TikTok is now banned in Montana
theverge.com
theverge.com
Here are the takeaways:
* It'd be easy for Apple and Google to prevent downloads of TikTok for most users, which would also include app updates, as they have a significant amount of knowledge of users' locations and could prevent most users in Montana -- even those using a VPN -- from downloading the app or updating it.
* It'd be very difficult for Montana to enforce the other piece of the TikTok ban -- if "entity" in the bill means any company, they're stuck: the state has little ability to prevent side-loading of apps on Android and users who want TikTok can access app repositories hosted out of state. There's virtually no way for ISPs inside Montana to surveil all user usage to find out if they're trying to download TikTok from a third-party repository, and even if they could there would be legal issues with the state mandating this.
Fundamentally, this makes user privacy and security much worse.
* Apple, Google, and ByteDance could be aggressive and use the data they have -- all three have GPS data for most or all relevant users here (i.e. TikTok users on an iPhone or Android) -- and block requests to download or use TikTok from within Montana. And they probably will, unless they get a court to block the bill.
The one thing the bill banning TikTok doesn't do is the one thing that is desperately needed: actually protect user privacy, by banning the collection, aggregation, sale, and use of fine-grained user data -- by ByteDance, Meta, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, or any other.
90%+ users are never going to use apks. If this ban kills the network effect (the R0 of the viral infection), then the last 10% aren't going to last long either.
As long as the overall platform is popular, it won't be surprising to see a lot of kids showing each other how to sideload.
You can order a nicotine vape online in most states and the only required ID is "confirming" that you are over 18. Doesn't detract from your main point.
I'd wager that if TikTok got banned in the US and Apple did not immediately follow with allowing sideloading, iPhone would quickly lose its status value in the teenage demographics. After all, status matters most when comparing equivalent goods - it's what justifies spending more for the same thing. In the scenario above, iPhone would immediately become painfully inferior to Android phones, along the dimension that matters a lot for the teenage cohort.
Bluesky is cool now because it's a gated community of privileged connected people, not because it's inherently better than Twitter.
countries who engage in these bans have conditioned many non-tech people to learn to use vpns and other tools
"sideloading" is the norm on desktop too, btw, and always has been
Fortnite was excised from the Play Store a while ago; how much did that affect their existing numbers?
And they have mechanisms to require it for certain app downloads e.g. adult content.
So they won't need to rely on GPS or VPN data.
What's good enough for an advertiser trying to sell concert tickets is not necessarily good enough for enforcing legal prohibitions.
The location collection mechanisms built by Apple and Google that would be effective at a state or regional level within the US have been built for advertising, with secondary purposes of opt-in anti-theft. They weren't built for continuous, rigorous enforcement of legal prohibitions within a given sub-region of the USA.
I think you're asserting that e.g. 90% of TikTok users in Montana would be impacted by the ban, and 10% would find a way around. For advertisers, that's fine. For enforcement of a law? Bzzzzzz! That's gonna be arbitrary-and-capricious'ed right out of the courtroom doors.
I became disillusioned about hoping laws pass that protect user data after watching the TikTok hearing. The congressman questioning whether TikTok tracks eye dialation as a signal for "the algorithm", and the CEO having to explain that it's used for funny face filters, gave me second hand embarrasment. It reminds me of the Facebook hearing where a congressman ask whether it was possible to ban "finsta" and the Head of Global Safety at FB reponding that it's not a product. It's people having a secondary personal account limited to specific friends. An explanation the congressman was having a hard time understanding.
Regarding opinions about things like banning TikTok or protecting section 230, the divide is caused by bad technology literacy. I don't think it's fair to say it's been happening for a while, because the pace of tech development has been so much faster than legislature. The median age of the 118th congress is ~58 years old, broadband internet has only been around for the last ~20.
He asks "Can you say with 100% certainty that TikTok does not use the phone's camera to determine whether the content that elicits a pupil dilation should be amplified by the alogorithm?"
Chew: "The only face data that we collect is when you use the filters to have sunglasses on your face, we need to know where your eyes are."
Congressman: "Why do you need to know where the eyes are if you're not seeing if they're dilated??"
Apparently I can only find primary sources of this hearing on TikTok itself, so: https://www.tiktok.com/@jamiethisyoujeffries/video/721387823...
https://youtu.be/_E-4jtTFsO4?t=8090
You can click the three dot menu next to the share button to pull up the autogenerated transcript or offical CC on c-span, on youtube. I don't think you can search in the yt app like you can on desktop/mobile. The comments section there speaks volumes about the divide between those congressman and younger generations.
"The responses can have a variety of causes, from an involuntary reflex reaction to exposure or inexposure to light—in low light conditions a dilated pupil lets more light into the eye—or it may indicate interest in the subject of attention or arousal, sexual stimulation,[3] uncertainty,[4] decision conflict,[5] errors,[6] physical activity[7] or increasing cognitive load[8] or demand."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pupillary_response
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/...
I don't know if it is technically and legally feasible in Montana, but you "just" need to block the endpoints that the app uses to fetch the data. It is not foolproof, but given that ByteDance probably has interest in keeping doing business in the rest of the USA, at least for now, it would be fineable in case it was trying to avoid the block.
They just ask any ISPs and telcos operating in the state to ban the URL.
Then you still need to update almost daily to keep using it.
I find this statement odd. It's one thing to have the data and another thing to assert that it's either readily available or easy to insert into legacy systems. Do you know this to be true? Or is this just a guess on your end? Because it sounds like a guess. And with guessing becomes weakened trust in what people "report" or "analyze".
I wish there was a megacorp privacy story to run here, sadly, I'm not sure Congress will go for it.
There is only one solution and that is for TT to be 'forked' from ByteDance/Doyin. It would literally cost almost nothing, there are almost zero synergies between Doyin and TT at this point, they will do just fine separately, and it won't cost anything but a few bankers/accountants to do the split.
TT will have to be based in Singapore or US and be completely independent from BD/Doyin but that's fine.
Nothing will skip a beat, everyone can be happy, kids can have their app but CCP won't have any control visibility at all.
Funny enough, ByteDance could probably retain maybe even majority control, although that might not work in practices.
And then we can get on with trying to get Congress to protect consumers from Meta ...
I totally agree it doesn't do that and I want that, but at this point that is a major battle esp with how big tech have embedded themselves into govt.
This is a smaller battle won, and I hope it spreads. There's nothing bad about a multi-pronged approach.
What will happen is this.
Teens will download a shit ton of VPN applications, the vast majority of which are specifically produced and marketed by the enemy to circumvent said ban. Then all users' phone traffic gets routed via the enemy VPN instead of just the social app's requests.
Win-win for both sides:
- the government gets populistic approval from the eldery population; - the adversary gets way more US users' data than they ever dreamed of.
We would be better served by a total ban on user tracking technologies.
For one, the kids don’t really use TikTok that much and use a handful of apps. Different cliques used different apps more than others. They understood the geopolitical issues with TikTok and very few cared enough about TikTok in particular. They would all just use Reels or some other app more often.
The Prohibition did now work back then and only made the Mafia rich and made them push drugs when it was lifted.
The ban in china is a full Qing-dynasty-style suppression of free speech and the organizing of large-scale protest.
The ban here is due to concerns about data privacy because the users are not tech-savvy enough to consider that.
I don't think the later will force the users to resort to a progressive solution like vpn.
Between Utah and Montana the awareness and use of VPNs is rising among the non-security-conscious, and this is a good thing.
Well, then, two things happened back-to-back. The VPN provider Mullvad was unsuccessfully raided, and Utah passed hyper-totalitarian laws. On the recent PR news, I investigated Mullval, and... they're fantastic. You don't have to use their app; they support straight openvpn or wireguard and are Linux native. AND I can pay them in BTC, further obscuring myself.
Because of Utah's law, the vast majority of my traffic is now directed over a VPN. I don't even really go to porn sites all that often. It's more the principle of it.
The more the state pushes to limit and remove freedoms, the more I will do everything in my power to push the other way. It's the Hacker Mindset =D
Which is not really impressive since BTC can be tracked. What is impressive, however, is you can just mail them cash with a piece of paper with your account number on it and they will add that money as credit on your account.
You can either by BTC locally from an anonymous source, use a coin tumbler, or, in the BTC world you can do CoinJoins[1]
...but I still haven't bitten the bullet on a VPN yet.
See also: Monty Hall problem
I haven't actually seen anything about a Utah law yet, only the Montana ban of TikTok. What exactly does "hyper-totalitarian" mean compared to totalitarian, and what was the Utah law passed recently?
Guess I was expecting something a bit worse, I don't see how online age requirements will help but it doesn't land as "hyper-totalitarian" to me either. Feels like a less enforcement version of age limits on buying alcohol or cigarettes - a hit on personal freedoms but can't say I've ever heard those labeled as totalitarian.
The only reason to use a VPN is when you want to hide your IP address from the other end of your communication. You get effectively the same service from public WiFi at a cafe.
Most non-technical people I hear talking about VPNs get them completely confused with encryption. VPNs do not hide the content of your communication: that is already happening with SSL.
You would need to setup a new Apple ID/Google account with no credit card billing information.
And then deal with all of the inconvenience that entails i.e. no more paid apps, need to cancel subscriptions etc.
Sounds like a money-printing machine.
Want to fight TikTok addiction or privacy issues with CCP? Sure, do it. But find other ways: banning users from using it, whereas especially everybody else can access it, is a huge punch on the rights of your own people.
The anti china/russia/<insert anything that's over GMT+3> seems to really be a WASP centric pathological obsession.
Just my 2c
The only solution would be to inform users that their data is funnelled to CCP servers in very obscure ways, that’s the only right thing that you could do.
Enable people to make informed decisions. Want your data stolen? Then go ahead.
The say "TikTok collects a large amount of personal information, which has raised concerns about data mining and potential misuse of user data." - what information they collect and Facebook does not collect?
I find it a much more sensible position to criticize both together, along with the rest of proprietary digital socialization platforms.
Something worthwhile noting here is that the usual "politicians don't understand the technology" sentiment doesn't apply here because our governor at least knows how to code Perl, and ran a software company.
Interesting! The more Perl people we can get into government[0] the better, for sure
Furthermore, it's unclear if the web app of Tiktok will be affected, or if it's only a ban on the mobile app.
Source: Am Montanan
EDIT:
S1: An entity violates this prohibition when any of the following occurs within the territorial jurisdiction of Montana:
(a) the operation of tiktok by the company or users; or
(b) the option to download the tiktok mobile application by a mobile application store.
Someone needs to setup a nonprofit that will transport a user's phone to a free state and setup TikTok for a modest fee. The nonprofit could use the money to reimburse the women and transgender people who now need to travel to free states for some of their health care.
Information funnels don't work by such hyper rational actions such as 'going to a different state to do something'.
That won't happen.
TT use will fall dramatically, and given the nature of 'tipping points and critical masses' - it will change things.
The 'strategic' issue, is that this may be the US doing a bit of 'dipping toes in the water' in a small state, before taking broader action, which I think they will do.
Isn't it easier and cheaper to use a vpn?
I bet if you forced a 10 second boot time to the app you would reduce usage by 40%.
Seems facially unconstitutional. Will maybe force a proper court decision on whether the Bills of Attainder clause applies to corporations.
Why are legislators so focused on banning TikTok, rather than regulating whatever it is that TikTok does that they don't like?
Don't like data about your constituents being in the possession of a company with ownership ties to the Chinese government or communist party? Do the work to describe what kind of 'ties' are the ones that worry you, what kind of entities are the ones you don't like, what kind of data you don't like being in their hands, and write a law that codifies that.
Because a foreign company succeeded in the US. If Tiktok had simply done what the US wanted, and done a fire sale to a US company, Tiktok would be welcomed with open arms and there isn't a privacy violation the company could commit that would get it into real legal trouble. Tiktok would be deeply embedded in society and not having it would be like not having a telephone number.
The Tiktok situation is what US companies face around the world when they enter a foreign market and dominate (see: Facebook/Google and GDPR, or Apple being forced to allow other app stores on the iPhone by the EU). Those countries suddenly discover they have principles and vigorously enforce them. This is just the first time that the US has been walloped so badly in this game that it's been forced to discover principles, too.
Regulating what Tiktok does that they don't like is too hard, we might end up harming US companies that do the exact same things. So the lazy workaround is to make noise about the principles but then just target the company directly.
They're probably going to push the limit even farther the next time a big piece of legislation comes around.
This is the same logic that China uses to ban all western apps. Fortunately in the west, countries don't have rights, people do, and citizens generally have the right to run whatever software they want on the hardware devices they own. Governments that violate such rights get challenged in court.
(edit - oops, see correction below) There's nothing in this law that would unban TikTok if its ownership were transferred to a US corporation.
There are two issues with TikTok: privacy and national security. The latter is what this is about. (Related to e.g. our foreign media ownership rules.)
The federal legislation is trying to create an extensible system for forcing divestiture based on requirements you describe. This is more ham fisted.
Oh so now they've made an enemy of Google & Apples legal teams? Because those two aren't going to want to set a precedent for all sorts of bans across random jurisdictions.
I believe the second sentence answers the first, but not in the way the author intended. I'm not fundamentally insisting that we legally declare all data compromised until proven otherwise, but there is reasonable risk here that we cannot assuage.
As for whether SB 419 can be upheld: Eh. ~50 states, one of which is being used as a test here. Fine, that's one of the great benefits of the state+fed system. This is probing and forcing people to have the conversation, and that alone feels like this is worth it. Of course I 'sacrifice' Montana residents with this statement, which I arguably have no right to do.
Unless you're a legislator in Montana, you don't bear an iota of responsibility here.
The Wall Street Journal recently published this article that I think shines a light on some major areas of concern.
“TikTok Feeds Teens a Diet of Darkness: Self-harm, sad-posting and disordered-eating videos abound on the popular app” [0]
— [0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/tiktok-feeds-teens-a-diet-of-da...
(Manually removed in the meantime)
https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/17/23727750/montana-bans-tel...
What if Apple protests and just disables their store in MT? It would only impact at _most_ 500k people (population 1mm at 50% market share, not accounting for demographics)
A huge number of angry Montanians who might vote their representatives out, but a rounding error for Apple.
If Apple did do this to help a foreign company (or any company), it would probably fall afoul of the law: https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...
> A firm's refusal to deal with any other person or company is lawful so long as the refusal is not the product of an anticompetitive agreement with other firms or part of a predatory or exclusionary strategy to acquire or maintain a monopoly. (emphasis mine)
IANAL, so I'm sure there are other laws I am not aware of that would squelch such a move.
They will never shut down their store because of TikTok.
And some people might protest but everyone else will quietly switch to YouTube Shorts and Instagram Reels.
So, yeah. I guess it's time to shut 'em all down.
Now we just wait for the "I didn't mean American companies" retraction.
The 'current bill text' is this: https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billhtml/SB0419.htm
And what it covers is:
Tiktok may not operate within the territorial jurisdiction of Montana. An entity violates this prohibition when any of the following occurs within the territorial jurisdiction of Montana:
(a) the operation of tiktok by the company or users; or
(b) the option to download the tiktok mobile application by a mobile application store.
Data misuse is real concern. But TikTok is not the main problem, it's industry-wide. A good Data Protection legislation that applies to all, and is applied to TikTok if they warrant it (and also to FaceBook, etc) and the next social media that starts up next year, would be much better. EU GDPR style.
If none of these companies can live with that, then so be it, shut 'em all down.
Within the USA, there might _possibly_ be sufficient technical infrastructure available to block app downloads at a national level. Maybe. And leaving aside the myriad circumvention routes.
But at the state level? It's simply not there in the way that the legislators think. Application-level data? Turn off location services. GeoIP? Nice try- mobile carriers don't reliably egress in the state from which the customer traffic originates. E911? Protected by other laws. Cell tower location? What about folks near state borders, and there's no reliable vehicle to get that data to app store operators right now anyway.
What's good enough for an advertiser trying to sell concert tickets is not necessarily good enough for enforcing legal prohibitions.
Effectively, to enforce this would require cooperation between government agencies, mobile carriers, and app vendors on a scale that has not be done in this country before- and with two of the three parties not even remotely interested in such cooperation.
This thing is pure political theatre.
My guess is that it’ll be based on the billing address of the account tied to the device.
If the billing address resides in Montana, the app won’t be shown for download.
Aside from that, yes, I agree. Tough to do, and mostly theatre.
But I don’t like this
If that's your thing
What's needed is EDUCATION...Cases in point.
The only way to "ban" illicit drugs is through education. Essentially, “don’t do that shit and here is why”.
The only way to "ban" abortion is, similarly, through education. Don’t screw but if you do put a coat on that thing. Make that stuff free.
Social media is no different. Focus on teaching the importance of privacy and mental wellbeing.
This education can and should start in your own household and families. Teach your kids, this ban won't help them.
I may be just crazy but providing geolocation and biometrics of 100M+ US citizens to Chinese government just does not seem like a good idea. Also keep in mind that TikTok has the ability to curate content you see. Social media in general have been found guilty of influencing elections.
https://mullvad.net/en/blog/2022/8/1/expanding-diskless-infr...
0 - https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/23rs/sb20.html
1 - normally, state laws go into effect at the end of the year or end of legislative session (depending on the state constitution) unless there is an "emergency" in which case it goes into effect the day it becomes law.
So, the way that it is enforced, is if the major app stores, do not remove TikTok, then they get fined a bunch of money.
> It seems TikTok would have no reason to pay for any fines from the state.
Well, ignoring the fact that this applies to app stores, companies can't just ignore court orders.
If they do, then their bank accounts could be frozen. US banks aren't going to ignore US court orders. Bank of America, or whoever, is going to give that money to the government, when it is ordered to do so.
I guess if Apple, and Google, want to shut down their US operations, then that would allow them to avoid the fines.
But, I expect they won't do that, and will simply remove those apps from their app store, for Montana residents.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-15/subtitle-A/part-7/subp...
Will more countries ban Facebook/Twitter/Reddit etc?
I suspect most neutral observers would say it's unconstitutional. But what they think does not matter.
It's technically a secret that they're going to sue but everyone already knows at this point so it's fine.
Could be in the right position if US government bans TikTok.
Imagine selling a bespoke, turnkey solution to countries and companies around the world. Thinking about banning China from your Internet but your kids miss TikTok? We have something for you! On-prem, modular social media platform. Choose from ready made-modules:
- Interaction Styles - TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, and many others.
- Regulatory environment - there's one for every major bloc on the globe! You can have your TikTok, and China can have its TikTok too! Comes with automatic GDPR support, updated daily to give access to latest discovered loopholes.
- Ideological Environment - a package of moderation, generation and monitoring tools, tailored to specific needs of your prospective users; choose from a wide set of ready-made configs - one for each major religious or political ideological group in every country on the planet!
- Monetization strategies - advertising? More advertising? Subscription and advertising? Pick and choose!
Let's do this! This is the endgame for social media and the Internet, so why wait for the world to go to shit, when we could drag it down to the gutter and make some money in the process?
> will take effect in January 2024
Something better than a ban is to fine TikTok in the billions of dollars each time it repeats these privacy violations and pay all its users back the data it has collected, just like Facebook has done when the FTC fined them in the billions.
That seems to be fair for everyone instead of this wanton reactionary cope with little action other than screaming in the comments section.
Are you imagining that telegram is owned by putin
Associated Press: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35984728
New York Times: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35983933
Politico: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35984023
The Verge: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35982447
NBC News: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35982950
CNN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35982386
Wall Street Journal: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35981578
And now Reuters too. (-:
Consider the possibility that Greg Gianforte is angling for a cabinet job in a hoped-for future GOP administration, since his brash style is popular with many voters in that party, notwithstanding its sometimes criminal manifestation: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/12/532613316...
I guess that's one way to describe the tense rivalry without completely calling your most important trade partner an "adversary".
All it means is that "the people of Montana really don't like China", but more officially.
Random phone inspection?
And at the same time carry water for TickTock who is legally obligated to cooperate with China's intelligence service in any way they require. Knowing that the Chinese regime runs genocidal slave labour rape camps and will extract and sell your organs for free speech and religious practices.
I suspect that they don't realize that the CCP controlling the TickTock algorithms is more dangerous making the Q-anon shaman product manager for the algorithms at meta, Google, and Twitter.
That's not generally why.
But I do agree to this extent -- if we're to be banning Tiktok, we should be banning all social media companies, foreign and domestic, that do the same as Tiktok does.
Why do we allow China to run their social media apps in the West whilst they block all foreign apps within their own borders?
How is this remotely acceptable?
However it's good that we are finally responding to the unfair market conditions imposed by the Chinese government. Western app devs do not have the same access to the Chinese market as Chinese app devs have to the Western markets.
http://laws.leg.mt.gov/legprd/law0210W$BSIV.ActionQuery?P_BI...
so let me kick it off then. What exactly does this mean? To illustrate my point, let's change the scenario. There's a small town north of Chicago called Skokie. 100k people. Lets say they pass a "law" to ban some app from Google's play store.
People in Montana should perhaps take their phone, ask it what a computer is, listen to Siri's answer, then call 411 and ask them how to open a pdf. Then they should shovel some cow dung - as is daily life - and finally then they can pass some laws about cow dung.
And now this, from the Australia lawmakers. Australia, the Montana of the planet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VB3uQHa14g