ByteDance asks federal apeals court to vacate US order forcing it to sell TikTok
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
The power was vested first by executive order, then codified by legislation in the 80s, and was updated in 2006 and 2018.
1. Issued by Trump on August 6, which uses the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-or...
This executive order was stopped by a preliminary injunction issued by Judge Nichols, who based his decision on an explicit exception in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act:
"
(b)Exceptions to grant of authority
The authority granted to the President by this section does not include the authority to regulate or prohibit, directly or indirectly—
(1) any postal, telegraphic, telephonic, or other personal communication, which does not involve a transfer of anything of value;
…
(3) the importation from any country, or the exportation to any country, whether commercial or otherwise, regardless of format or medium of transmission, of any information or informational materials, including but not limited to, publications, films, posters, phonograph records, photographs, microfilms, microfiche, tapes, compact disks, CD ROMs, artworks, and news wire feeds. The exports exempted from regulation or prohibition by this paragraph do not include those which are otherwise controlled for export under section 4604 of this title, or under section 4605 of this title to the extent that such controls promote the nonproliferation or antiterrorism policies of the United States, or with respect to which acts are prohibited by chapter 37 of title 18; ...
2.
An executive order by Trump based on CIFUS, which is forcing a divestment of TikTok's acquisition of Musical.ly (whose founders are Chinese but operated the company in the US). If not, the order would bar TikTok from operating in the US.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/order-regard...
The part of the order that would bar TikTok from operating in the US was halted by an injuction by Judge Wendy Beetlestone. Although she did not opine on the divestiture.
Grindr got sold off by the same reasoning and no one complained because it’s a legitimate concern.
I will not pretend that we will look back on the TikTok debate and be appalled by it in the same degree but let's not forget that we considered internment camps to be "debatable" and Americans overwhelmingly supported them [0]. What we call "plausible, if debatable" now is not what future-us will necessarily call it. I think the original commenter was simply pointing out the extremes of the "power" behind using "national security" as justification.
[0] https://exhibitions.ushmm.org/americans-and-the-holocaust/ma...
Is protectionism really a bad thing, especially if it's in retaliation to chinese protectionism?
Tit-for-tat protectionism is also known as a trade war, which is also generally considered to be negative for both parties.
It is, but if you fail to retaliate you're basically advertising to other countries that they can impose protectionist measures, which benefit them and harm you. Did EU/Canada get flak for imposing retaliatory tariffs in response to trump's tarrifs?
So we just let China copy our tech and sell it to us cheaper?
What happens to our workforce and salaries? The same thing that happened to factory workers?
I'm even more worried about their lack of free speech, rigid punishment/enforcement, and Orwellian tracking/social credit. We don't want those things here. But showing that they win makes it more likely to become pervasive.
Edit: Downvotes on everything critical of China.
Ideally, people could work less and have the same standard of living, which is easier if things are cheaper.
If I was an evil wealthy person interested in perpetuating my position through controlling people, but slavery was outlawed, I'd design a system where work is overvalued so people will be too tired to participate in civic life.
Economists are short-sighted there. Yes, economically, speaking in general protectionism is more harmful than not.
But things like selling essential companies, infrastructure or have foreign and possible hostile players in critical positions is risky.
Protectionism works depending where your POV is from.
The president might not have the authority to force a sale, but he does have the authority to impose tariffs and maybe even ban it outright (embargos/quotas). At the end of the day the results are the same: you can either sell your US operations to a US company, or we can destroy your US market share by imposing tariffs and/or banning your product.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkHdq_2EUk4
He talks more about it in the series, Free to Choose. I forget which video he does so, but all videos are fantastic.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcm84hKEpyZQfhxhVFB8r...
I would argue that, given their history, removing the opportunity of the CCP to make a political play is a valid security concern.
Banning TikTok was only a "heavily political play" because there are strong political forces in place preventing any action from being taken against China. Anything which is able to overcome those forces is bound to be "heavily political". That doesn't necessarily mean the action was the wrong thing to do.
If that's the real reason, well enough. But I am somewhat skeptical that it is. I'm also not sure that the President's power ought to extend to hypothetical, remote concerns like this -- we'll have to see what the courts say.
The security rationalization had existed for a long time already, but only when the political rationalization came into the picture as well was it possible to actually make a move. Does that mean the move was wrong or unjustified?
> I'm also not sure that the President's power ought to extend to hypothetical, remote concerns like this -- we'll have to see what the courts say.
I'm not sure it does. Like you say this is currently being challenged in the courts and TikTok is online right now in the US. The legal process is working, although it was initiated in a messy way in this case.
It depends on the strength of the various components in the making of the decision, I guess. Again, if the main reason was political or economic, and the presence of the security reason is a fig leaf, then that's not so good.
It is as simple as Trump, personally, saw a TV pundit at 6am that said TikTok was bad and the president should do something about it.
Did someone at Facebook PR plant that story in the pundit's program, which is for sale? Sure. I don't know, who do you think gives a single fuck about giant companies fucking each other? Not a single normal person.
What will courts say? The matters could all be resolved in 10 minutes. They're just going to say that if there's a problem, it's with the way the order is written - Trump could issue another order. They articulate no legal problem with the order, because there is no legal problem with the order.
Truthfully, the court's resolution of the matter is the least interesting part here.
The president's power is being used to affect a corporate acquisition. You can go have a debate about mercantilism, it's settled. Nothing of substance to normal people will change because 100% of the spending inside social media apps is surplus, they could disappear tomorrow and absolutely nothing of value would be lost. People would just buy ad inventory elsewhere, as they always had for all of history.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/biggest-social-media-operation-y...
Forbes even ridiculed the idea completely 2 years ago https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2017/09/22/these-two-...
Was this intended to be directed at the CCP? It seems to apply to the US Republican Party to some extent as well [1].
Not sure if the security concerns of a presidential campaign would necessarily extend to banning the app for all contexts in the country, even those where security impinges less.
The equivalent is when the world pushed for peace with hitler before ww2. Even after his many aggressions. Many historians ponder the what if scenario if the world pushed back on day 1, would we of still had ww2
Biden should, as any sensible leader (and we are severely lacking those), ponder pros and cons, and move his pieces accordingly. This immovable attitude you suggest is nothing but extremism, and it doesn't end well.
The way to combat the CCP is to avoid even giving an inch. It worked in the Cold War and will work today.
Every country with the clout to do that does it, and the other countries know it. You speak of the CCP like they're evil bastards waiting to leap at your throat, but in reality USA and China have a lot in common, at least in world politics.
Some Latin American countries tried to avoid giving even an inch to USA, and it didn't end well. China has done the same in Asia. USA-China rivalry is not about good and bad, it's more akin to thugs invading each other's turfs.
If you like the salary you make today, then think about what happens when China's enormous supply of engineers working "996" gets access to the Western market. When their tech companies supplant our own.
We need to put in place immediate plans to shift manufacturing to Vietnam, India, Mexico, and Africa. We should duplicate the Belt initiative, but make partner nations our allies. Have them buy into our sphere of influence rather than be indebted to China forever.
We need to strengthen our allies and make this move to wean ourselves off of China together.
We have so many levers at our advantage. China has to import food and energy. Trade is still denominated in USD. And they've been horrible to other nations. It won't be hard to stop their rise and replace it with our own growth if we work together with our allies.
Edit: I realize there's a huge international audience here, but imagine saying these things in Shanghai. Or compare saying bad things about Xi and Trump. The West has to win. If China were free and democratic, I'd change my attitude in a second and maybe even consider moving there.
I also realize the West has a whole host of problems of its own: racial inequality, widening economic prosperity gap, etc. But I do believe our democratic model is vastly superior to one that criminalizes thought.
Edit: I'm sitting at -2 now, but upvotes keep pushing me back up. I expect once this falls off the front page that I'll wind up with a positive score. This always happens with my negative comments on China. No detractions or conversation, only downvotes. I think this is due to the diverse international audience. I really wish someone with the opposite perspective would chime in.
About 'working together with our allies'... Some will argue the 'West' has developed a somewhat abusive relationship with a lot of the world over the last two hundred years. It's not surprising some would look favourably to a competitor, if only to take advantage of that competition to make a better deal for themselves.
Finally, if other parts of the world develop a more advanced IT industry instead of China, how does that preserve Western developers salaries? Are the Chinese uniquely inclined to work long hours for low salaries? Or are you implying that the 'West' would need to prevent nations under 'our sphere of influence' to develop an IT industry so developers in the 'West' can continue to receive their current salaries?
Let's be more critical.
It's shocking to try to put any positive spin on this.
Yes, the West has done bad. But this is state-sponsored genocide.
I'm not.
I'm saying "What the Chinese have done to the Uyghur is bad" is a perfectly fine statement. I object to stuff like "stop whining about conditions in ICE detention when there's stuff like the Uyghur genocide happening". It's generally done in bad faith.
I wasn't doing that, and I explicitly called that point out. I don't think the OP was trying to shift blame either.
I also think the incoming administration will do a lot to fix it. I don't see any change in China's Uyghur strategy without strong international posturing.
But then we've got TikTok, which some American lefties are using to exercise their free speech. The ticket-buying campaign around Trump's rally in Tulsa really seemed to ignite Trump's ire. Is this about the atrocities, is it about national security, or is it about Trump's ego? I can get behind the first, I'm weary about the second, and cannot tolerate the third.
All the information on this comes from just a few American sources