Hacker News Reader

Comment by avn2109 | Hacker News Reader

One underappreciated aspect of this is ban is that anyone who wants Tiktok will just go download it in Wyoming or Idaho etc, as it seems to be merely a ban on downloading the app, and not a ban on Tiktok traffic itself. So the ban will have near zero actual impact in practice (even if it somehow makes it into effect).

Furthermore, it's unclear if the web app of Tiktok will be affected, or if it's only a ban on the mobile app.

Source: Am Montanan

View on HN

Disagree with zero impact, it is a question of accessibility. Downloading an app is easy, going to another state to download an app is significantly harder. You are right that this does not stop determined people from downloading TikTok, but it definitely will slow down user growth in Montana... and open the door to further regulation in the future.

I believe this doesn't prohibit users from setting their phone/App Store locations to another country and downloading it.

Also am Montanan and Wyoming or Idaho are far away for some of us. I don't know many people who would drive multiple hours to get an app. But sure, anyone who wants it badly enough will be able to get it. It doesnt seem like the point is a total all out ban though. It's a deterrent for the general public who will default to not downloading now rather than defaulting to downloading.

The point of censorship is not really to ban something outright. It's to show that a thing can be banned, that this thing is not safe from just doing whatever it wants. It is mostly to assert a dominance over a socio-cultural domain and to establish an identity by negation. The initiators of the ban probably do not believe the banning will work either. The main point of the ban is the enforcement of the ban, not the ban itself. It is also done out of fear, to undermine a disrupting element of the established order, which Tik Tok certainly is. I mean, it's pretty much brain poison lol

Last I heard, there was a "per use" fine for usage as well. Honestly, I haven't looked at this farce of a bill since it was first introduced.

EDIT:

S1: An entity violates this prohibition when any of the following occurs within the territorial jurisdiction of Montana:

(a) the operation of tiktok by the company or users; or

(b) the option to download the tiktok mobile application by a mobile application store.

The article claims "...will not impose any penalties on individuals using the app". A commenter elsewhere in this thread links to the law itself, which could presumably disambiguate, though I've not read it.

They plan to go after Apple and Google, fining them for use and downloads.

Does a state even have a right to do something like this?

Somehow, I feel like if California tried to ban Fox News - it would not fly.

This doesn't seem that different, though I personally find it amusing that it's coming from a conservative state.

I do agree TikTok is toxic trash - but I'd say the same about Fox News - and it just doesn't seem like something a state has the ability to ban.

As I understand it, no. Montana would have to be effectively regulating interstate trade since neither Apple nor Google have offices here. Plus, the whole "negotiate commerce and treaties with foreign entities" thing.

The Supreme Court just upheld California rules about the sale of pork. Looking at it strictly from the interstate commerce view, this doesn’t appear much different.

So can apple turn off all iphones in Montana in retaliation. Bet it would be easier/cheaper to cut off those customers than implement any changes. Android phone makes could follow suit

It'd be hard to identify a phone associated with a "Montana citizen". Not impossible, but I think that based on Apple and Google's comments on these laws that they haven't built the functionality in.

GeoIP doesn't work because carriers (especially in Montana) tend to assign IPs from surrounding states as much as they do local cities. When I'm on the cell network, I'm regularly identified as coming out of Denver. Phone number area codes are equally useless, since half the folks I know here in Montana have area codes from outside states. GPS would be the best bet, though I feel like even that would have some major caveats (the use would have to be decoupled from the location services controls/displays, something they don't do for even their own apps right now).

Also, people rely on cellphones for emergency services. A manufacturer shutting down phones would probably expose them to some serious liabilities.

> It'd be hard to identify a phone associated with a "Montana citizen"

Credit card billing address.

That is definitely another method, but there's no guarantee that Apple or Google has my credit card.

Most smartphones, including iPhones, have the ability to be locked but still allow calls to emergency contacts and services.

Maybe, maybe not. The courts will decide. To those saying it's obviously unconstitutional, remember that the constitution is whatever five people on the Supreme Court says it is.

It's predictable that it's coming from a conservative state. That they are broadly against using state power to ban things is part of their identity and marketing but not reality. Especially when it can be construed as a social-moral problem.

Yeah nothing like banning people from going to restaurants without a state issued vaccine pass (we didn’t forget)

I didn't claim no other groups use state power to ban things. I'm pointing out that the idea that conservatives are uniquely and generally opposed to it is fantasy.

On that we can wholeheartedly agree.

I got my vaccine certificate from CVS. the state had very little to do with it.

The State of California automatically issued digital vaccine certificates. Basically QR codes that could be read by a business with the appropriate hardware.

https://myvaccinerecord.cdph.ca.gov/

The state offered them, but they weren't the only way to get one. Any SMART compliant digital card (which most major healthcare providers and chain pharmacies provide) will pass verification anywhere a CA state one would.

Which part is not real? The vaccinations? Their effect on spread? Their effect on symptoms?

Or, in other words, all "conservatives" don't necessarily agree on or believe the same things, and this varies by person and by region.

Like any political group, there's a wide variety of ideas. Religious right folks get lumped together with constitutional libertarians, but have very, very different ideas on the proper limits of legislation and government power.

And yes, there are both idiots and brilliant thinkers in the Republican party (which !== 'conservative'). There are very good ideas, and abominably stupid ones.

Much like any group of humans.

I'm not speaking about the validity of their ideas or the cohesion of their group identity. Just pointing out that their reputation as being universally against top-down bans is not based on their actions when given the capacity to enact top-down bans.

I think there is still value in pointing out that the Republican party line of individual liberties and small government is nothing but marketing jingle. When it comes down to brass tacks they are as quick to use the government to crack down on an individuals choices as the other guys.

You mean a political party has talking points that they don't always live up to?

Next you'll tell me that there have been presidents that haven't lived up to their campaign promises...

They probably also see States Rights (the philosophy, not necessarily a legal interpretation) as opposite Federal power.

States rights isn't just for social-moral topics such as marijuana and immigration. We should have expected it to be used for other things as has historically been the case.

California et al just had a slight lead.

Unless they changed up the bill since I looked at it, you’ve got a bill of attainder with serious Constitutional issues, including First Amendment, due process, and dormant Commerce Clause problems. It’s very hard for me to see a federal court letting this stand, even at a time where every day brings another “federal court lets bad law stand” story.

"An entity" is defined as either TikTok, or an app store. Individuals can not violate this statute.

The entity is Apple/Google. But an end user using ticktok constitutes a violation for which Apple/Google is liable.

> (a) the operation of tiktok by the company or users; or

I don't see how owners of iOS or Android phones can be in any way said to be users of Apple or Google. At best this would apply to TikTok itself, or to companies which supply phones to employees.

If ‘the company’ (unclear who that refers to. Bad statute-writing. Assume it means the same thing as entity but a court could interpret it however it chooses) or a ‘user’ (whoever that is) ‘operates’ the TikTok app in the territorial jurisdiction of Montana (insert your own interpretation of ‘operate’ and ‘in’) then a violation occurs for which ‘an entity’ is liable.

So if someone inside Montana launches the TikTok app on an iPhone either an App Store (presumably Apple’s) or TikTok itself is liable for that violation.

> anyone who wants Tiktok will just go download it in Wyoming or Idaho etc

Someone needs to setup a nonprofit that will transport a user's phone to a free state and setup TikTok for a modest fee. The nonprofit could use the money to reimburse the women and transgender people who now need to travel to free states for some of their health care.

Or you could just not even need to go to another state. People will learn to use a VPN.

The ban itself seems more geared at restricting Bytedance’s ability to operate (and fine them) and less about preventing the people of Montana from using it, especially since there’s no ISP or traffic restriction on it.

It will have a big effect.

Information funnels don't work by such hyper rational actions such as 'going to a different state to do something'.

That won't happen.

TT use will fall dramatically, and given the nature of 'tipping points and critical masses' - it will change things.

The 'strategic' issue, is that this may be the US doing a bit of 'dipping toes in the water' in a small state, before taking broader action, which I think they will do.

> anyone who wants Tiktok will just go download it in Wyoming or Idaho

Isn't it easier and cheaper to use a vpn?

These addiction apps rely on the activation energy to keep slurping on the dopamine straw be ~0.

I bet if you forced a 10 second boot time to the app you would reduce usage by 40%.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com