Hacker News Reader

Comment by dbl000 | Hacker News Reader

[dead]

Strategically, they start with cases the public is more likely to support, and then the precedent, law, norms, mechanisms, etc. are all there to take it further. Another common step is demonization, in this case of anything Chinese, TikTok, and, to a degree, of anything not 'American'.

Look at oppression of unpopular groups. They've started with groups, such as undocumented immigrants and trans people, already unpopular groups and easy targets. They demonize them extensively and make oppression acceptable to the public. Now there is precedent; by now, people don't even object to it on the grounds of human rights, justice, or humanitarianism; stereotype, prejudice, and hatred are no longer taboo. Soon there will be camps, a police force accustomed to and trained in mass arrest, and a public accustomed to it as a legitimate mechanism.

Why was a sale of TikTok allowed if the bill was anything to do with banning dissenting viewpoints?

I didn't see a sale of TikTok anywhere? The main point of issue I have with the bill is that the text of the bill [0] specifies that any company if it is owned by a "foreign adversary" (as defined by Congress) and the President deems it to be a threat will be forced to divest or stop participating in the American market.

Part of the core reason that TikTok didn't want to divest was that they had ownership of a damn good algorithm and didn't want to share it. It's not a big leap from this to banning other companies that might have competing algorithms that could eat into major US corporations. If Egypt designs a better X does Elon get to urge it's bad because it's a threat?

I also think it's a pretty badly written bill in general. The bill won't punish or ByteDance. It punishes the digital infrastructure companies like Apple, Google and Oracle who provide the ability to download the app or the database.

I'm not defending TikTok or claiming it's not an security threat. I just think that the bill is poorly written and doesn't deal with the actual root of the problem.

[0] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521...

Because if it's owned by a US company the US government will have more control over its content? Especially if it gets bought by one of the country's oligarchs? Honestly seems pretty obvious.

I like more details/discussion; but the take in this podcast feels incredibly naive and conspiratorial; going isnofaras to blame Israeli dark money for the 'ban' while ignoring the legally mandated CCP integration w/ large companies (while claiming "i have no way to know if there is integration" despite it being easily searchable).

That's a fair point. I personally disagreed with some of the points brought up in the podcast, and I completely see what you mean about the "conspiratorial" tone. What I still think is worth discussing (albeit a bit late now) is the scope and lack of checks on the powers granted.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com