There is no eugenics in that movie?
| deltaburnt wrote:
| I like the movie a lot, but the beginning is a little
| problematic from a modern viewing iirc. It discusses how
| the poor and uneducated produce more kids than the higher
| classes, thus a dumb population after many generations.
|
| Factually true about the correlation between higher
| standard of living and having fewer kids. However, that
| exact discussion has been used as a dog whistle against
| other "undesirable" groups in the past. The movie's
| beginning implies it would be better if we decide who gets
| to have kids.
|
| Overall a great movie, but I think that part has aged
| poorly.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I don't think you have to draw that specific implication.
|
| Given that the phenomenon is essentially real, what do
| you think that means?
|
| Is reality problematic?
| llamaimperative wrote:
| > Is reality problematic?
|
| Look around! I'd say so! :)
| ziddoap wrote:
| > _The next 4 years will be like the last 8, minus the
| pandemic._
|
| Yes, calls to takeover ally countries and releasing a
| presidential cryptocurrency really remind me of the last 8
| years.
| hedora wrote:
| Speaking of inscrutable nonsense that antagonizes ally
| countries: I'm still pissed off about the Canadian lumber
| tariffs.
| 3vidence wrote:
| My brain struggles to understand how people can see how
| Trump is operating and think it is "normal".
|
| What has happened to Americans??
| hedora wrote:
| Don't worry, Trump will get us another pandemic.
|
| We still haven't restored the part of the US federal
| government that stopped SARSv1 (they operated out of China
| and other countries with the cooperation of local
| authorities). Trump disbanded them before SARSv2 (aka
| COVID-19), so they weren't around to respond to it.
|
| Also, we're still funding the biological weapons research
| programs that almost certainly created COVID (according to
| documents from multiple departments in the Biden
| administration).
|
| On top of all that, RFK's trying to switch everyone to raw
| milk in the middle of a bird/cow flu pandemic. That creates a
| new disease transmission vector that'll probably help it
| cross to humans.
| odiroot wrote:
| Or way older and much more eloquent (albeit less digestible)
| "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman. Or even older
| "The Medium Is the Massage" by Marshall McLuhan.
| throwaway199956 wrote:
| Recent weeks frankly not a good show by US Judiciary.
|
| The series of Trump indictments all fizzling out, because judges
| didn't want to indict an on coming president.
|
| And on this particular matter, Supreme Court 'unsigned' opinion
| felt confused even though it is termed unanimous.
|
| At places it seemed to complain of the paucity of time/scope to
| consider all parts of the matter more seriously, and at the end
| even expressed ambivalence about what is going to happen next
| even.
|
| Frankly bit of shoddy-ness/confused signalling from Judiciary and
| Supreme Court.
|
| Perhaps it would have been better to just delay the matter by
| issuing an interim extension and reconsider the issue taking into
| account the views of the new administration.
|
| This was no urgent matter that a few days delay would have
| mattered.
| alex_young wrote:
| It's still unavailable in the Apple App Store.
| rvba wrote:
| Trumo also had thr option to kill Huawai and didnt. He stopped
| the sanctions just before the company bankrupted.
|
| Now they know to make own OS
| chrisco255 wrote:
| I suspect the U.S. will end up getting its way and TikTok will be
| divested of foreign ownership by the time this all shakes out.
| drooopy wrote:
| Have we reached the point where we use gatorade to water our
| crops yet?
| xigency wrote:
| Worse. We have plastics in our blood from drinking gatorade.
| MaxGripe wrote:
| I think apps like TikTok or YouTube Shorts literally brainwash
| people. It's one of the dumbest things ever invented on the
| Internet, yet incredibly addictive at the same time.
| zo1 wrote:
| 100% agree on this and go further; it rots their brain. We have
| to have the societal courage and guts to admit that it is
| conceptually the same as things like drugs/alcohol/smoking.
|
| Then again, we lost that battle with misogynistic, language-
| rotting, and violent rap music because we were too worried
| about being called racists, so there might not be hope we'll do
| better this time around.
| zht wrote:
| Do you think rap music has had more of an impact on society
| or democracy than TikTok or YouTube shorts or just Facebook?
| zo1 wrote:
| I'd be pulling something out of thin air, but my opinion is
| that yes so far it has. Facebook and TikTok, and other
| social media, has served as an amplification mechanism for
| various things, including rap music.
|
| But at this point, we also have a separate category of
| things that pretty much _on their own_ are having a
| negative effect on society. That would be things like
| TikTok (including Instagram Reels, and Youtube Shorts).
|
| The fact that they're not trying to come up with a new UI
| paradigm, or discovery mechanism is very telling. They keep
| focusing on semi-random swipe-directed discovery, and that
| tells me they're not interested in making the best content
| available to you as the interested-consumer. They want you
| wasting time and generating N-counts of redundant ad
| views/impressions/things before finding that one thing you
| wanted or might find interesting.
|
| Youtube is probably the best at at-least trying to not
| force you to swipe (when watching normal videos). But even
| there, we can see how much people complain about "The Feed"
| or "The Algorithm". With all of Google's money and effort,
| they couldn't (or chose not to) find a better way at
| matching viewers with good content.
| sneak wrote:
| Yes, rap music (and video games, and rock music, and comic
| books, and pinball machines) definitely ruined the world by
| rotting the childrens' brains.
|
| It wasn't the gutting of the educational system, that's far
| too simple an explanation.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Your facetious comment is essentially correct. It all comes
| down to culture and parenting. The 'gutted' education
| system where I live spends 25k per student, which doesn't
| matter if kids never read a book.
| uniq7 wrote:
| Never had TikTok, but that's exactly what I thought when
| Youtube introduced Shorts and I found myself spending long
| sessions in them.
|
| However, now I think it's the same infinite scroll we already
| had in twitter and reddit -- but instead of text and images,
| now it's just videos.
|
| At the beginning the content was really dumb and bad, but after
| some time it became way better. Now my feed is basically
| cooking recipes, chemistry experiments, interesting physics
| facts, bits from my favorite comedians, etc. Maybe Youtube
| learned my tastes, or maybe the content creators learned how to
| exploit better the platform. Either way I'd say I'm happy with
| the result now.
|
| I still think some people are getting brainwashed by certain
| content, but in the same way as they were getting brainwashed
| in twitter and reddit.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| Even if it is recipes and chemistry it's the format that's
| the issue, it still fries your dopamine and lowers your
| attention span.
| yosame wrote:
| I don't think it's any worse than any other form of media
| (like reading comments on hacker news instead of reading
| the article)
| zht wrote:
| It is much worse lol
|
| Videos cram so much stimulation over such a short period
| of time
|
| Text you still have to read
| ethbr1 wrote:
| Or, to spin it around -- given a standard, naive
| population, why are video platforms so much more
| successful than text ones?
|
| Hypothesis: video is more addiction, regardless of
| content
| JohnMakin wrote:
| Except I can read much faster than a video can convey
| information to me, almost always - I suspect the
| popularity of video to deliver information at least in
| some part stems from declining literacy. Whenever I have
| to watch a poor reader read something, I am honestly
| amazed they can function at all.
| tartuffe78 wrote:
| Have you used it?
| sebastiennight wrote:
| We might not use HN the same way then...
|
| I frequently give up on reading a thread midway down the
| page because it's requiring *too much focus*, and, get
| this, I might even interrupt my break and just go back to
| work early instead!
|
| I don't think that would ever happen on a neverending
| infinite scroll of hyperengaging video.
| schwartzworld wrote:
| Some of it is that for sure. But you could also make the
| counter argument about long form content. It doesn't take
| 20 minutes to explain how to make a cake.
| paulddraper wrote:
| It doesn't take 30 seconds either.
| schwartzworld wrote:
| TikTok has been pushing longer form content for a while.
| 60-90 seconds is plenty for a recipe
| mr_world wrote:
| That is exactly what TikTok does, they are more popular
| because their tastes algorithm is even better than Shorts for
| figuring out what you actually want to watch
| svara wrote:
| This type of comment comes up here a lot, but maybe you
| should show us what exactly you mean?
|
| Because at least for physics and chemistry, those are topics
| where, in my experience, you need deep, sustained engagement
| to make any personal progress on them.
|
| Sure, you can probably learn a few fun facts through TikTok
| but really what's the point?
|
| There are only 24 hours in a day. The hours you spend
| doomscrolling through - in the best case - fun facts about
| physics and chemistry are hours you spend not doing anything
| of value, like learning about actual physics or chemistry.
|
| I get that you don't need to be doing something super
| productive all the time, what I'm saying is that I think
| you're fooling yourself if you believe that TikTok and co.
| are anything more than the shallowest form of entertainment
| available.
| Pigalowda wrote:
| I remember lots of things! Like Nile burning some random
| thing. Or that British physicist talking to the British
| shit poster lady.
|
| I think you might have a point..
| sp_c wrote:
| I chuckled at your reply, because there is truth to it.
| But in all honesty I did learn proper running form from
| TikTok.
| Pigalowda wrote:
| I also did from some American Olympic athlete. I still
| don't go running though.
| portaouflop wrote:
| Can you provide a ranking of entertainment from most "deep"
| to most shallow please since you seem to be an expert on
| what entertainment is OK to consume?
| svara wrote:
| I'm not, but I do know you'll be on the safe side if you
| go read a book that challenges you! :)
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Do you agree that differences exist and some things can
| be better for mental and personal growth than others?
| mistermann wrote:
| An interesting difference between physics and metaphysics
| is that in physics people tend to think fact checking their
| claims is important.
| sebastiennight wrote:
| Until recently, both meta and physics thought that fact-
| checking claims was important.
| mistermann wrote:
| I think physics folks are still mostly top notch when it
| comes to physics, but for metaphysics they fail like
| everyone else of course.
| whazor wrote:
| For me, in reddit (and hacker news), I tend to actually read
| the actual video, read the comments, sometimes even leave a
| comment. Much more time spent on an actual item.
|
| For short videos, it is a continuous stream of video's where
| a new video is automatically started after the last one. This
| is what makes shorts so horrible. You are forced to watch a
| new video every 15s to 1 min. Versus actively deciding
| yourself how long you look on a particular item. It becomes
| bad as your brain gets trained to loose interest after 1min.
| mattgreenrocks wrote:
| I'm so tired of the Internet turning into the Internet of
| Faces. I feel like I see faces plastered all over the
| Internet now, eager to take only ten minutes to explain one
| minute of information to me.
| deltaburnt wrote:
| Probably not a coincidence that the Internet became a lot
| less nerdy and cool around the time HD streaming was
| viable. Modern social media shows that people want the
| next evolution of TV not books.
| 2024user wrote:
| Don't download titkok. It's like Shorts but works a lot
| better.
|
| Both are like using slot machines but on tiktok you win
| (dopamine hit) more often - or at whatever rate the house
| wants you to.
| htaunay wrote:
| its like how 30 years ago when people would numblessly flip
| through hundreds of cable channels for hours, but with endless
| tailored content and extra dopamine shots on top from social
| feedback
|
| its very telling how, while youtube (classic) also has these
| same ingredients, the ux of looking through a menu is far less
| addicting than the slot machine mechanism from swiping up
| red-iron-pine wrote:
| yeah but cable was limited by channels and by producers. now
| anyone can make a video and it's possible to tailor that to
| tiny niches that would have never been served by cable.
| fqye wrote:
| I can't believe how ignorant some people could be.
|
| It is so easy to find reports and evidence of how Tiktok could
| be of great value to people.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/16/dining/tiktok-ban-cooking...
|
| https://www.today.com/popculture/books/what-is-booktok-meani...
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-67555175
| z3c0 wrote:
| Not that I really care enough to ban TikTok, but the value
| demonstrated here is pretty spurious. You could swap "TikTok"
| with "socializing", and I'm sure these people would've had
| similar outcomes.
| mandmandam wrote:
| Socializing is indeed of great value to people; not at all
| spurious. You're helping prove OP's point.
|
| And OP didn't even mention all the small businesses that
| took off due to TikTok giving them an avenue. This notion
| that people have to dismiss TikTok as merely mindless
| dopamine is really just wilful ignorance.
| z3c0 wrote:
| My point is that none of this is truly dependent on the
| existence of TikTok, which OP does not be seeming to be
| arguing, even slightly. The internet is a revolving door
| of gathering spaces that enable people to do nice things
| for each other. People can do nice things for each other
| anywhere, even when surrounded by the digital equivalent
| of two-way mirrors.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Citizens have a right to assemble and speak to each other.
| Foreign corporations don't have a right to own the feeds of
| huge swaths of the population. Hence the rules around
| newspaper and TV ownership.
| mailund wrote:
| Having some amount of utility doesn't contradict it possibly
| being used for nefarious purposes by it's owners though. If I
| intentionally wanted to design an information warfare weapon,
| I'd make sure to sugarcoat it with interesting/funny/useful
| content to make it palatable. Just like putting the soldiers
| inside a giant wooden horse.
| zht wrote:
| AR-15s can be used for hunting but it doesn't mean it is
| always used for good
| ffqqyyee wrote:
| > I can't believe how ignorant some people could be.
|
| Wow, it goes deeeeeeep.
| JoshTko wrote:
| It's a slot machine, a scroll is an arm pull. Sometimes you get
| a brain tickle and you keep on scrolling to get more. I'd bet
| money that the brain activity is exactly the same.
| mistermann wrote:
| Do you think forums like the one you are on right now do not?
| ziddoap wrote:
| Do you think there might be some variation in the degree of
| negative effects a forum like Hacker News has compared to
| TikTok/YT shorts?
| mistermann wrote:
| I do, but this is not contrary to my point.
| tester457 wrote:
| No, because reading is more healthy than mindlessly watching
| short videos. There is only so much content on the front
| page, it's not a slot machine you can pull for hours like
| tiktok.
| sebastiennight wrote:
| Give it a few months until somebody rigs an open-source
| video generation model to generate a "Short" from any
| frontpage article, and then several "reaction videos" based
| on the top comments... and maybe a frontend UI that turns
| the frontpage into an infinite scroll of those Shorts...
| and bam, HackerReels will be born
| mistermann wrote:
| Do you _truly_ believe _zero_ brainwashing takes place
| here?
|
| Out of curiosity, how deeply have you considered the
| question? And, might that depth not be a function of the
| norms in the forum?
| cheald wrote:
| We're the product of all the information we consume, but
| forums like HN aren't custom-tailoring what I'm shown to
| maximize engagement from me.
| toyetic wrote:
| Does anyone know what the actual bill that got signed was. All I
| can find is a bill that was passed by the house but stuck in the
| senate
| throwaway287391 wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protecting_Americans_from_Fore...
|
| It passed in the House 352-65, and in the Senate 79-18, both in
| April 2024.
| alfiedotwtf wrote:
| The US-shilling in this thread is unbelievable. It's almost as if
| half of these people have never heard of who Snowden was and
| don't believe the US has ever spied on foreign nationals
| :headslap;
| openplatypus wrote:
| So America really is for sale, and there are no exceptions.
| HumblyTossed wrote:
| Trump is definitely for sale.
| HumblyTossed wrote:
| After they pumped $20B into Trump's meme coin.
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| Everyone using the bipartisan consensus after classified
| briefings as evidence why the ban is a good idea is too young to
| remember 2003.
| user3939382 wrote:
| "The word bipartisan usually means some larger-than-usual
| deception is being carried out." -- George Carlin
| theshrike79 wrote:
| There's anecdotal evidence that something funky is going on in
| the background. More so than usual.
|
| A handful of very prominent creators critical of the US (or
| other) governments have had their accounts just disappear. The
| algorithm is also showing decidedly different type of content.
| myko wrote:
| This is just the beginning. Not sure America will survive
| another 4+ years of this clown.
| user3939382 wrote:
| "America won't survive this presidency! If you don't vote in
| this election you won't get the chance to vote again!"
|
| Been hearing that shit since I started paying close attention
| to presidential races with the first run of Bush in 2000.
| talldayo wrote:
| I quite dislike the hysterical rhetoric too. That being
| said, I get why people ascribe it to Donald Trump. I will
| never forget turning on the TV on Janurary 6th to see the
| President of the United States inciting a riot on
| government property that had already killed multiple
| people.
|
| This is going to be a pretty miserable administration and I
| expect a complete reprieve of the "stop the steal" bitching
| and moaning that we sat through the first time around.
| squigz wrote:
| What accounts?
| yurlungur wrote:
| Ha, I guess Trump is the pro business president after all since
| he's so transparently open for business himself. At least as of
| now it seems Bytedance outsmarted the detractors.
| yalogin wrote:
| The US presidency fully devolved into a mafia this time around,
| no more mincing words or operating behind the scenes. Just like a
| mafia don demands, all fealty should be in public and fully
| subservient, no half measures.
|
| Till now, commenting or criticizing someone was fair game, not
| anymore. Musk and trump have shown they can petty and vindictive.
| So no more commenting in public too. Not sure what this does to
| the press. Over time people will be trained to think free press
| is bad too.
| Thorrez wrote:
| >Till now, commenting or criticizing someone was fair game, not
| anymore. Musk and trump have shown they can petty and
| vindictive.
|
| Tons of people criticize both of them. In fact, both Musk and
| Trump have publicly criticized each other, and have now made
| up.
| bgun wrote:
| Republicans have learned to weaponize attention far better
| than Democrats. Negative attention is still attention, and
| where Democrats shrink from "gaffes" or criticism,
| Republicans just recognize that public criticism is still a
| form of attention. Even among each other. Whoever gets the
| most eyeballs, top stories, and headlines for longest wins
| this game.
|
| Vicious, vindictive, petty, nonsensical, random, and trolling
| tactics are all strategically useful in this media landscape.
| outside1234 wrote:
| Republicans have the benefit of not having guilt around
| saying things that are patently not true while the
| Democrats are still trying to act within norms.
|
| It is asymmetrical warfare on the truth.
| cooper_ganglia wrote:
| It astounds me that anyone is capable of sincerely
| believing this.
| varsketiz wrote:
| Why? I think it's a very reasonable take. Democrats dont
| go around talking about people eating dogs.
| rayiner wrote:
| Republicans don't go around saying a President in obvious
| mental decline is "sharp as a tack."
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHE3jnOAR80
|
| Democrats literally just lost an election because of
| their tremendous ability to lie to themselves: Biden
| isn't incapacitated; selecting candidates based on
| race/gender doesn't compromise on quality; immigration
| has no drawbacks; etc.
| bayarearefugee wrote:
| And yet you fail to make any logical refutation of it.
| cooper_ganglia wrote:
| You cannot reason someone out of a position they haven't
| reasoned themselves into.
|
| Politicians lie, constantly. All of them. Yes, even the
| ones you like. Saying Republicans lie and Democrats don't
| is practically self-propagandizing, convincing oneself of
| something they'd prefer to be true.
|
| ALL politicians are equal-opportunity liars: if there's
| an opportunity, they will lie. Sometimes for power,
| sometimes for money, sometimes because they owe a favor.
| It's a big club, and we aren't in it.
| ben_w wrote:
| > Politicians lie, constantly. All of them. Yes, even the
| ones you like. Saying Republicans lie and Democrats don't
| is practically self-propagandizing, convincing oneself of
| something they'd prefer to be true.
|
| > ALL politicians are equal-opportunity liars: if there's
| an opportunity, they will lie. Sometimes for power,
| sometimes for money, sometimes because they owe a favor.
| It's a big club, and we aren't in it.
|
| If you genuinely believe this, how do you determine which
| way to vote?
|
| It's not like you can call a particular set of
| politicians (country or party) pathological liars and
| then take seriously election promises from any member of
| that set.
| cooper_ganglia wrote:
| I vote for those who lie to me the most convincingly
| about having my family's best interest at heart, and who
| claim to have goals for the country that align with my
| values.
|
| That's about the best any of us can do.
| ben_w wrote:
| Well, it's coherent I guess. But you are just selecting
| for being convincing. Why not try to decide what you
| think each candidate will actually do, rather than caring
| about what they say, when you describe their lack of
| honesty in terms I would reserve for just the worst of
| them?
|
| (Considering where I grew up, "the worst of them" would
| mainly be Boris Johnson: even if I don't like many of the
| other better-known UK politicians, they at least seem to
| say things that reflect their actual value systems,
| whereas Johnson...
| https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-qa-
| what-di...).
| outside1234 wrote:
| I will add that the media infrastructure around the
| Republicans have also managed to convince most of their
| viewers that "up is down" in a way that I would not have
| believed possible (but should have from reading many
| books about the Third Reich etc.)
| rayiner wrote:
| It's a response to the fact that democrats can create
| widespread misperceptions through their control of
| traditional media. For example, in 2018, 66% of Democrats
| believed that "Russia tampered with vote tallies to get
| Donald Trump elected President."
| https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/20383-russias-
| imp.... Hillary Clinton never went out and said quite that.
| But the barrage of coverage from all angles in the media
| created the same impression as if she had said that.
|
| In another example: how many people know that, after the
| 2000 election, the Supreme Court found 7-2 that Al Gore's
| proposed recount strategy was unconstitutional? Nobody
| knows that Al Gore had employed a strategy of hand-counting
| ballots only in counties he had won to find more countable
| votes that would swing disproportionately in his favor.[1]
| The media completely blacked that out, and everyone now
| only remembers the 5-4 part of the decision addressing _how
| to fix_ that constitutional violation. There 's more people
| under the misimpression that Kathleen Harris or Jeb fixed
| the election in Bush's favor than understand the sneaky
| maneuvering by Gore that precipitated the whole mess.
|
| [1] _E.g._ if Gore won a county 2:1, then statistically,
| every vote rejected by the machine that could be hand
| counted would be twice as likely to be a Gore vote than a
| Bush vote. Gore found a loophole in Florida election law
| that allowed him to use that principle to find more votes
| in his favor by seeking hand recounts only in two large
| counties he had won.
| nuancebydefault wrote:
| Another example of whataboutism, this time about a guy
| who ran for presidency many many years ago. He's the one
| who gave attention to this now obvious unconvenient
| truth. Back then they criticized the energy use of his
| house, which still compares very pale against the
| consequences of this, still swept under the carpet today,
| inconvenient truth.
| rayiner wrote:
| MAGA didn't happen in a vacuum. Two republican presidents
| have been elected in the 21st century, and after both of
| their first elections, the media fostered widespread
| misperception of the legitimacy of their wins through
| selective reporting of the truth. For people coming into
| the leadership of the GOP now, folks in their 40s and 50s
| like Vance and Johnson, remember the 2000 election very
| well, but not the Walter Cronkite era when the media was
| more even-handed. That inevitably shapes their own
| approach to communication.
| zugi wrote:
| Undermining the legitimacy of the new President to try to
| diminish his power seems common lately, e.g.:
|
| - Clinton only won because Ross Perot siphoned votes
| away.
|
| - Bush didn't win, the Supreme Court handed him the
| Presidency.
|
| - Obama isn't American.
|
| - Trump was only elected thanks to Russian interference.
|
| - Biden didn't win, the election was stolen.
|
| It's a tactic that gets used because it seems to work, at
| least in terms of rallying one's own troops.
| roboror wrote:
| Correct, but now there will be not even a semblance of
| bipartisanship. It's not even enough to be a member of the
| same party, you must pledge full unwavering loyalty and never
| criticize the administration or face the consequences of
| being ostracized, attacked, power revoked, and prosecuted by
| a weaponized DOJ. The media, both social and legacy, are
| fully on board now too, the gloves are off.
|
| Also, you can now commit crimes and then pledge loyalty in
| exchange for a pardon. See Eric Adams.
| Thorrez wrote:
| >you must [...] never criticize the administration or face
| the consequences of being ostracized, attacked, power
| revoked, and prosecuted by a weaponized DOJ.
|
| It's not "never". JD Vance published a book criticizing
| Trump, and still got picked as VP.
| rayiner wrote:
| By contrast, Tulsi Gabbard--who was the vice-chair of the
| DNC at the time--was run out of the party and tarred as a
| foreign asset for opposing Hillary Clinton and her desire
| to start a war in Syria.
| ARandomerDude wrote:
| You're very late to the party.
|
| https://oversight.house.gov/the-bidens-influence-peddling-ti...
| danlivingston wrote:
| How is this at all related to what the person was saying?
| They made no mention of financial corruption. They're
| explicitly talking about speech and press.
| cooper_ganglia wrote:
| Money, speech, press... The mafia has many avenues of
| control...
| red-iron-pine wrote:
| additionally, wasn't the "whistleblower" who made many claims
| about Hunter Biden's laptop found to be blatantly fraudulent?
| dude was later convicted for making false statements.
|
| IIRC the Romanian and Kazakstan ones were also heavily thrown
| into doubt.
|
| whole thing reads like whataboutism
| quickslowdown wrote:
| That's exactly what it is. The people breathlessly
| compiling a list of "what abouts" for this type of
| corruption need to look past their nose. 2 things can be
| fucked up at the same time, and one of those things being
| fucked up isn't an excuse for the other thing to continue
| being fucked up.
|
| Also, when one of those "what abouts" is verifiably false,
| as in the case of the guy who made claims about Hunter's
| laptop, it's completely meaningless. Those people are
| comparing to something that doesn't even exist.
|
| It's a stupid, losing game that way too many people want to
| play.
| quickslowdown wrote:
| At the risk of "what about"-ing, this list is laughably small
| compared to the Trump's bribe docket.
|
| Neither of these are acceptable, a president and their
| associates should not be able to personally enrich themselves
| from the office. I know this disclaimer won't matter to
| someone who just really wants to argue, but this does
| absolutely nothing to move the needle for me. Pointing to
| someone else's corruption to excuse Trump's corruption is
| just a losing battle, you will never convince me to care
| about one when the other is just allowed to fly.
| jayd16 wrote:
| Comparing Hunter Bidens sale of his name to the Trump
| organization as if it's the same is so laughable.
|
| How many pump and dump crypto scams is Joe up to? "Media"
| company stock sell offs? Hotels he puts government employees
| in so he can charge their stay?
| jmull wrote:
| I think it's pretty clear Hunter Biden has been sleazily
| profiting from the position of his father.
|
| What's missing is Joe Biden's involvement.
|
| If your politics are against Joe Biden, I guess you can just
| kind of imagine that he must have participated.
|
| IMO, we should find corruption in politicians flat
| unacceptable, even if -- especially if -- they are on our own
| "side".
|
| You _may_ want to become concerned when the president can
| unilaterally contravene laws passed by congress and validated
| by the Supreme Court.
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| > You may want to become concerned when the president can
| unilaterally contravene laws passed by congress and
| validated by the Supreme Court.
|
| It seems prudent to say given this seems to the prevailing
| narrative: this did not happen. The law is still in effect
| and Tiktok is still banned[0]. The service shutdown that
| many experienced yesterday was one Tiktok performed
| voluntarily, presumably in protest of the ban. Tiktok's
| decision to restore the service was one they could have
| made at any point after the shutdown, regardless of any
| statements made by the then-President-Elect.
|
| 0: If you don't believe me, uninstall it from your phone
| and re-download it. ;)
| Dig1t wrote:
| Trump said yesterday in his speech that they want a model where
| the US owns 50% of Tik Tok and has some oversight.
|
| This is pretty much the exact same setup that US companies get
| in China. This seems like a pretty decent compromise actually.
| Free speech advocates win because people still get to use the
| service, but national security folks also get a win because
| they can monitor its use by a foreign government and shut
| things down if it's being used maliciously.
| jayd16 wrote:
| I don't want to live in blue China, especially when the
| oversight is the Trump administration.
|
| I wouldn't call required government control a free speech
| win.
| Dig1t wrote:
| I mean it's a compromise, usually both sides are unhappy
| when a compromise is made haha.
|
| There are real concerns that the CCP could use it as a tool
| to manipulate and spy on the American people. There's a
| good reason why Tik Tok is being banned in many countries
| around the world. Also a good reason why China bans and
| tightly controls American social media companies in their
| country.
|
| But if we agree to compromise, we can ideally find a
| balance where the average American is best served.
| jayd16 wrote:
| If the we earnestly believe that why would we need
| ownership and exclude most other corporations? Why aren't
| we pushing for FEC like oversight?
|
| Seems to me that this strategy is as best not earnest and
| at worst only serves those in power.
| Dig1t wrote:
| Well I think people at the top consider China to be
| special, same thing happened with the sale of Grindr to a
| Chinese company. That was stopped by the US government
| because it could easily be used by the CCP to do bad
| things like blackmail Americans.
|
| I do believe that both sides of the political spectrum
| agree that there is a special threat posed by Chinese
| involvement in American social media. This TikTok ban was
| pushed forward by both sides of the aisle and has had
| support from people in both administrations.
|
| Social media in general is ofc toxic and terrible for all
| kinds of other reasons, but WRT national security TikTok
| is so huge now that it's getting special treatment.
| riversflow wrote:
| > This is pretty much the exact same setup that US companies
| get in China.
|
| I mean, no? Meta, Google, X, Snap and American social
| networks in general are banned in China.
| Dig1t wrote:
| It is the setup for all companies which are not banned in
| China lol
| riversflow wrote:
| Companies are not fungible in the eyes of a nation.
| rayiner wrote:
| This is just a publicity stunt to capitalize on his popularity
| among Gen Z: https://www.newsweek.com/young-people-most-
| optimisitc-about-.... Trump is simply picking up the ball Biden
| fumbled.
| jwarden wrote:
| The US president is not all-powerful. If he was, Trump would
| not have been forced to hand over power to Biden in 2020.
|
| Certainly he is petty and vindictive. But there have always
| been petty and vindictive people in power, and people that were
| too scared of them to speak their mind. But there have always
| been those who still dare to criticize people in power.
| thiht wrote:
| > Trump would not have been forced to hand over power
|
| Can you re-read your sentence and ask yourself if this is a
| normal thing to say in a working democracy? That this is even
| on the table means Trump IS a dictator. He was just too dumb
| to know how to make it work in 2020. From a non American
| lens, it actually looks like you handed power to a dictator
| because he won "fair and square" this time. I have trouble
| believing the US will have another genuine vote in my
| lifetime.
| blueprint wrote:
| even if someone wishes they were a dictator of the USA
| doesn't mean that they are
| iamtedd wrote:
| It does mean he will behave dictatorially, and make
| dictatorial decisions as president as far as the system
| will allow. Previous experience (his last presidency)
| shows he will take every opportunity, and has a lot of
| leeway in your "democratic" system.
| thiht wrote:
| Surprisingly it doesn't take a lot more when the
| political opponents don't do shit (Biden x Garland,
| anyone?) or when the people either actively supports
| dictature or decides not to vote for... reasons.
| lenerdenator wrote:
| It's so awesome to see the executive branch, in a move for clout,
| decide to ignore a law passed by bipartisan action in Congress,
| almost by dictorial fiat.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-01-20 23:03 UTC)