TikTok Stunt Motivates Lawmakers to Take on the App
wsj.com
wsj.com
Was that really true, that they basically forced their users to call? I don't use TikTok.
> Committee member Rep. John Curtis (R., Utah) said he didn’t like that a Chinese-owned app tried to “manipulate a response” from its users. He said that feeling solidified unanimous support for the bill.
That seems kind of predictable. I don't doubt the possibility of Americans having dumb ideas like this, but this stunt does feel a bit like it came from the "home office," where they'd probably have a misinformed, oversimplified understanding of how American politics works.
No. It was a closable modal. Didn't even show up for me.
> Some users said on X that they were unable to use the app before placing the call. TikTok told The New York Times that users could swipe right to get rid of the message, which may have been confusing because users typically swipe up to see the next video on the app. The company also said that the “X” to close the page wasn’t visible for some users at first but that it later fixed that.
And from the image below, it does not seems to be possible to be closed (or close button is black on black background)
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4516261-tiktok-urges-u...
We already know that Facebook does the same, and we already know for a fact that they have wielded this power against the public interest. Focusing on the nationality is a red herring - a US-based company can be just as adversarial as a foreign one.
This is straight-up factually incorrect.
How is it wrong? Are you making a super-big deal that, say, TikTok has some US-registered LLC's or something?
What ultimately matters is who owns and controls it, and whose jurisdiction they're under.
Does it even matter that it's under US jurisdiction if it can be misused by foreign actors without any real consequences? Meta just uses its lobbying to keep itself without harm.
Come on, you can't be serious. Even considered at a pretty abstract and uninformed level, it's clear even the most "adversarial" domestic company would not go places an adversarial foreign company would.
Between TikTok and Facebook, one has already gone demonstrably further than the other, and it's not TikTok.
This is geopolitics, not criminal law. It's not about what was done, but about what could be done.
Whatever specific past actions of Facebook or TikTok that you're vaguely gesturing at don't matter.
China is a geopolitical foe who is quite serious about espionage. We don't have to make it easy for them.
You're trying to make perfect be the enemy of the good.
The US and Western countries, for the last several decades, have engaged in a foolish and deluded trade policy with China. It's going to be a long and difficult process to partially undo that mistake. Though is done, they'll never be able to take back the technology, trade secrets, and know-how they let go.
Dealing with the TikTok problem is low-hanging fruit, in comparison. You reach for the low-hanging fruit first.
In this case it appears we're reaching for the low-hanging fruit because it makes easy headlines, has low political risk, and won't change the status quo (Congress won't be successful in their stated goals). It's a distraction from real problems.
I don't think so. That honestly just sounds like a baseless appeal to cynicism.
And as for "low political risk," didn't they just get their phone lines jammed with complaints?
> and won't change the status quo (Congress won't be successful in their stated goals)
What goals are those? It seems like their big goal is to remove a popular social network from the control of an adversary nation, and this bill would do that.
IIRC, CIFUS successful forced the Chinese to divest Grindr. I don't see why this divestment would be out of reach.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/6/21168079/grindr-sold-chine...
Sure, and how many people are going to change their votes on the issue? Are they going to take it more seriously than immigration policy, abortion rights, support for Israel, the actual issue of our trade deficit with China, etc? I sincerely doubt it. It's pure distraction. They can point to it and claim they're taking the Chinese threat seriously.
> IIRC, CIFUS successful forced the Chinese to divest Grindr. I don't see why this divestment would be out of reach.
They invested about $250M, most of which was only a year before they sold it for $600M. They could have fought harder but I doubt they were too upset about that massive, quick profit. TikTok has a lot more at stake -- although who knows, maybe they'll find someone with extremely deep pockets.
No, that's wrong. It sounds like a regurgitated libertarian talking point/post-hoc justification, not actual history.
The reason the US trades so much with China is that, during its over-confident post Cold War high, it convinced itself that economic liberalization would inevitably bring political liberalization. That theory has been proven wrong, and China has shown you can have capitalism without democracy.
This has less to do with data, and more about xenophobia.
Create data privacy laws is the only way to protect the US
We're talking about a nation who at worst is our enemy and at best a geopolitical foe who is harvesting massive amounts of data to use for purposes which are much worse than targeted ads.
Your only threat is they are using US platforms to target ads??
make it make sense
Also "_purposes which are much worse than_ targeted ads".
If you have problems with TikTok's action, pass a general law that mandates privacy protections, rather than targeting a specific company based on the nationality of its incorporation.
Where does this meme come from? It's so prevalent despite being obviously and verifiably factually incorrect!
The larger question of TikTok is when will the US will join China in creating national boundaries for Internet traffic?
I don't like the thought of IP packets going through a customs and immigration layer as it passes a physical boundary. On the other hand, everything else does, why not a packet? Is the current openness an utopian artifact that will go the way of "no sales tax" for online stores? Is my dislike merely an aesthetic judgement formed from the history of negative stories about the "Great Firewall of China?"
As I understand proposed legislation, it would apply to many websites and not be directed at TikTok or China specifically. I wonder if there is a larger strategic interest for China if the US enacts this type of law? Maybe the blowback is entirely expected and is the actual desired response?
It shall be unlawful for an entity to distribute, . . . a foreign adversary controlled application by . . .: [app store] or [internet hosting]
[...]
FOREIGN ADVERSARY COUNTRY.—The term “foreign adversary country” means a country specified in section 4872(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code.
USC Title 10 section 4872(d)(2) defines the adversaries as N. Korea, China, Russia and Iran. [1]
0. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521...
Or was it a dark pattern?
The calling and hanging up aspect seems to indicate a lot of people didn't understand how to close it without calling.
I don't want the government telling me what software I can use.
Lawmakers like Richard Blumenthal have discovered that xenophobia is a powerful enough force that it will override people's other principles.
Look at the comment sections on HN every time this topic comes up, and you'll see the pattern on full display.
I'm sure most people on HN simply don't care about TikTok at all and don't comment, but among those who do care it's hardly surprising that it's harder to drum up support for TikTok than for the idea of encryption itself.
Epic is more palatable than a social media company but less obviously good than encryption.
This is absurd. you sound as ridiculous as the politicians. If they are concerned pass data protection laws for every company
My belief is that the government should not ban software, and that we should be free to install anything that we wish on our computers. That's all.
But you're ok with a foreign government controlling what your kids see on their app?
You can still use the software they wont force you to delete it, you just wont be able communicate with the TikTok entity with it. So this isn't a software ban, it is just a ban on Tiktok the entity.
Or can you show me where they say they will punish people for keeping the tiktok app installed?
I assume they'd gain root on those phones and then the only limit is your imagination.
https://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?d=2906336330954&w=XFzOd9q33S...
The fact that Chinese tiktok's algorithm encourages different types of videos versus the rest of the world shows this.
Do you have more information on this?
I vaguely recall reading that Douyin's algorithm in China pushes more "positive" content than TikTok's, though that may be been due to Chinese government directives being able to slap the stupid out of the market, like how they can effectively put limits on excessive video game use by minors.
- it's almost entirely fueled (in congress) by economic anxiety and xenophobia towards China
- it's good that this is happening, because it's good to legislate against brainmelting, algorithm-driven platforms
This same legislation being levied against the exact same feature on "american platforms" like YouTube and Instagram might never happen, but I hope it does in the future.
China is the explicitly and openly hostile to the US.